Knowing God’s Holiness

[NetChaplain]

For the believer, God uses everything; good, bad, easy, difficult—for our good. This means He never allows anything to work against us but for us (Ro 8:28). How can evil be used to benefit any saint? Evil manifests God’s holiness! It wasn’t until Adam and Eve partook of the Tree that “the eyes of them both were opened,” (Gen 3:7).

John Gill: “Their eyes were opened to see that they had been deceived by the serpent, that they had broken the commandment of God, and incurred the displeasure of their Creator.”

Albert Barnes: “They knew that they were naked—this effect results immediately from the consciousness of guilt. They now take notice that their guilty persons are exposed to view, and they shrink from the glance of every condemning eye. They imagine there is a witness of their guilt in every creature, and they conceive the abhorrence which it must produce in the spectator. In their infantile experience they endeavor to hide their persons, which they feel to be suffused all over with the blush of shame.”

It is my opinion that Adam and Eve would not have known “evil” had they not partook of the Fruit! They already knew what right and wrong was (Gen 2:16, 17) but was yet to learn what good and evil meant; and without knowing good and evil they were ignorant of the holiness of God.

I believe that God desired Adan and Eve to understand what holiness meant, which answers for the “Tree of Knowledge of good and evil” being planted along with the “Tree of Life” which was “in the midst of the garden” (Gen 2:9). It’s not like God didn’t have foreknowledge of them eating the forbidden fruit, He had His reason for it!

 

[OMC]

For the believer, God uses everything; good, bad, easy, difficult—for our good. This means He never allows anything to work against us but for us (Ro 8:28). How can evil be used to benefit any saint? Evil manifests God’s holiness! It wasn’t until Adam and Eve partook of the Tree that “the eyes of them both were opened,” (Gen 3:7).

John Gill: “Their eyes were opened to see that they had been deceived by the serpent, that they had broken the commandment of God, and incurred the displeasure of their Creator.”

Albert Barnes: “They knew that they were naked—this effect results immediately from the consciousness of guilt. They now take notice that their guilty persons are exposed to view, and they shrink from the glance of every condemning eye. They imagine there is a witness of their guilt in every creature, and they conceive the abhorrence which it must produce in the spectator. In their infantile experience they endeavor to hide their persons, which they feel to be suffused all over with the blush of shame.”

It is my opinion that Adam and Eve would not have known “evil” had they not partook of the Fruit! They already knew what right and wrong was (Gen 2:16, 17) but was yet to learn what good and evil meant; and without knowing good and evil they were ignorant of the holiness of God.

I believe that God desired Adan and Eve to understand what holiness meant, which answers for the “Tree of Knowledge of good and evil” being planted along with the “Tree of Life” which was “in the midst of the garden” (Gen 2:9). It’s not like God didn’t have foreknowledge of them eating the forbidden fruit, He had His reason for it!

I appreciate the desire to make sense of how God uses all things for good, but I need to be clear with you: the idea that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin so they could learn holiness is not something Scripture ever teaches.
Romans 8:28 tells me God can overrule evil, not that He designs it as a lesson.
Genesis 2:17 presents the command not to eat as a real prohibition, and Genesis 3:6–7 presents their disobedience as a real fall, not a divinely intended educational moment.
When their eyes were opened, they saw guilt and shame — not a holiness lesson God secretly planned.
Scripture never says they needed to sin to understand holiness, never says God planted the tree so they would fall, and never says evil “manifests” God’s holiness.
Those conclusions come from inference, not from the text.
What I see in Genesis is simple: God commanded, they disobeyed, their eyes were opened to shame, and God responded with judgment and promise. Anything beyond that — including the idea that God had a hidden reason for wanting them to eat — is speculation, not Scripture.

 

[JaumeJ]

The creation, itself, is allied with corruption. This is a good meditation. I think it is anyways.

 

[NetChaplain]

I appreciate the desire to make sense of how God uses all things for good, but I need to be clear with you: the idea that God wanted Adam and Eve to sin so they could learn holiness is not something Scripture ever teaches.

Hi and appreciate your reply and comments! It's not so much He wanted them to sin, but that He knew they would at their own choice, and used it for "good." I believe God knew man would learn only through good and evil. Concerning sin, I believe it was part of man's nature so we could learn from it. Before they committed the first sin it was evident in them why they sinned. Eve "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" (Gen 3:6); all of which manifested they had the sin nature. I think when God said it was all good, He meant how He was going the make it all "work together for good" to the believer.

 

[OMC]

Hi and appreciate your reply and comments! It's not so much He wanted them to sin, but that He knew they would at their own choice, and used it for "good." I believe God knew man would learn only through good and evil. Concerning sin, I believe it was part of man's nature so we could learn from it. Before they committed the first sin it was evident in them why they sinned. Eve "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" (Gen 3:6); all of which manifested they had the sin nature. I think when God said it was all good, He meant how He was going the make it all "work together for good" to the believer.

