Is “Evil” in the world the price we pay for Love?

A couple adjustments. Evil isn’t simply the “absence of good”, but rather, evil is the privation of good. A “privation” in this case would be a disbelief, or a degradation, a disobedience or a diminishment of good. So it’s a result of an active choice. Darkness caused by intentional shading, you might say.

Then, GPoE (not POE, which is different), doesn’t say that “free will” causes “evil” to be “unavoidable”. It is a recognition that the possibility of evil is logically entailed by free moral choices of rational created beings. For example, God could have created the legendary bubble people, instead of human beings.

Your brother

Excellent. Thanx for the response. I’m thinking about your words, like bread baking in the oven. It takes a while. I’ll repond when my thoughts, having risen above thing rim of the loaf pan, are tanned and crusty and smell like grandma’s house. Thanx again.
KP. .

1 Like

My understanding and belief is that the “knowledge of good and evil” is necessary in many respects, not the least of which being our eternal sinless freedom. And our eternal vocation. Didn’t you know that we will judge angels? Takes a wise person to hold that office.

Two other keys - 1. We will have no mortal flesh that wars with the spirit, and 2. We will have complete knowledge of God, which would be impossible in the absence of all evil. We will know God, fellowship with him, talk to Him face to face, and believe every part of His will. Not the slightest doubt. Not the slightest temptation to disagree.

Such is the extent of my feeble understanding. I’m filled with the fond expectation of truly meaningful occupation in the fresh new kingdom of God. He prepares us for something magnificent, and joyful - to rule and reign with Christ.

We don’t know what all that means. Paul saw a lot more than we see, and couldn’t even describe it.

One thing we know - God is good, and faithful, and true in every way. Since evil exists, we know that there is a good and necessary reason for that. Perhaps it also has something to do with the good that overcomes evil being a higher good as well, in addition to all the other reasons. Christ defeated evil forever on the cross of Calvary. Nothing greater than that.

He is the Maximally Great Being. So we can expect maximal greatness from our God!

Your brother

@Pater15
The bread is ready….

I’m not sure I can say Eve “fell” when she took the first bite of forbidden fruit. I can definitely conclude that evil was already present and active before the first human sin. It seems an evil serpentine lie, externally delivered, produced an unlawful desire in Eve’s own mind, and that desire took hold of her, seized her, gave her the impression that she had an opportunity to exercise this “free will”; a latent capacity yet to be explored. She did not abort this desire; she entertained it, she failed to nip it in the bud. Adam did no better.

James says:

… each one is tempted (tested, proof demonstrated) when he is drawn away by his own “desires” (Gk:epithumía, “in his own mind”) and “enticed” (entrapped). Then, when desire has conceived (Gk:sullambánō, seized upon, taken hold of), it gives birth to (KJV:brings forth, causes) sin (Gk:apokuéō, a begetting, a pregnancy, swelling in the belly); and sin (Gk: hamartia, departure, or aberration from the truth, missing the mark*)*, when it is full-grown (completes its purpose), brings forth (Gk:apokuéō ) death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. James 1:14-16 (NKJV)

The original enticing lie was:

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing (being able to experience) good and evil.” Genesis 3:4-5 (NKJV)

So, we clearly see that both the ability to lie, and the knowledge of evil existed before the first sin. Lying is evil, and the serpent was able to lie before the first human sin had occurred. Also, Eve must have understood the concept of evil before experiencing it, because she understood the serpent’s claim that she would know good and evil. The word “evil” must have had some meaning to her when the serpent spoke it, even if she didn’t “know” evil experientially. Evil had already been expressed in the created realm, because the physical serpent, obviously inhabited by a metaphysical evil person, had already been entrapped by evil, was already practicing evil (lying), and intentionally contagiously spreading it in physical arena of creation.

