Did Adam and Eve know what death was when God commanded them not to eat from the tree of knowledge?

Hence the tree of which he partook in disobedience was called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." In one sense it would not be correct to say that he was unconscious of good, but he was totally unconscious of evil. I do not forget that there was the condition of death attached to God's requirement, but even this necessitated no knowledge of evil. There being no moral wrong in the act of eating the fruit apart from God's command, man was simply required to obey, not to know as right and wrong in itself. This we need to keep in view as to the act; and as to the condition we must not forget that we look back at it from the apprehension of death which guilt has brought in, and that therefore to us it has a moral character as a penal condition, which it need not have had to him — in fact, we may say it could not have had.

For "the sting of death is sin;" and until therefore he knew sin, he could not know death in its penal character. It is obvious that the knowledge of death as punishment for wrong must necessarily follow the knowledge of wrong, and therefore Adam could not have known death in this way. How much about the fact of death he knew we are not told — he could hardly have seen any instances of it at the time when the command was given to him; but to a being to whom the idea of a cause is an inherent necessity, his own end, to speak popularly, that is, the end of his life on earth, must have been an intelligible idea; and there is abundant evidence that physical death was made the prominent thought to him, and to man thereafter, for a long time.

In the garden man was innocent; he was made in the image of God, after His own likeness; surrounded with every favour and "blessing, and enjoying the kindness of God, without knowing good or evil, righteousness or holiness. He had no conscience till after he sinned; before that he could not have understood what good and evil meant. Righteousness discriminates between right and wrong; holiness loves purity, and abhors evil; but Adam knew nothing of such distinctions, he was formed to understand and obey God. "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." This was the command of God, and a test for Adam. He gave him but one command, and one of easy observance, and both Adam and Eve knew that the Lord who so loved them had a right to their obedience. Had he been told that it would be a moral evil to eat of the fruit of that tree, he might have said, "What does that mean?" But he knew that God had forbidden it, and that all depended on that command. We know what happened. Man listened to the tempter, believed his lie, forfeited the favour of God in eating the forbidden fruit, and in the presumptuous hope of being as gods, knowing good and evil. Thus man disobeyed, sinned, fell, and was driven from the garden of Eden, and the fair creation was laid under the withering curse of sin.

We do not know in what words the command was given; it is merely told us generally. It was pressed upon Eve's mind that she was to have nothing to say to it; she does not give exactly the words of God, "in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." It was probably her own impression, not the exact words of God - just the main effect produced on her mind.

"Death," he remarks, "was the penalty which God originally pronounced against human sin. All that God purposed to inflict upon Adam and his posterity in case of transgression is included in that word 'death.' 'In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt die.' It is of the utmost consequence then that we should understand what God meant by death; nor is there the smallest difficulty in doing so if we will only attend to what reason and justice require, and what Scripture expressly declares. Its meaning then we contend to be, when it is thus attached to sin as its penalty, the loss of life or existence. One of the first principles of justice requires that parties threatened with a penalty for transgression should have the fullest opportunity of understanding what the penalty is. God accordingly speaks to Adam of death as a thing whose nature Adam knew. Now Adam knew very well what death was in one sense, and in one sense only. He knew it to be the law of the lower creatures, and to consist in the loss of their being and existence. He knew nothing of any other senses of death, such as 'death in sin' or 'death to sin,' for in his innocence he did not know what sin was at all. Still less did he understand by death an eternal existence in agony. He had one clear, well understood sense for death, the loss of life and being."

As to Mr. Constable's main point, it is not hard to see that he makes immense assumptions, and that upon these his argument in its entirety rests. Let us grant for the meanwhile, at any rate, that it is of ordinary death the prohibition speaks. How can he prove what Adam knew about it? Suppose it true he must have known what the penalty was, how can he show that Adam learned it from seeing death around? how can he show that there had been any death to see in Eden? If death had been there, how can he harmonize this with the "creature being made subject to vanity," as Rom. 8:19-23 shows, through man's sin, and waiting man's deliverance as its own?

