Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

ing a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.” Job 14:4. But even this is not all. Adam
sinned not only as the father of the human race, but also as the representative head of
all his descendants; and therefore the guilt of his sin is placed to their account, so that
they are all liable to the punishment of death. It is primarily in that sense that Adam’s
sin is the sin of all. That is what Paul teaches us in Rom. 5:12: “Through one man sin
entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for
that all sinned.” The last words can only mean that they all sinned in Adam, and sinned
in such a way as to make them all liable to the punishment of death. It is not sin
considered merely as pollution, but sin as guilt that carries punishment with it. God
adjudges all men to be guilty sinners in Adam, just as He adjudges all believers to be
righteous in Jesus Christ. That is what Paul means, when he says: “So then as through
one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act
of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. For as through the
one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of
the one shall the many be made righteous,” Rom. 5:18,19.
C. THE NATURE OF THE FIRST SIN OR THE FALL OF MAN.
1. ITS FORMAL CHARACTER. It may be said that, from a purely formal point of view,
man’s first sin consisted in his eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We
do not know what kind of tree this was. It may have been a date or a fig tree, or any
other kind of fruit tree. There was nothing injurious in the fruit of the tree as such.
Eating of it was not per se sinful. for it was not a transgression of the moral law. This
means that it would not have been sinful, if God had not said, “Of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat.” There is no unanimous opinion as to
the reason why the tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A rather
common view is that the tree was so called, because the eating of it would impart a
practical knowledge of good and evil; but this is hardly in keeping with the Scriptural
representation that man by eating it would become like God in knowing good and evil,
for God does not commit evil, and therefore has no practical knowledge of it. It is far
more likely that the tree was so called, because it was destined to reveal (a) whether
man’s future state would be good or evil; and (b) whether man would allow God to
determine for him what was good and evil, or would undertake to determine this for
himself. But whatever explanation may be given of the name, the command given by
God not to eat of the fruit of the tree simply served the purpose of testing the obedience
of man. It was a test of pure obedience, since God did not in any way seek to justify or
242