So, what you are proposing makes sense, in that we find “evil” active in the created realm before the fall of mankind. God “knew” it (according to the serpent), some creatures in the metaphysical creation were practicing it (a third of the angels it seems), it inhabited a physical serpent, and it was employed to deceive others in the realm of physical creation. It seems from the testimony of Moses (Genesis 3), and of James (James 1) that evil is pervasive in the created realm, and that evil is experienced when truth is questioned. The aim (trajectory) of evil is death and it employs untruth to further its agenda. The aim of goodness is life and it relies on truth to accomplish its goal. Goodness, life, and truth are understood and experienced (known) against the contrasting possibility of their privation. I see what you are suggesting.

Evil will continue to exist once the new heaven and earth are put into place, because the realm of the dead will continue to exist. Somehow, and I doubt my little mind can comprehend it, the wall of separation between good, truth, and life on one side and evil, untruth, and death on the other side will become permeant and impermeable.

This has been an edifying “think”. Thanx for the promt.

KP

1 Like

Brother, I understand the trajectory of what you are arguing, and you are right to distinguish between moral categories existing and human sin entering history, yet the point where ence driveyour reasoning overreaches Scripture is when you speak as though sin itself was already active within creation in the same covenantal sense prior to Adam, because Moses and Paul draw a firm line that must not be blurred if we are to remain text governed rather than inference driven. Right?

In ~Genesis 1 31 Berean Literal Bible, “And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good,” the Hebrew verb ra’ah (He saw, qal perfect) followed by the evaluative tob me’od (very good) is not poetic sentiment but a divine verdict on the ordered state of creation, meaning nothing within the physical created order was morally corrupted at that point, even though a rebel already existed outside man’s covenantal role.

Yes, the serpent lies, and yes, lying is evil, but Scripture never says evil entered the human world through the serpent as a metaphysical contaminant, rather it says sin entered through Adam’s act, as stated with surgical clarity in ~Romans 5 12 Berean Literal Bible, “Therefore just as sin entered into the world through one man,” where the aorist verb eiselthen (entered) marks a historical intrusion, not a pre existing diffusion, and Paul places that entry squarely at Adam’s disobedience, not at an earlier angelic rebellion.

You are also right that Eve understood the language of good and evil before she ate, but the Hebrew verb yada (to know) in ~Genesis 3 5 and ~Genesis 3 22 consistently denotes experiential, participatory knowing rather than abstract awareness, the same verb used for covenant intimacy elsewhere in the Torah, meaning Eve understood the command conceptually but had not yet entered the lived reality of moral autonomy against God, which only occurs after the transgression.

When you say evil was already pervasive in the created realm, that is where Scripture pulls you back, because Paul explicitly teaches that creation itself was subjected to futility after Adam’s sin, not before, as written in ~Romans 8 20 Berean Literal Bible, “For the creation was subjected to futility,” where the aorist hupetagē (was subjected) signals a decisive divine act in response to human rebellion, not an original condition of the cosmos.

James 1 does not support the idea of evil as an ever present force embedded in creation, but rather describes the internal process by which temptation becomes sin once desire is untethered from God’s word, as seen in ~James 1 14 to 15 Berean Literal Bible, “Each one is tempted by being drawn away and enticed by his own desire,” with the present participles exelkomenos and deleazomenos showing a moral sequence that begins when trust in God is questioned, exactly what happens in Genesis 3, without requiring evil to be ontologically woven into creation itself.

Where I must press you is your final claim about evil continuing in the new heavens and new earth, because Scripture nowhere allows that conclusion, not one text teaches an eternal coexistence of good and evil, but instead promises total exclusion, as stated plainly in ~Revelation 21 4 Berean Literal Bible, “Death shall be no more,” and again in ~Revelation 21 27, “And nothing unclean shall ever enter into it,” which leaves no room for evil operating alongside renewed creation, even at a distance.

And I don’t agree with John Calvin on this.

Do read Owen. And the ECF’ pre-Augustine.

J.

1 Like

Question is, in WHAT sense is the person tempted?

