Why Would God Place Adam and Eve Under Paradoxical Injunctions?: A View of the Garden Scene through the Optics of Communication Theory
Author: Jared Balmer
Date: 2025-08-29T16:58:58+00:00
Keywords: Genesis;Adam;Eve;choice;communication theory;agency;Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;LDS;Mormonism;Genesis 1;Genesis 2;Alma 42
Description: Abstract: This paper investigates the pragmatic aspect of communication between God and our first parents while in the Garden of Eden—the psychological impact of placing them under contradictory injunctions that result in a situation of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” God could not introduce knowledge that, by definition, also involves introducing evil, which is a pre-requisite for choice. Instead he issued a paradoxical injunction that placed Adam and Eve in an influence-free decision-making environment with the implied message of “make a decision!” The beguiling influence of Sata
Publisher: The Interpreter Foundation

© 2025 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — NonCommercial —
NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

ISSN 2372-1227 (print)
ISSN 2372-126X (online)

Mission Statement

Supporting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through scholarship.

The Interpreter Foundation supports the Church in the following ways:

- Promotion: We provide tools to encourage and facilitate personal learning by study and faith, and disseminate accurate information to the public about the Church.

- Explanation: We make the results of relevant scholarship more accessible to non-specialists.

- Defense: We respond to misunderstandings and criticisms of Church beliefs, policies, and practices.

- Faithfulness: Our leadership, staff, and associates strive to follow Jesus Christ and be true to the teachings of His Church.

- Scholarship: Our leadership, staff, and associates incorporate standards of scholarship appropriate to their academic disciplines.

The Interpreter Foundation is an independent organization that supports but is not owned, controlled by, or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The material published by the Interpreter Foundation is the sole responsibility of the respective authors and should not be interpreted as representing the views of The Interpreter Foundation or of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This journal compiles weekly publications. Visit us online at InterpreterFoundation.org

Why God Placed Adam and Eve Under Paradoxical Injunctions: A View of the Garden Scene through the Optics of Communication Theory

Jared Balmer

Abstract: This paper investigates the pragmatic aspect of communication between God and our first parents while in the Garden of Eden—the psychological impact of placing them under contradictory injunctions that result in a situation of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” God could not introduce knowledge that, by definition, also involves introducing evil, which is a prerequisite for choice. Instead he issued a paradoxical injunction that placed Adam and Eve in an influence-free decision-making environment with the implied message of “make a decision!” The beguiling influence of Satan provided additional information, a way to escape the paradox. Hence, the paradoxical injunction became an instrument to influence a decision-making process without God having to introduce evil and without having to make an argument in one direction over another.

The study of human communication can be subdivided into three areas: syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics. Syntactics is the grammatical arrangement and order of words in a sentence that add up to a valid thought or idea. Semantics is the analysis of those words and how they relate to each other. Pragmatics, by way of context or situational interaction, uses both verbal and nonverbal communication to clarify a message. For example, picture a father and son standing in the kitchen. In an angry voice, the father states that the garbage is piling up. A completely different message is sent if the father and the son are standing at the city dump, and the father casually makes the same statement. The words are exactly the same, though the intention of the message has completely changed based on the context and non-verbal communication. It is the pragmatic aspect of communication that drives home the meaning and interpretation between sender and recipient. In short, while syntax is mathematical logic and semantics is philosophy, pragmatics is psychology.1

The pragmatic aspects of the communication between God, Adam, Eve, and Satan are complex. Far from being based on clear, precise, unidirectional, and congruent messages between the actors in the Garden of Eden, God’s intent is to stay clear of influencing our first parents in a given direction. Instead, His objective is for the couple to arrive at a decision by themselves. The tools employed for such interactions involve verbal and non-verbal behavior, contextual meaning, implied messages, and paradoxical injunction. To examine such communication tools, it is helpful to consider the building blocks of pragmatic communication theory.

Axioms of Pragmatic Communication

Fundamental to the premise of this paper is a basic understanding of the pragmatics of communication theory—the building blocks of how people influence each other, employing verbal and non-verbal messages within the context where exchanges take place. The building blocks of how people relate to each other are found in the axioms of communication theory.

The inability not to communicate

Behavior has no opposite. One cannot not behave. Therefore, all behavior is a form of communication. Human communication is defined by exchanging messages between individuals. Such messages may consist of words—the spoken language—but always include non-verbal language.2 All non-verbal messages fall into one of six categories. Those are:

- Kinesics—all body movement (facial expressions, eye movement, etc.).

- Voice quality—the inflection, cadence, and volume of speech.

- Proxemics—the relative distance between people.

