Adamic Administration - 'Condition' (Probation, Temporary) — John Murray

O Lord, O God, it is a good thing to admire Thee with all Thy matchless glory as the Most High, as the One who reigns in heaven above and in the earth beneath, and who has granted such security to Thy children that they shall never perish.

Thou dost find them in the secret place of the Most High and under the shadow of the Almighty, so that no evil shall befall them. Thou givest charge to Thine angels concerning them, and dost grant it through Christ Jesus, through the new way which He has established, through fellowship with Him we may enter into the assurance of that security that belongs to those who are Thy children.

Accept of us in this hour and forgive our sins. For Jesus' sake. Amen. I believe that this Islamic administration has a certain institution called the tradition and we will capitally undo that probation.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Adamic Administration

And at the thought of the hour we came to this question, how are we going to interpret this, the three of knowledge and the evil? How are we going to conceive of the knowledge of good and evil as applicable to man in the traditions of the administration?

And therefore alternative views passed over them lightly and came to the last, which I think is the most tenable, namely that the knowledge of good and evil applies to either alternative of the probation charge, that if the probation had been successful, Adam and Eve would have come to the knowledge of good and evil.

If they had been unsuccessful, they would also come to the knowledge of good and evil. Yes? I didn't get to the other three alternatives. I'm not going to pass over this. This is fine. Understand that I'm not dealing with these other three alternatives in this lecture.

I'm dealing with the fourth, which is the most tenable in my viewpoint. You see, we have to take account of the fact that the three is called, not the three of the knowledge of good and the three of the knowledge of evil, or the three of the knowledge of good or evil, the three of the knowledge of good and evil, good and evil, as correlated and conditioning elements.

In the event of a success, in the event of a successful, man would have attained to a higher state of knowledge. And at least one way in which it would have been necessary, even in a state of simple and confirmed perfection, that evil in the universe might depart from the fall of our first pen.

And if Adam were to attain to a higher state of knowledge, he would surely have been given enlarged knowledge, not only of God-created reality, but knowledge of God's providential order. If Adam were to attain to enlarged knowledge of God's providential order, he would have to have knowledge of that kingdom of evil, which already existed by the fall of the devil and evil.

There are other ways in which we could easily conceive this higher state of knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil, that we can pass over. Now, in the event of a success, of an unsuccessful formation, unsuccessful, we can very readily, through conditioning, could be described as the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam already had some knowledge of the good, in the highest plane of reality. He had knowledge of God. He had some knowledge of his providential order. Once he entered into his knowledge, ingredients would never cross the threshold of his consciousness.

He would never have passed the threshold of his consciousness, if he had held his integrity. Reflect on it in just a moment. Also, the position is the one that is supported by the balance of consideration, namely that the knowledge of good and evil refers to either alternative or the probationary choice.

We are not to suppose. The knowledge is identical in either, it would be identical in either event. We have to take into account the diversity, the diversity in respect of content and in respect of the resulting state of consciousness.

Diversity and resulting state of consciousness. Because they are entered now, by default, into man's consciousness, elements that would never have entered his consciousness, unless he had sinned. There was never the consciousness of guilt.

There was the experience of fear. There was the emotion of shame. There also entered into his heart and mind an entirely new and radically different complex of affections, of impulses, of propensities, dispositions, motives, desires, intentions.

His whole dispositional complex was radically changed. We can never think of the state of knowledge, never think of the state of knowledge referred to in the word knowledge in that formula, from the total condition of man's heart and mind.

The knowledge that resulted from the law differs radically from the knowledge to which he would have attained by a successful probation. In both cases, it could be called the knowledge of good and evil.

And that is not to the analogy of Scripture in the use of the word know or knowledge. It's an analogy of Scripture. Knowledge is dedicated in the form of state. And the same term enters to the decadent which belongs to fallen man, rational, intelligent being, which is eternal life.

And consequently, there is no reason, according to the analogy of Scripture, why not the youth, which man would have attained by median knowledge is actually, according to the analogy of Scripture. You remember that there is a radical respect of the specific quality by which this knowledge is to be, in terms of which this knowledge is to be defined.

Radical distinction in respect of the specific quality, characterizing this in the respect of the specific quality. You see, the object is the same in both cases. The object is the same. The knowledge of good and evil.

Knowledge itself reflects on the subjective apprehension. And it is in respect of that subjective apprehension radical distinction. You get the point? There is a state of consciousness. It's the apprehension.

Radical difference is perfectly proper to speak of both as knowledge, with the same object as term. So I don't think you have any different conclusion. Even if you take good and evil, in the Semitic sense of everything, saying that in this particular instance, that expression, good and evil, is to be interpreted in the Semitic analogy, that good and evil is a way to do everything.