Jas 1:13 {Let} no one Μηδεὶς being tempted πειραζόμενος say, λεγέτω “- ὅτι I am being tempted πειράζομαι· by “Ἀπὸ God.” Θεοῦ For γὰρ - ὁ God Θεὸς is ἐστιν unable to be tempted ἀπείραστός by evils, κακῶν, and δὲ He Himself αὐτὸς tempts πειράζει no one. οὐδένα.
Jas 1:14 But δὲ a man ἕκαστος is tempted, πειράζεται being drawn away ἐξελκόμενος and καὶ being enticed δελεαζόμενος· by ὑπὸ the τῆς own ἰδίας desire. ἐπιθυμίας [His own]
Jas 1:15 Then εἶτα - ἡ desire ἐπιθυμία having conceived, συλλαβοῦσα gives birth to τίκτει sin; ἁμαρτίαν, and δὲ - ἡ sin ἁμαρτία having become fully grown, ἀποτελεσθεῖσα brings forth ἀποκύει death. θάνατον.

as_1:13 “Let no one say” This is a present active imperative with the negative particle which means “stop saying.” The implication is that some believers were saying this or, more probably, that this reflects the literary technique called diatribe used often by James.
“when he is tempted” The context implies that one saying that he is tempted by God is attempting to make his sin God’s fault. The word tempted (peirasmois) is used in Jas_1:2 in the sense of outward trials, but here the verbal form is used of temptation. God provides, or allows, testing (cf. Mat_4:1), but Satan does it (i.e., Job 1-2). “Tempted” (peirazô) is a present passive participle (i.e., “he is being tempted”), which often has the connotation of “testing with a view toward destruction.” It is the opposite connotation of the word “test” (dokimazô) used in Jas_1:3; Jas_1:12. See Special Topic: Greek Terms for Testing at Jas_1:3.

“I am being tempted by God” God is not the source of evil (cf. Sir_15:11; Sir_15:15; Sir_15:20).

“for God cannot be tempted by evil” This means either (1) not temptable or (2) “untrained in evil” which means that God has no connection or experience with evil.

“He Himself does not tempt anyone” However, the Bible records several of God’s tests: Abraham, Gen_22:1; Israel, Deu_8:2; Jesus, Mat_4:1; and believers, Mat_6:13. This statement seems to be caught up in the differing connotations between the terms “tempt” (peirazô, cf. Jas_1:13), and “test” (dokimazô, cf. Jas_1:3; Jas_1:12). God does not tempt so as to destroy, but He does test so as to strengthen.
Jas_1:14 “when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust” These two verbs were used of trapping and luring animals into captivity. We tend to blame others for our sin. We may blame God, the devil, parents, society, education, etc. We are own worst enemy (cf. 1Pe_1:14; 2Pe_2:18). The Bible speaks of three enemies of humanity: the world, the flesh, and the devil (cf. Jas_4:1-7; Eph_2:1-3). In this context, “the flesh,” or our Adamic nature, is the culprit (cf. Sir_15:14-15). Notice that Satan is not even mentioned in this section on human sinfulness. Neither is he mentioned in Paul’s section in Romans on human sin (cf. chapters 1-3). Satan is a real tempter, but he cannot force humans to sin and is, therefore, no excuse for their moral failures.
Jas_1:15 “when lust has conceived it gives birth to sin” Sin is personified and is viewed as beginning in the mind. The rabbis described temptations and sin in agricultural metaphors. The mind was like a plowed garden ready for seed. A person’s eyes and ears were the windows of the mind. What we think about and dwell on develops into what we do! Guard your mind! Here the metaphor changes from capturing animals to “birth” used in a negative sense, while in Jas_1:18 it was used in a positive sense.
Utley.

J.

1 Like

Eve’s fall should be characterized as a failure to believe God. He told her what would happen. She chose to not believe Him, but to follow another path.

So what was the path she followed? Because if the path she followed includes anything that God created in her, then we would have to say that she did what she did because of the way that God made her.

Humans don’t have an “always believe God” gene. If they did, then we wouldn’t have any choices and genuine love wouldn’t be possible.

Humans DO have an have an “always do what you believe is best for yourself” gene, which works wonderfully well in our favor WHEN we believe every word of God. There is never a case where things can possibly turn out worse for us when we choose to believe God. Choosing to believe every word of God is ALWAYS the best choice we can make for ourselves.

**6 **Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? **7 **If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

God brought into existence the opportunity (for each of us) to overcome evil with good. This is participation in the highest goods. Daily.