- Olfactory—the smell of an individual (deodorant, perfume, sweat, etc.).

- Clothing—the type of clothing one wears (or does not wear).

- Artifacts—bracelets, necklaces, earrings, tattoos, etc.

Even a mute response is a behavior and falls into the category of kinesics. The individual who is asked to answer a question, yet only responds with silence, is communicating at the non-verbal level. In some cases, non-verbal messages may be difficult to interpret. Consider the following example. A mother asks her son to take out the garbage. He remains sitting with a “neutral” facial expression and does not speak. He is behaving. He is communicating. However, the mother may be puzzled with what her son is “saying.” Such interpretation is dependent on a large number of variables. In sum, the son cannot not communicate, even though the communication may be confusing.

The command aspect of non-verbal communication

When individuals communicate with each other, the non-verbal portion of each exchanged message clarifies (or obstructs) what is being said at the verbal level. Moreover, the verbal part of the message conveys the content, and the non-verbal part tells the recipient how to interpret the content. Therefore, the non-verbal part of the message is referred to as the command aspect of the message.3 Smiling, voice tone, and touching behavior that may accompany the words “I like you” signal to the recipient how to interpret the words. Conversely, if “I like you” is accompanied with a frown and lack of eye contact, the interpretation of the message will be different—the definition of an incongruent message.

The inability not to influence

As soon as two or more people meet, they immediately begin exchanging behaviors (verbal and/or non-verbal messages) in an attempt to define the nature of their relationship.4 This is to say that what is exchanged between individuals is not simply information, but it imposes thoughts, reactions, responses, or behavior. Therefore, the exchange of messages with each other is more than exchanging information; it is always, under all circumstances, a way to relate to each other. For that reason, it is impossible not to influence each other. Hence, when people interact with each other, there is an ongoing way of defining the relationship: “This is how I see myself . . . this is how I see you . . . this is how I see you seeing me.” Such exchanges could potentially go on endlessly.5

Influence in the absence of non-verbal behavior

Since one cannot not influence, in every message exchanged, the individuals direct each other as to what to do. Therefore, the sender of a message cannot escape influencing the recipient. A claim that “I have no intention to influence you” is incorrect. In the absence of non-verbal behavior, any message that is directive in nature—such as “Get up!,” “Sit down!,” “Come in!,” “I invite you to my house”—is inevitably an attempt to influence. Likewise, non-directive messages—such as “The sky is blue” or “I met your brother”—have influencing properties as well. At a minimum, they elicit a thought and direct or persuade the receiver to respond cognitively and/or behaviorally in a given direction. An example of a cognitive response could be a thought or agreement with the message. A behavioral response could be a verbal response to the sender’s message. Even ignoring the message is a response—as one cannot not communicate. This begs the question whether there is a form of communication that is not explicitly or implicitly prescriptive in nature—directing a person what to do and not influencing a person in a given direction.

Paradoxical Communication

A paradox may be defined as a contradiction that follows correct deductions from consistent premises.6 Although there are three classes of paradoxes, this paper focuses only on pragmatic paradoxes—paradoxical injunctions in human communication. Examples are “You must ignore me!” or “Be spontaneous!” Within the frame of these relationships, an injunction is given that must be obeyed, but it must be disobeyed to be obeyed. The respondent of the injunction is placed in a bind, as the injunction can never be obeyed and can only be obeyed with disobedience—a paradox.7

Paradoxical injunctions in human interaction

Paradoxical interaction was first described by Bertrand Russell in 1901.8 Subsequently, behavioral scientists have varied in providing a precise definition of how paradoxical interactions are manifest in human interaction but have converged on the central elements of its effect. In this paper, I accept the definition of a situation in which a person is confronted with irreconcilable injunctions or a choice between two conflictual courses of action.

The garden scene

I now turn to the interaction between God and Adam and Eve, examining their behavioral and verbal interaction viewed through the optics of the paradoxical injunction.

So, God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27–28, emphasis added)

And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:15–17, emphasis added)

The Hypothesis

The sacred text describes the circumstance under which our first parents are presented with two directives. To obey one, they would have to disobey the other. To ensure that their decision is operational under their own agency—without persuasion toward one choice or the other—God places them under paradoxical injunctions. Since God could not introduce knowledge—the difference between good and evil—he allowed Satan to introduce this binary concept, thereby allowing Adam and Eve to choose for themselves, without any “interference” from the divine.