But even if you do take it that way, do take it as a synonym for everything, for all things, interpretation of its meaning. Not radically. For in the knowledge of man, within the compass of man's knowledge, what after all are the two categories under which everything can be comprehended?

What are they? Good and evil. These are the two comprehensive categories. No one further observation respecting probation. Observation respecting it. And that is that probation, by its very nature, involves a limited period of time.

Probation as a Temporary Test With a Definitive Outcome

A limited period of time. Unlimited probation is self-contradiction. There is probation without any time, and that is self-contradiction. The whole purpose of this probation, as we found already, is to bring to a final issue the destiny of mankind.

But you can see that a destiny, a destiny contingent upon an uncertain event, can never be a settled destiny. Never be a settled destiny until that event passes out of the realm of uncertainty to that of certainty.

Passes out of the realm of uncertainty to that of certainty. And you see, you have analogies drawn from the script to support that conclusion. We know that in the case of the second Adam, last Adam, obedience covering a certain period of time, irrevocable determination.

The obedience of Christ is a finished event, and the redemption wrought by His obedience is finally and irrevocably secured. Likewise, in the case of the elect angels, we are told that they kept their first estate.

And since they are elect angels, they are now irrevocably confirmed in that state. They are the elect angels, and therefore they are irrevocably confirmed in that first estate. And of course, we also know that in the case of Adam, the disobedience did just result, as far as this administration is concerned, in irrevocable confirmation in sin, condemnation, and death.

Irrevocable confirmation in sin, condemnation, and death. And therefore it is, of course, reasonable, and not only reasonable, but necessary to know that obedience maintained and perfected over a certain period of time would have involved irrevocable confirmation in righteousness, justification, and life.

We pass on to.

Temptation as Solicitation to Sin

The next subdivision of this subject of the condition A probation B temptation in which we are using temptation in this discussion is that of solicitation to sin. Solicitation to sin. The placing of an inducement in the way of another to do that which is contrary to the revealed will of God.

The word tempt, or the word temptation, used in two other senses in this condition. It is used in the sense of probation, that is, to try, to prove, to test. And it is also used in the sense of falling into temptation.

It is in this middle sense that it is being used in this discussion. Namely, the solicitation to sin and evil. Now, it is this that is denied of God. James 1 .13 and 14 cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

Neither tempteth he any man. That is to say, he doesn't solicit sin. It is in place before men, the inducement to sin. And this distinction is very patient in the case of the Adamic administration. And this distinction is very patient in the case of the Adamic administration.

The inducement God placed before our first parents was in the opposite direction. He warned them and threatened them. He warned them and threatened them. They thought, just thereof, thou shalt surely die.

Consequently, the distinction is that it is godlike to tempt. That is, it is devilish to seduce. They seduce the mind of the way. And this distinction is very eloquently advertised in the Garden of Eden.

Satan's Agency in the Serpent's Temptation

Now, we must believe that the serpent was a literal serpent but that the literal serpent was instigated by the archenemy of God and His kingdom, namely the devil. And that is demonstrated by such passages as Matthew 13, 38 and 39.

Matthew 13, 38 and 39. John 8, 44. Romans 16, 20. 1 John 3, 8. Revelation 12, 9. Sharing that with the apocryphal book of wisdom, 11, 24. 11, 24. There are other considerations that can be pleaded in support of that thesis derived directly from the three chapters of Genesis.

That belongs to the realm of biblical theology and I'm not going to enter into that. But I think that that thesis is one that can be clearly established from the very data provided for us in the first three chapters of Genesis.

These later allusions to the great archenemy make it perfectly clear that he was the main instrument in the temptation of our first parents working through the medium or the agent of the serpent. Now, in this temptation our first parents were subjected to unbelieving apostatizing suggestions.

Unbelieving apostatizing suggestions. And remember, that is false. It did not originate in the hearts and minds of our first parents. In the heart and mind of our first parents. It didn't originate. They were injected particularly into the heart and mind of Eve by the serpent.

It was not sin to be subjected to that seducement. It also was subjective. Even more aggravating. Consequently, we must remember it is not sinful to be tempted. In the sense in which we are using temptation here.

It is not sinful to be tempted. It is sinful to tempt, not sinful to be tempted. And that is why in the ordination of God, in the ordination of God and in His providence, in their state of innocence, they were subjected to this solicitation to sin.