Sin happens when we decide that we can be “like God”, knowing good and evil (for ourselves). Satan knows from experience that God doesn’t find that acceptable.

So, something good that God created in us for our good, works against us when we fail to believe Him, as it did in the case of Eve, Adam, and Cain, and everyone else since. As I said earlier, I’m not a big believer in this sort of mysterious “sin nature” doctrine. We have flesh (our bodies) that produces pleasant or pleasurable feedback for us when we feed it. We also have a strong impulse to achieve greatness, also built into us by God. This impulse similarly works well in our favor when we believe every word of God. As Cain found out with his offering, not so much when we choose to exercise it apart from God.

Rich conversation - thanks @kpuff and @Johann !

1 Like

Thanx for the critique, @Johann I appreciate the carful “eye” you bring to any discussion.

Thanks for the precision you bring to this “think” of ours. However, I did not say, imply, or even “speak as though sin itself was already active within creation in the same covenantal sense prior to Adam”. Pater15 and I were discussing the presence of evil, not sin; we were contemplating the idea which explains the privation of goodness, not necessarily evils manifestation as sin, nor of sin’s effect on creation, nor of its impact on humans per’se.

I appreciate that you pointed out:

The idea that sin propagated “as a metaphysical contaminant” was not intended by anything I said. That was your “add”. The Romans 5 passage is clear, as you say, that sin entered into the “cosmos” through one man, but we were discussing the prior existence of evil in the ktísis as a contextual contrast to goodness. I see a distinction, where I hadn’t seen one before.

You said:

I agree, I see that too. It is almost precisely what I said:

You said:

The KJV renders that passage thus:

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Romans 8:19-21 (KJV)

I agree that creation was subjected to vanity (Gk:mataiótēs; futility, worthlessness, emptiness) as a response to human rebellion. I don’t see where :the aorist hupetagē (was subjected) necessarily signals a decisive divine act in response to human rebellion”. I agree that is how it happened, I don’t see that the “response part properly exegeted from this word with its tenses. What you are explaining is the truth, it seems like you may be reaching a bit to get there. The fact that evil was present in at least one being, in the created world, in the sepent, demonstrates, not that evil was pervasive, but that it was at least in existence.

Finally:

And nowhere did I say that, nowhere did I suggest any kind of “coexistence in the New Heaven and New earth”. Quite the contrary. I think you know me better than that. I spoke of an impermeable and eternal wall of separation, of some sort. That some inpenetrable seperation is set in place is indisputable. You are right in what you said, and maybe you even state it more clearly than I did, but please reread what I wrote:

The dead of creation, and the evil that is within them, will not be annihilated, and will not cease to exist. This truth is revealed to us by many, many biblical testimonies:

“And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:11)

That evil persists “forever and ever” is indisputable. You are correct that it is far-removed from the place of the living, from the new heaven and a new earth…

… " And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." (read Revelation 21:1-7)

Thanks for your input @Johann. I always appreciate reading your perspective.

“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.”

KP

1 Like

@KPuff

… looking back at what I wrote, the tension comes from wording: my phrase about “speaking as though sin itself was already active within creation in the same covenantal sense prior to Adam” was meant to safeguard the biblical distinction between pre Adamic moral evil and human sin, but it may have sounded like I was attributing a position to you that you did not hold. Yes?
Thus you were careful to distinguish moral evil from covenantal sin, and Scripture fully supports that distinction.

So to clarify in line with your thinking: evil, understood as moral opposition, deception, and privation of goodness, did exist prior to Adam, as seen in the serpent (~Genesis 3:1, lying) and Satan (~John 8:44, ēn, imperfect), and Eve could conceptually understand good and evil (yada, ~Genesis 3:5) before she experienced it. What Scripture forbids is conflating this pre Adamic moral evil with the covenantal entry of sin, death, and futility into creation, which enters decisively through Adam (eiselthen, aorist, ~Romans 5:12), and creation’s subjection to futility (hupetagē, aorist, ~Romans 8:20) follows, not precedes, that human transgression.

