Backing Off Yesterday’s Post on the first Anger Sin Being One of Omission

Chris —  October 26, 2012

Bearing in mind that God gives grace to the humble . . .

Yesterday, I stirred the Internet a bit by inviting everyone into my sermon prep. I put up a post inviting people to comment on the first sin related to human anger.

I then commented that I thought the first sin related to anger was one of omission – — Adam and Eve should have been angry with Satan and expelled him from the Garden. Twenty four hours later (and thankfully before I preached on it) I don’t think that point holds up to scrutiny. As one sage scholar pointed out, it doesn’t square with the language of Romans 5:12-21 to say that the first sin was a sin of omission.

So I think the bottom line is that I owe everyone who participated a cup of coffee, though it will be hard to collect.

Still in all, I think there is a point to be made. I do think it is legitimate to say that Adam and Eve should have expelled Satan as Christ did (Matthew 4:10). And surely it is possible to sin bynotbeing angry . . .

But I now concede that it doesn’t work to say the first human sin related to anger was Adam and Eve’s failure to be angry with Satan.

My sermon notes are up to 5400 words long and counting. Should be an interesting sermon.

Be Sociable, Share!

7 responses to Backing Off Yesterday’s Post on the first Anger Sin Being One of Omission

  1. You state that Adam should have expelled Satan from the garden which would have occurred before having had their eyes open to the knowledge of good and evil. Is it possible they did not consider Satan as a threat or recognize that he was evil? How naive were they to evil?

  2. They weren’t yet sinners. But they still should have recognized that what Satan was suggesting was sin. The Tree of Knowledge of God and evil does not mean that they were helpless in the face of evil.

  3. Good point! Unfortunately, Satan was crafty and managed to deceive them to question, “What is true?” It was probably tough to act rationally when faced with the prospect to “be like God”.

  4. In response to the several that wondered how A & E could have responded to Satan in a righteous anger for misrepresenting God without having the knowledge of good and evil couldn’t we say that the covenant they were under was on of obedience. The whole point was to be obedient to God’s word without having the knowledge of good and evil, trusting that His word was good enough. Therefore they certainly could have and should have responded to Satan with indignation that he would suggest that God was not looking out for them the best way possible.

  5. Yes, Scott, I would agree.

  6. Isn`t it wonderful to stir things up a bit once in awhile…It lets you know we are listening and after all we are gods children,we think we know everything..but have much to learn..that is why you are here to help guide us…Thankyou Chris and Eric for coming into all our lives..

  7. Thanks so much Valerie. I really appreciate it.