Supposing it true that Eden before the fall had been profaned by death and corruption, how does he know that Adam would have argued that death would be to him as absolute nonentity? Everywhere through the world we find that man has nursed an instinct of a contrary sort in the face of such death ever before his eyes. Why should he think that he who had had wisdom given him to name all the beasts and distinguish them from himself should have been less wise? Or haply does he think this a mark of degradation? or what else?

"As soon as Adam transgressed God came to him, and repeated to him in other words the penalty he had just incurred. It was ‘dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' God's definition of the death inflicted for the first transgression is frequently repeated in the later Scriptures. Paul tells us that it is the death which all men actually undergo, whether they are among the saved or the lost; and therefore an eternal existence in pain can be no part of its meaning ( Rom. v. 12, 14, 17; 1 Cor. xv. 22). Such too was the death which Christ endured - the very same penalty to its full extent to which man was exposed ; and therefore spiritual death or an eternal life in misery, can form no part whatsoever of its meaning... God said nothing in the first instance of transgression as to whether this death would be temporal or eternal, but what the death was He fully explained both by word and by example. He gave life to the race of man, and He would withdraw that life if man sinned."

I have thus quoted Mr. Constable in full in order to bring the subject properly before us. If it had only been for the sake of answering him much less would have sufficed. But we are seeking to bring out the Scripture doctrine and not merely to refute certain errors; and this is an important point to be clear upon in order to a full and satisfactory view of the great subject before us. Yet in aiming to be thus clear we must enter into a field of many controversies, not yet by any means extinct, and are almost sure to awaken feelings, which may prejudice the point of main concern, for many minds. Still we must not shrink from what seems needful, and Scripture is no more uncertain here than elsewhere. As to Mr. Constable's main point, it is not hard to see that he makes immense assumptions, and that upon these his argument in its entirety rests. Let us grant for the meanwhile, at any rate, that it is of ordinary death the prohibition speaks. How can he prove what Adam knew about it? Suppose it true he must have known what the penalty was, how can he show that Adam learned it from seeing death around; how can he show that there had been any death to see in Eden? If death had been there, how can he harmonize this with the "creature being made subject to vanity," as Rom. viii. 19-28 shows, through man's sin, and waiting man's deliverance as its own? Supposing it true that Eden before the fall had been profaned by death and corruption, how does he know that Adam would have argued that death would be to him as absolute nonentity? Everywhere through the world we find that man has nursed an instinct of a contrary sort in the face of such death ever before his eyes. Why should he think that he who had had wisdom given him to name all the beasts and distinguish them from himself should have been less wise? Or haply does he think this a mark of degradation; or what else? Again, if man were to have instruction about death, why should not God instruct him? If we must needs assume, what other assumption has more probability? In the face of all this, Mr. Constable's argument. for extinction loses all probability. When contrasted with the reality of what death is, according to the Scriptures we have examined, it is manifestly entirely inadmissible. But it will be profitable to inquire more fully just what was the punishment of death denounced on Adam, and how far it has affected his posterity. And the simplest method we can take in doing so seems to be, without any doubtful argument as to the words of the prohibition, to ask ourselves, what Scripture elsewhere states as to the consequences of the first sin. Now evidently the fullest statement we have as to its effect on Adam's posterity is that which is given us by the apostle Paul in the fifth chapter of his epistle to the saints at Rome (vers. 12-21). And here there are three things of which he speaks:- First, "sin entered into the world," and "many became sinners": this is the depravation of nature, which is the sad heirloom of succeeding generations. Secondly, "death by sin, and so death passed upon all": this is corporeal death, the death he could point to as undeniably "reigning from Adam to Moses" even, the time before the law. Thirdly, "judgment was by one to condemnation," - "upon all men to condemnation." This is what death, following upon sin, proclaimed. It was the sign that nature was tainted in her whole course, that the God who had made man, and could not otherwise repent, now "turned him to destruction." Of these three things the first clearly is the cause of the judgment pronounced, and not the judgment itself. Of the two latter, the first is the infliction, and the second is involved in it, and shows its character. Death is the infliction, but not as an arbitrary thing proceeding from the mere will of the Creator, but the mark of changed relationship to Him which the fall had produced. Death then (what we ordinarily call that) was the sentence, and that alone; but it involved necessarily a change in moral relationship between the Creator and the creature, distance between man and God, which His love and pity might yet find means of bridging over, - which was not yet final therefore, but which was there. Now, I apprehend, the difficulty found in reading aright the sentence, "Thou shalt surely die," proceeds from the seeking a final sentence in what was not intended, yet as final. God had of course His plan of mercy already in His mind, and was not yet giving an eternal sentence. Had He left man to himself indeed, no self-recovery on man's part being possible, it would have been, no doubt, practically eternal. But He had no design of leaving him to himself.