James 1 shows how desire in the human heart generates sin (sullambanō, apokueō, tiktei), illustrating the moral process within the human arena, not the preexistence of sin in creation. Finally, Scripture ensures that in the new heavens and new earth, evil and death are fully removed (~Revelation 21:4, 27), so the ultimate contrast between good and evil is resolved in Christ, not perpetually maintained. Where we probably don’t agree.

So, in short, your point about pre Adamic moral evil is biblically sound, as long as it is kept distinct from covenantal sin and its consequences, which Scripture decisively locates after Adam’s transgression.

So your “critique” stands.

[Out of characters…] @Pater15 you want to add to this discussion brother? Appreciate you.

J.

Beautiful. I much appreciate the clarification,and especially how you test all things against revelation.

Thanx
KP

Hmmm…

Always grateful for that sharpening, brother, because iron truly sharpens iron, and the text deserves to be handled with fear and joy together. These exchanges keep us tethered to Scripture rather than to instinct, tradition, or clever inference, and they force us back to verbs, context, and authorial intent where truth is tested and refined. Stay pressing the text, stay anchored in Christ crucified and risen, and keep asking the hard questions that drive us not to pride, but to deeper submission to the Word.

J.

The most obvious problem when it comes to Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden tree is that it was an act of disobedience.

But this tree “of the knowledge of good and evil” is, I think, a difficult concept. The language used surrounding it is especially interesting. The serpent spins a deception, implants a seed of doubt into Eve’s mind, "Are you sure?” and then says “You will be as God”. The serpent is obviously lying, the text tells us the serpent was more crafty than any other creature in the garden. When we understand that the serpent is the devil, the father of lies, that becomes more obvious. But also we read that after they ate of the fruit, God says “the man has become like Us, knowing good and evil”. What does this mean? The serpent is clearly being duplicitous when he tells Eve that eating of the fruit would make her (and Adam) like God; but God Himself says “the man has become like Us”.

In the classic Jewish interpretation, as best as I understand it, before partaking of the fruit of the tree both good and evil existed conceptually; but only good existed in reality–evil remained only as an unrealized potential and so human beings only had an inclination toward good. In partaking of the fruit, there was born in human beings something new: the inclination toward evil. Thus in becoming aware of good and evil, human beings now not only freely chose the good, but could also just as easily and freely choose the evil.

An interpretation I would reject is that it was wrong for human beings to be morally responsible–to have knowledge of good and evil in the sense of knowing right from wrong. Though in some sense I think that is what “the knowledge of good and evil” entails; knowing the difference between good and evil, hence why God speaks the way He does of “like Us, knowing good and evil”–but it’s not the knowing of good and evil that is the problem. It’s the disobedient act, the believing the serpent’s lie.

My thoughts: The issue, specifically, as it pertains to the knowledge of good and evil here is that rather than Adam and Eve living obediently under God’s care and provision, they sought to usurp God’s provision and take it into their own hands. Full maturity for human beings was God’s desire, but it was to come by knowledge of God and intimate communion with Him–by trying to take the short-cut, by trying to take things into their own hands, they abandoned God’s provision, they rejected their inheritance (the Garden of Eden) and they abandoned the life and abundance of God–thus selling themselves over into slavery–slavery to death, slavery to the devil, slavery to their own selfish and debased appetites (aka the lusts of the flesh).

Evil isn’t the price we pay for love. Evil is what has happened because rather than finding our life in God, we threw God’s gifts away and wanted to do things our way. And we are small, immature, finite creatures. Evil is what happens when we have walked away from the Source of all good, and do whatever we think is right in our own eyes–which just so happens to be whatever feels good, based on our immature, ill-thought out and capricious whims. Cain killed Abel because Cain had a temper-tantrum over God favoring Abel’s offering. Spiritually and morally, as human beings we are spoiled, temper-tantrum having toddlers, immature, doing whatever we want whenever we want. And what happens? Murder, war, theft, and every debased act littered throughout every history book.

We’re like an angry child given a shotgun. And we have soiled all of creation with our petulant rage.