The temptation, you see, was of divine appointment, not of divine agency. Now, therefore, it was not double substance, but called upon to obey the specific prohibitions of relationship. Obeisance was focused, you see, in the prohibition to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The temptation was directed to the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the same direction, focused in the very same object. And consequently, the stringency of the condition, the tension between the claims of obedience arising from the divine prohibition and the pressures of temptation arising from the tempter's allegations.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is in that tree by prohibition. It is focused in that tree where we are soliciting to the very thing which was prohibited in the temptation. You can see, therefore, it illustrates a very important feature of human life.

Human Obedience, Temptation, and Plenary Ability

Human life was existing then and conducting then in entirely different conditions. Conducting then in the conditions of original integrity, but it never addresses what is still true in the human life.

Obedience and temptation are oftentimes focused in the very same detail, very same detail. It is just precisely these points. Sinners, of course, are in entirely different situations and that is also a sin.

To be a sinner needs the grace of God. We must remember in this connection that man has plenary ability to obey the prohibition and resist the temptation. Plenary ability. But he also has the ability to the opposite.

Plenary ability to obey and yet the possibility of the opposite and ability to the opposite. There is the great question. The great question. Now, since he was constituted in perfect integrity, he could have disobeyed.

You want to solve that? Well, try to. I cannot. It's a question. Well, I just want to add that you said that the man had the ability to resist the temptation and obey God as well. How can you prove that?

How can you prove that? On what basis? Because he was created very good. He was created in the image of God, righteousness, holiness. His ability to obey, in this case it's implicit, in the very creation of God.

He was created very good. He could not be, he could not be as very good. He had plenary ability.

To obey God's prohibition.

Yes. If sin, if inability was inherent in his very constitution, then there would have been a defect in his very constitution. He was created by God. And that, I think, would be not only incompatible with the express statement of scripture, respecting his character, but it would also be incompatible with perfection.

I felt that when you said that he was very good, yes, he was good as a.

In compatibility with God.

And the analogy, I think it is good in its ability. You said he was good for animals and for humans. Well, yes, but that category of good has to be applied to each particular creature in terms of, in terms of the distinguishing specific character and purpose of each individual being.

For example, you couldn't speak of the tree as being very good in precisely the same sense as the animal is very good, because the animal is on a higher, well, a higher, a higher stratum of being. And consequently, you have to apply to the animal certain categories that don't belong to the tree.

Of course, you could begin down with the stone, the totally lifeless entity, you could begin at that lowest level, begin with the tree and then work with the animal. And then there are certain animals which have higher intelligence than other animals.

And the categories that belong to these more intelligent animals are not precisely the same as those that apply to other categories of animals. You couldn't apply, for example, to a jellyfish all the categories, for example, that you would have to apply to a dog, a horse.

And then you come to the highest, well-created being, humankind. You have to apply new categories there, new categories that don't apply at all on any lower stratum of being. And I would say, when he said very good, he meant that each being was very good in terms of all the categories that are applicable to that species of being and to the particular purpose that they are called upon to fulfill.

And so when you come to higher, you have to apply moral and religious categories, not simply intellectual categories, but moral and religious categories in relation to God, as is clearly demonstrated also in the narrative, because he is in relationship to God.

And I would infer that even on the basis of Genesis 1 .31, you would have to infer that man was created perfect in respect of his moral and religious character, and therefore only perfect because he was able to obey the whim of God.

Yes, Mr. Long? Mr. Murray, by the plenary... Plenary ability, well, just full ability. Full ability. I can't read the word ability by placing the adjective, some sort of adjective, before it, that he could have fulfilled all the will of God.

But I mean by plenary ability, that he could have fulfilled all the will of God and have fulfilled it perfectly. On the last point that I was making before I began to answer Mr. King's question, I would refer you to a most eloquent statement of what I was trying to say very briefly in Calvin's Institutes.

Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 15, Section 8. Institutes 1, Chapter 15, Section 8. Because in that particular paragraph, you have one of the most eloquent statements in Calvin. Occasions when Calvin rises to great heights of eloquence and to great penetration of thought, well, that's one of them.

The Tree of Life and Everlasting Life

On that precise question that I was dealing with just before I tried to answer Mr. King, now we come to the fourth thing in that position, and that is the promise. There is promise in this administration.

Concludes on the tree of knowledge, the tree of life. Tree of life. We must not overlook the fact the tree of life, an important word in this administration. And it is quite clear that, to say the very least, the tree of life was the symbol of everlasting life.

In this context, the very word life, the very word life would imply everlasting. Because it is used in this context as the opposite of death. The opposite of death. In the day when it is throughout, there shall surely die.

The tree of life is contrasted with the only concept of life, that is, in contrast with this life that knows no death. Life that knows no death. But that is confirmed by Genesis 3, that the prophetic man becomes the tree of life and he can live forever.

Clearly implies that the tree of life.