But there was no setting forth at all at that time of heaven or hell. God at first never said anything about either. He warned of death, but not a word more. There was no revelation about another world for man. Consequently their way of looking at God and "the things of God was wholly different from ours in every respect. The only point of contact between Adam in that state and a Christian now is this: God to be acknowledged with thanksgiving, God to be obeyed absolutely. In itself the test might be a very small point, and so it was. It was not all the giving oneself up to God in the way we are now called on to do, as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. Obedience is now of a far more absolute nature than it could be then because it is tested at every point, instead of being only tested at one, There is not a single thing that we are called upon to do in the course of the day, but what is intended of God to exercise our hearts, not merely that the end should be to Him, but that the way of it should be always according to God too. And Christ is both the only means of knowing the end and the only one by whom we can see the way. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Now Christ was not unveiled to Adam at all; he, unfallen, had no knowledge of Christ whatsoever. He knew God above him, enjoyed the fruits of God's mighty hand, and his heart was to return in thankfulness to God for the enjoyment of all that was his, abstaining from that one tree in the middle of the garden which God had prohibited from his use.

As the acorn contains in itself the germ of what will in due time develop into the oak tree, so the few but pregnant words of Genesis 3:15 contain the announcement of God's future purposes of grace overcoming the power of evil. God had said unto Adam, "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." No doubt the instant Adam disobeyed he became mortal, i.e. liable to death, through physical necessity, and at the same moment he fell into a state of spiritual death, i.e. the severance of the soul from God, alienation from Him, and enmity to Him in consequence of a nature now insubject to Him. In no sense does death to a human being mean annihilation; — even though the body returns to the dust, out of which Adam was originally and immediately created, it will be raised again. The breath which God breathed into Adam's nostrils endowed him with a rational and imperishable soul. Nevertheless life and incorruption, as well as the second death and eternal judgment, were brought to light by the gospel, and the expressions in the Old Testament, "Thou shalt surely die," and "the soul that sinneth it shall die," seem to speak solely of the death of the body, and with reference to God's government in this world.

As to the temptation, Adam was not deceived, but choosing to follow Eve, gave up God. Nor, as we see from Eve's reply to the serpent, was she deceived as regards ignorance of the divine prohibition, but as to the true character of the tempter, and by the falsity of the serpent's words. The lie by which he deceived Eve was a lie of the worst sort, — that kind of lie which has enough of truth in it, the more effectually to deceive. They did not die physically, on the literal day of twenty-four hours, in which they disobeyed; yet in every other sense they did die, even though they became "as gods, knowing good and evil," where before they had been simply innocent. This function of conscience they acquired in and by the fall. But what a fearful thing it is to know good and evil as a fallen being! In this respect then Adam and Eve became "as gods, knowing good and evil." It is no question now of our being restored to what Adam was as innocent, it is now a question of being "renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him," i.e. that created the old man, the first Adam. We are therefore called to holiness, not to innocence.

Moreover, he was warned as to the consequence of disobedience. If he acquired the knowledge of good and evil by disobedience, he would be unable to perform the good because enslaved by the evil. This would bring him under the power of death immediately. As we discover in the next chapter, he would not at once suffer the death of the body, which involves the dissolution of existing personality by separating the spiritual part from the material part of man. But he would at once suffer complete severance spiritually and morally from God, his Creator, which is death in its more intense form. In that sense he would die the very day in which he ate of the forbidden tree. To obey the one prohibition was his responsibility.

The penalty of eating of the tree of knowledge was, for Adam, death — physical death; but this necessarily the sign of the judgment of God, of separation between himself and God, of which the other is the image. For if death is the separation between soul and body, the separation of God from the soul is death also.