1 Like

One question, @TheologyNerd, since I agree this is a difficult concept: are we distinguishing the origin of evil from the origin of sin?

THE FALL OF MANKIND

OLD TESTAMENT
Judaism does not focus on the sinfulness of all humans. It basically asserts the tension between “the good intent” and “the evil intent” in every person (i.e., the two yetzers). The famous Jewish proverb is “in every human heart is a black dog and a white dog. The one that is fed the most becomes the biggest.”

Some Rabbinical Midrash does assert the origin of evil from Genesis 6 . The Church (particularly Paul and James) has focused on Genesis 3 as the origin of sin and rebellion in humanity.

Christianity has explained the evil and suffering in this world as a result of human sin and rebellion, not God’s person or initial creation or God’s will! This is not the world God intended it to be!

Adam and Eve’s choice of self directiveness over God’s word brought a terrible consequence to all humans (i.e., Rom. 1:18-3:31). This theological concept is called “Hebrew Corporality” (see SPECIAL TOPIC: BIBLICAL FAITH IS CORPORATE).

According to Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm, The Unseen Realm: A Question and Answer Comparison, there are three major spiritual rebellions in Genesis 1-11, not just Genesis 3 (Garden of Eden). The other two would be

the union of angels and humans in Genesis 6
the arrogant independance of humans at the Tower of Bable in Genesis 10-11
These are all surely examples of fallen humanity’s spiritual problems. However, the NT only focuses on Genesiss 3 (particularly Paul) as the first and foremost example of the current terrible spiritual condition of God’s physical creation (cf. Rom. 8:12-17,18-22)!

And well done for the powerful contribution brother.

J.

In full agreement with you here, as I also have ancient Jewish writings on this topic, the yetzer HaRa and yetzer HaTov.

J.

Brother @Pater15 you may continue with the topic of your thread, I’ll stay out of this and apologize for interjecting in the convo between you and KP.

Shalom.

J.

NO no no no! I LOVE your interjections. Please, do NOT stop being YOU!

We Need your special kind of precision. You never fail to make me think!
KP

@Johann and @TheologyNerd and @KPuff !!!

Please please I hope none of you ever hesitate to chime in at any point! And especially thanks @johann for your kind invitation! Unfortunately it was super busy today in my regular occupation so I didnt have time to join in at all, but thats the only reason I would ever delay, other than marveling at the profundities that you all bring.

And it may be that we wont always agree. Generally my disagreements are going to be with long-held dogmas that have come down as traditional answers to quite difficult questions. But I don’t mind one bit being challenged in return. As you all have said “iron sharpening iron”. This is like so awesome to me to have folks that can speak to these issues. Again, please never hesitate for a second!!

Brothers in Christ

1 Like

Maybe. That wasn’t necessarily where my mind was located in my post.

Amen to this, brothers in Christ Jesus.

J.

Then we should start with Genesis chapter 3.

Temptation, Genesis 3:1–5, opens with the serpent described as ʿārûm (crafty), an adjective rather than a verb, setting the tone of subtlety rather than brute force, and the narrative action begins with wayyōʾmer (and he said), a waw consecutive imperfect of ʾāmar, marking deliberate speech as the primary weapon, not coercion, and the serpent’s question hăʾap kî ʾāmar ʾĕlōhîm (indeed has God said) employs an interrogative construction designed to destabilize the divine command by reframing it, while the woman’s response uses tōʾkēl (you may eat), an imperfect qal expressing permitted ongoing action, contrasted with lōʾ tōgəʿû (you shall not touch), an addition not stated in Genesis 2, though the text does not assign motive or blame for that addition, and the serpent counters with lōʾ mōt temûtûn (you will not surely die), an infinitive absolute plus imperfect construction intensifying denial, followed by the promise wihyîtem kĕʾlōhîm (and you will be like God), a qal perfect with vav projecting a supposed outcome, framing deception as wisdom rather than rebellion.