What you’ve written is sincere — yet it is driven by a system that forces Genesis 3 to say something the text itself never says.
You’re trying to rescue God from “wanting” Adam and Eve to sin, so you shift the explanation to: “He knew they would, and used it for good… sin was part of man’s nature so we could learn from it… Eve’s desire shows the sin nature was already present.”
I understand why that feels logical, but Scripture simply does not support it.
When God finished creation, He did not say, “It is good because I will make it work together for good later.”
He said, “It was very good.” A nature containing sin is not “very good.” A nature inclined to rebellion is not “very good.” A nature that must sin in order to learn is not “very good.” You are importing a system that treats sin as an educational tool, as though God built it into humanity so He could teach holiness later.
Scripture never says that. Eve’s desire in Genesis 3:6 does not prove she had a sin nature before the fall; it proves she was tempted and deceived. Paul says explicitly, “The woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Not before it. Not inherently. Not by nature.
The desire arose because she listened to the serpent, not because she was created with sin inside her.
And when you say God declared creation “good” because He knew how He would later use sin for good, I must gently chastise that attitude because it reverses the text.
God did not call evil “good.” He did not embed sin into human nature. He did not design rebellion as a learning mechanism.
Romans 8:28 is about God overruling evil, not about God installing evil.
So I say this kindly: your heart is trying to protect God’s goodness, but the system you’re leaning on forces you to redefine “good,” redefine “sin,” and redefine “nature” in ways Scripture never does.
Let Genesis speak plainly: humanity was created good; sin entered through deception; and God, in His mercy, can bring good out of what He never designed.

 

[NetChaplain]

What you’ve written is sincere — yet it is driven by a system that forces Genesis 3 to say something the text itself never says.
You’re trying to rescue God from “wanting” Adam and Eve to sin, so you shift the explanation to: “He knew they would, and used it for good… sin was part of man’s nature so we could learn from it… Eve’s desire shows the sin nature was already present.”
I understand why that feels logical, but Scripture simply does not support it.
When God finished creation, He did not say, “It is good because I will make it work together for good later.”
He said, “It was very good.” A nature containing sin is not “very good.” A nature inclined to rebellion is not “very good.” A nature that must sin in order to learn is not “very good.” You are importing a system that treats sin as an educational tool, as though God built it into humanity so He could teach holiness later.
Scripture never says that. Eve’s desire in Genesis 3:6 does not prove she had a sin nature before the fall; it proves she was tempted and deceived. Paul says explicitly, “The woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Not before it. Not inherently. Not by nature.
The desire arose because she listened to the serpent, not because she was created with sin inside her.
And when you say God declared creation “good” because He knew how He would later use sin for good, I must gently chastise that attitude because it reverses the text.
God did not call evil “good.” He did not embed sin into human nature. He did not design rebellion as a learning mechanism.
Romans 8:28 is about God overruling evil, not about God installing evil.
So I say this kindly: your heart is trying to protect God’s goodness, but the system you’re leaning on forces you to redefine “good,” redefine “sin,” and redefine “nature” in ways Scripture never does.
Let Genesis speak plainly: humanity was created good; sin entered through deception; and God, in His mercy, can bring good out of what He never designed.

I can understand that most will not accept nor understand my belief's concerning this subject, but that's ok because it's what I've been wanting to share for a long time. I also know you mean well and appreciate your comments! God bless!!

 

[Suze]

I can understand that most will not accept nor understand my belief's concerning this subject, but that's ok because it's what I've been wanting to share for a long time. I also know you mean well and appreciate your comments! God bless!!

All things work together for good to them that love God , this is so true . Often our lives r filled with pain and sorrow or , we have to watch those we love suffer . Suffering makes us humble and that's definitely a good thing . God is infinite in His knowledge and understanding . He knows absolutely everything from beginning to the very end and that means everything about everyone . This kind of bends my brain a little bit when I think about what that really means . To me , it means this ; EVERYthing is as it should b . Right now , everywhere , everything is as it should b . This means me , u , your neighbours , your family , friends , everyone the other side of the planet , every second , is doing what they r supposed to b doing , always . God's Will is always done . Those who r not Christians suffer in this life because they r not under God's wings in the same way that Christians r , they don't have the hope and comfort that we have because of our faith and understanding , they r in this world with nothing to look forward to but death and , they think that they r alone . So , while we may suffer the same unpleasant things as they do , they suffer more because they have not real comfort or hope . All they have is the knowledge that the cold hard grave is coming .

 

[NetChaplain]

All things work together for good to them that love God , this is so true .

Hi, and I agree with all you said; as those who should be saved will be saved! God bless!