 |
The Watchtower teaches that Christ ransom sacrifice does not apply to Adam and Eve since they were created perfect. If the ransom does not apply to them, then why didn’t God destroy them the very day they sinned? Did God use them merely to populate the earth, so that some among Adam’s offspring would benefit from the ransom? Given the circumstances and the pressures under which Adam found himself, he may not have had in mind the long term consequences of his action. At the time, all he saw was his companion Eve as there were no other humans on earth yet. Also, he could have felt responsible for Eve’s action, seeing the manner in which Eve was created and brought to him; the two becoming one flesh in terms of complementing each other. So, does the teaching that Christ’s ransom sacrifice is inapplicable to Adam and Eve biblically sound? |
 |
| Adam and Eve were sentenced and evicted from the Garden of Eden and prevented from eating from the Tree of Life on the very day they sinned. Although they continued living on the outside of Eden for hundreds of years they eventually died, as God said they would. And from Jehovah’s lofty vantage point—where a thousand years are as one day—they did indeed die on the very day of their eating the forbidden fruit. As for “pressures” that Adam may have felt Jehovah did not accept Adam’s lame excuse that he disobeyed because of the woman whom God had given him. Adam was the head. He was responsible. He was obligated to obey God regardless of all else. The Bible says that sin entered the world through one man—not through the woman—even though Eve sinned first and led her husband into rebellion against God. Interestingly, centuries later the Law of Jehovah stipulated that a woman’s father or husband was the final arbiter of all vows engaged in by his daughters or wives. In other words, a woman’s spiritual relationship with God was mediated to a limited extend by the head of the family. Here is part of the Law as recorded in the 30th chapter of Numbers: “But if her husband on the day of hearing it forbids her, he has also annulled her vow that was upon her or the thoughtless promise of her lips that she bound upon her soul, and Jehovah will forgive her.” Of course, Adam and Eve were not under the Mosaic legal system, however, this provision of the Law reveals Jehovah’s legal mind on the matter of headship. Since Adam was Eve’s head it is quite possible that if he would have resisted the temptation to join his wife in eating the forbidden fruit he could have annulled Eve’s thoughtless act and Jehovah may have forgiven her. That makes Adam’s failure to adhere to God’s law all the more reprehensible and tragic. It also helps us to appreciate why Paul said that sin entered the world through the man. As for the ransom applying to Adam and Eve the Mosaic Law also sheds light upon that question as well. The 35th chapter of Numbers outlines the provision for cities of refuge for unintentional manslayers. However, the Law stipulated that a willful murderer was to be put to death without fail. There was no refuge for him. Likewise, the Law required that the negligent owner of a goring bull, who knew that the bull was dangerous but did nothing and someone was fatally gored as a consequence, was to be put to death. He could not pay any sort of monetary ransom for his neglect. That legal principle certainly applies to Adam. By his neglect to obey the command of God he became a willful murderer of the then unborn. He sold not only himself into slavery to sin and death but also the billions of his unborn offspring. Just as the willful murderer could not pay any ransom or find refuge in the city of refuge, so too Adam had to pay the price for his willful disobedience. In accord with the Law, which was a shadow of the reality of Christ, Jesus’ ransom must only apply to those who were unwillingly sold into death and who are unintentional sinners—not to Adam and Eve who had the choice of life and death, but who chose sin and death. |
The e-Watchman Mailbag Collection
December 6, 2005