Transgression, Genesis 3:6–7, is driven by a rapid series of wayyiqtol verbs, wattēreʾ (and she saw), wattikkaḥ (and she took), wattōʾkal (and she ate), wattittēn (and she gave), wayyōʾkal (and he ate), the narrative pace accelerating to show unbroken action with no pause for reflection, and the verbs are all qal active, emphasizing willing participation rather than compulsion, followed by wattiqqāḥnā (and were opened), a niphal imperfect with waw, indicating a passive result, their eyes were opened rather than they opened them, and wayyēdĕʿû (and they knew), qal imperfect, marking experiential knowledge, not moral enlightenment, and the sewing of fig leaves uses wayyitpĕrû (and they sewed), a piel stem emphasizing deliberate effort to cover exposure, a human response to shame rather than repentance.

Interrogation, Genesis 3:8–13, begins with wayyišməʿû (and they heard), qal imperfect, not indicating fear initially but awareness, followed by wayyiṯḥabbēʾ (and he hid himself), a hitpael reflexive, showing self initiated concealment, and the divine call ʾayyekkāh (where are you) is not a request for information but a covenantal summons, as shown by the subsequent higgadtā (who told you), a hiphil perfect implying causation, and hămin hāʿēṣ ʾăšer ṣiwwîtîkā lĕbilti ʾăkōl (from the tree which I commanded you not to eat), where ṣiwwîtîkā is a piel perfect stressing authoritative command, and the human responses use nāṯattāh (you gave), hiššîʾanî (she deceived me), a hiphil perfect meaning caused me to be deceived, and nāšānî (he deceived me), all verbs of shifting explanation, yet the text assigns no moral commentary beyond recording the speech.

Judgments, Genesis 3:14–19, are introduced without interrogation of the serpent, marked by wayyōʾmer YHWH ʾĕlōhîm (and the LORD God said), and the curse formula ʾārûr (cursed) is a qal passive participle, indicating a state declared rather than an ongoing action, and the serpent’s punishment includes tēlēḵ (you shall go), qal imperfect, describing enforced manner of existence, while the woman’s sentence uses harbāh ʾarbeh (I will greatly multiply), an infinitive absolute plus imperfect intensifying certainty, and the man’s judgment centers on the ground, ʾărûrāh hāʾădāmāh (cursed is the ground), not explicitly the man himself, with tōʾkĕlennāh (you shall eat from it), qal imperfect of consequence, and the repeated verb tōʾkēl (you shall eat) frames labor as unending necessity, concluding with tāšûb (you shall return), qal imperfect, stating destiny without elaborating metaphysical mechanics.

Exile, Genesis 3:20–24, closes the chapter with naming and expulsion, wayyiqrāʾ (and he called), showing continued relational language even after judgment, and wayyĕšalleḥēhû (and He sent him out), a piel imperfect indicating decisive removal, followed by wayyĕgāreš (and He drove out), a qal imperfect intensifying separation, and the placing of the cherubim uses wayyašken (and He placed), a hiphil imperfect emphasizing divine agency, guarding derek ʿēṣ haḥayyîm (the way of the tree of life), not the tree itself, signaling restricted access rather than annihilation of hope.

Read canonically, but without importing later theology into the text, Genesis 3 establishes patterns that the rest of Scripture addresses explicitly, deception through speech, death as separation and return to dust, and exile from sacred space, all of which the New Testament later locates under the curse borne by Christ on the cross, yet here the chapter itself remains sober, restrained, and juridical, showing what happened, how God spoke, and how humanity was displaced, without philosophical abstraction or speculative psychology, only verbs, actions, and consequences written into sacred history.

The Bible does not specifically discuss the origin or purpose of “evil.”
Some later Jewish writings asserted that sin began from Genesis 3 (in the Serpent, then in humanity)
Other Jewish inter-biblical writings assert that sin began in Genesis 6 (in the sons of God’s union with human women); “the sons of God” in Genesis 6)
After Jesus’ day false teachers combined Judaism with Greek thought and asserted that evil was inherent in physical matter (i.e., Greek Gnostic thought, cf. Colossians; Ephesians; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy; and Titus)
Paul clearly sees Genesis 3 as the source of sin and human rebellion (cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-15)

Where the bible is silent, you stay silent.
Spurgeon.
I’ll “insert” my post here.

J.