Fundamental to the paradoxical injunction hypothesis presented here is that Adam and Eve violated a prohibition. Their response to the dilemma is more complex than a simple choice between right and wrong. Prior to partaking of the fruit, they are innocent, not familiar with the binary concept of right or wrong. Consequently, their decision would have been between wrong and wrong or right and right. Not knowing the difference from right and wrong, only responding to conflicting messages, they find themselves in a conflicted situation. Neither of their choices is right or wrong. Yet, in their minds, each choice is associated with a transgression of the directives.9

The biblical text provides no information about God’s non-verbal message in connection with the injunction to procreate. Eliminating the possibility of incongruent communication on God’s part, the directive to procreate is a clear message given to Adam and Eve by God—a commandment to be obeyed.

The subsequent message directs them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and adds that if they do eat, they will “surely die.” It is a commandment with a grave consequence if ignored. The text is silent on whether Adam and Eve were schooled by God (explicitly or implicitly, verbally or non-verbally) in the knowledge of the implications of dying or the meaning of death. Rejecting the partaking of the fruit places Adam and Eve under a paradoxical injunction: multiply, but don’t eat. Operationally speaking, God places them in a binary environment of choosing between two options but stays clear of asserting explicit or implicit influence for the decision making. That is the unique feature of a paradoxical directive. Given that they acted with knowledge of the consequences of the Fall, it is reasonable to assume that Adam would have partaken of the fruit and thus fulfilled the first directive to procreate. Yet, he rejected Lucifer’s offer to partake.

If the great plan of happiness is contingent on the Fall (Alma 42:8), why not simply ask them to partake of the fruit? Why place them under a paradoxical injunction? There are two possible considerations. First, after the second directive (not to eat), God could not direct them to transgress a law. Why? It would be contrary to the nature of God to provide a law and subsequently ask that it be broken. Second, directing them to eat without referring to the consequence of dying, independent decision making on the part of Adam and Eve would have been impossible. Why? God would have given them a directive, thereby influencing them in a given direction.

Except for the initial interaction between God and our first parents, all holy writ articulates the benefits of making a choice in one direction—the good in comparison to the bad. However, the communication between deity and our first parents is more complex.

The paradoxical injunction is a pragmatic communication tool whereby a message is devoid of any explicit or implicit intent to influence a person in a given direction. It bypasses the command aspect present in all other forms of communication. In the absence of such influencing property, God’s implied message is simple: “Make a decision!” It is a prompt to act, shy of providing a rationale in favor of one or the other direction.

Eventually, sorting through all the information presented to them in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve arrive at a decision. That decision is independent of God’s persuasion. He wants to be certain that it is their decision alone. Hence, he employs the paradoxical injunction. Joseph Smith reminds us that “by providing contraries, truth is manifest.”10 In this case, by providing contraries, an influence-free decision is manifest.

Jared Balmer completed a MEd in Educational Psychology and a PhD in Psychotherapy, both from Brigham Young University. As an adjunct faculty member, he taught at BYU, St. Louis University, and the University of Missouri at St. Louis (UMSL). He is the co-owner/founder or CEO of several psychiatric hospitals and residential treatment programs. Jared has published a number of professional books and articles and lectured to professional and lay audiences throughout the U.S. He is currently serving as an area mental health advisor for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

1. 1 . Charles W. Morris, “Foundations of the Theory of Signs,” in International Encyclopedia of Unified Science 1, no. 2, ed. Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, and Charles W. Morris (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938): 77–137.

2. 2 . Julian Hochberg, “Review of Birdwhistell’s Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication,” The American Journal of Psychology (1972): 441–55, researchgate.net/profile/Adam-Kendon/publication/308054625_Review
_of_birdwhistell’s_’kinesics_and_context’/links/5a990603aca27214056d9
d3d/Review-of-birdwhistells-kinesics-and-context.pdf.

3. 3 . Paul Watzlawick and Don D. Jackson, “On Human Communication,” Journal of Systemic Therapies 29, no. 2 (2010): 53–68, guilfordjournals.com/doi/10.1521
/jsyt.2010.29.2.53.

4. 4 . Jay Haley, Strategy of Psychotherapy (New York: Grune & Stratton, 1963), 6–7.

5. 5 . Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin-Bavelas, and Donald Jackson, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes (New York: W. W. Norton, 1967), 32–33.

6. 6 . Christopher Cowie, “What are Paradoxes?,” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 9, no 1 (2023): 154–71, durham-repository.worktribe.com
/output/1208267/what-are-paradoxes.

7. 7 . Watzlawick, Beavin-Bavelas, and Jackson, Pragmatics, 180–81.

8. 8 . Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Russell’s Paradox,” plato.stanford
.edu/archives/win2013/entries/russell-paradox/.

9. 9 . Terryl Givens and Fiona Givens, The God Who Weeps (Salt Lake City: Ensign Peak, 2012), 57.

10. 10 . Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:428.