This article is taken from page 10 - Are We Sure We Know God?

Understanding this concept is a most important piece of the puzzle.

Have you ever noticed that the theology of the Christian world is primarily focused on gaining forgiveness from God the Father for breaking His laws? God said not to eat of the forbidden fruit, and most of us have heard the story about Adam and Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit which broke God's law. Of course we understand the breaking of God's laws are considered and called sin. The next statement that is usually used with this is, "the wages of sin is death."

If anyone were to ask ‘who pays the wage’ many would say that God pays the wage. Of course, this concept of God paying the wage is only assumed. This is why most theologians have developed God's plan to save you and me around a legal solution. Christ becoming our legal substitute on the cross receiving the wage for us. It's assumed we are in legal trouble for breaking the rules against eating the forbidden fruit. It's also assumed that God will do the killing in the end of those that refuse to accept Christ as our substitute in this death.

An attempt will be made to reveal where the legal solution, the popular view of the cross, stems from. Then to fill the void with the real truth, that we are not in legal trouble, instead, we are in real trouble of cause and effect. We drank the poison [sinned / cause] which the effect is death.

In my book on page 10 you will find the title, "The assumed premise of Genesis 2:17" which stems from most of the Christian world standing on the above premise, which says God will pay the wage for humanity breaking His rules.

The assumed premise has been that God in Genesis 2:17 is giving a threat instead of a warning. It's assumed that God said, "If you eat of it (breaking my law) I will kill you." But do we need to take another look? Was God speaking in legal terms or in cause and effect terms? I believe God was giving a warning about the things that will hurt and destroy us, a cause and effect situation. I believe God was explaining His laws as they relate to how we are made, similar to the law of gravity. It's not arbitrary law it's simply the way it is. We will surely die if we go outside of those laws. The rebellious, sin-filled environment will kill us, not God.

God advised Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit...if they did they would surely die. But theologians take this to mean God had a rule not to eat a certain fruit and when they broke God's rule someone had to pay. A legal problem instead of cause and effect.

This is speculation on my part, but it does make sense that God used the word "fruit" to explain what it means to take wrong things into our body. God made us in His image (Genesis 1:26), that is to function within the same boundaries as He does. If we choose to go outside those boundaries, accepting fruit not designed for us, we will surely die.

I would like to suggest that we are not in legal problems because we've broken the rules. This concept came from misunderstanding Genesis 2:17 where God stated we will surely die if we eat the forbidden fruit. This statement from God has been taken to mean, "if you break my rules, I will kill you." This interpretation implies legalistic retribution to appease Gods wrath.

One will notice God did not say how death would occur or that it would be by His hand. God simply said, "for when you eat of it, you will surely die."

Instead, how about interpreting this to mean, "If you partake of this fruit, (rebellion against the way we were made to function) IT will kill you, you were not designed to handle it. The sin-filled, cancerous environment will kill you - in other words sin pays it’s own wage - a wage God will surely spare us from if we will only accept His ways and desire His ways to become our ways.

The difference in the plan now taught is, it's assumed that God pays the wage (does the killing). But, because God loves us (it's taught) He sent His only Son, Jesus Christ to take our place, and if we will only accept this as true, we have met the requirement to be saved.

This concept has dominated Christian theology to the place of having the total focus on loving Jesus for doing this for us. (Our substitute) Putting the attention totally on the person, glorifying the person because of what He did instead of the principles the person Jesus Christ stands for. Not that we shouldn't be glorifying Jesus, but along with it, we need to understand why we are glorifying Jesus.

The enemy's purpose is to get people to focus on the person instead of principle. The reason? Because when Satan comes impersonating Christ, he will have more charisma than anyone before him appealing to peoples emotions rather than principles.

The bottom line; Is God saying, "You love me and do things my way or I will torture and kill you?" Or does it make more sense that God is saying, "Children, Love me and do things my way (the way you were made to function) or you give me no other choice but to walk away and leave you to your own rebellious choice (fate)?" (Romans 1:18-31) God is simply trying to get us to understand and warn us; if we go outside of the way we were made - the environment out there, not Him, will kill us.

As said in the beginning; understanding this concept is a most important piece of the puzzle.