Yet, the doctrine of the fall has a relation to Christianity that it does not have to other religions, or religious systems. The moral character of God as seen in the Christian religion far surpasses the delineation of the Supreme Being set forth in any other religion, and thus heightens and intensifies its idea of sin. It is when men consider the very high character of God as set forth in Christianity, and then look at the doctrine of sin, that they find it hard to reconcile the fact that God, being the moral Being He is, should ever allow sin to come into the world. To some minds these two things seem incompatible.
1. THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT OF THE FALL OF MAN.
The third chapter of Genesis gives the fullest account of this awful tragedy in the experience of mankind. Other scriptures: Rom. 5:12-19; I Tim. 2:14; Gen. 6:5; 8:31; Psa. 14; Rom. 3:10-23.
The purpose of the Genesis narrative is not to give an account of the manner in which sin came into the world, but how it found its advent into the human race. Sin was already in the world, as the existence of Satan and the chaotic condition of things in the beginning, strikingly testify.
The reasonableness of the narrative of the fall is seen in view of the condition of man after he had sinned with his condition when he left the hand of the Creator. Compare Gen. 1:26 with 6:5, and Psa. 14. If the fall of man were not narrated in Genesis we should have to postulate some such event to account for the present condition in which we find man. In no part of the Scripture, save in the creation account as found in the first two chapters of Genesis, does man appear perfect and upright. His attitude is that of rebellion against God, of deepening and awful corruption.
2. VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL OF MAN.
Some look upon the whole narrative as being an allegory. Adam is the rational part of man; Eve, the sensual; the serpent, external excitements to evil. But the simplicity and artlessness of the narrative militates against this view.
Others, again, designate the narrative as being a myth. It is regarded as a truth invested in poetic form; something made up from the folklore of the times. But why should these few verses be snatched out of the chapter in which they are found and be called mythical, while the remaining verses are indisputably literal?
Then there is the literal interpretation, which takes the account as it reads, in its perfectly natural sense, just as in the case of the other parts of the same chapter. There is no intimation in the account itself that it is not to be regarded as literal history. It certainly is part of a historical book. The geographical locations in connection with the story are historic. The curse upon the man, upon the woman, and upon the ground are certainly literal. It is a fact that death is in the world as the wages of sin. Unquestionably Christ, and the other Scripture writers regard the event as historical and literal: of. Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6; 2 Cor. 11:3; I Tim. 2:13-15; I Cor. 15:56.