Tommy

We read that:

• God made Adam in His image out of dust (Gen 1:27 and 2:7). This is presumably a different substance from that of God and we are not yet told if Adam is immortal.
• God grew both the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in a garden (Gen 2:9). There is no suggestion that the garden was necessarily perfect or paradise.
• God told Adam that "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" (Gen 2:16-17). Thus, Adam was free to eat of the Tree of Life. "Thou shalt surely die" could refer either to an already mortal Adam dying or, less literally, Adam being demoted from immortal to mortal.
• God cursed Adam and Eve for eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:16-19). It is not stated that this curse applies to subsequent generations.
• God sent Adam from the garden only after fearing "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (Gen 3:22). This would only be a concern should Adam and Eve be already mortal within the garden. Also, the concern only arose after Adam had knowledge of good and evil - was this plus immortality a special combination?

There seem to be two parts to the "fall narrative". Adam and Eve's disobedience leading to their being cursed with specifically prescribed suffering and God ejecting them from the garden out of fear that they will eat from the Tree of Life (hitherto permitted), stop being mortal and potentially become God-like.

Extracting original sin as the source of death and suffering out of that requires the following non-scriptural presumptions:

1. The garden was perfect/paradise.
2. The serpent was the Devil.
3. Adam and Eve were immortal prior to their disobediance and their mortality prior to their exit was due to their disobedience.
4. "For in the day...tho shalt surely die" refers to a metaphorical soul death or loss of previous immortal status.
5. The curse on Adam and Eve applies to all further generations and the specific sufferings listed are symbolic of all suffering.
6. God's concern "lest [Adam] put forth his hand" happened the same day as Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
7. Adam and Eve having eaten from the tree of knowlede of good and evil somehow changed the status of the tree of life.
8. Their disobedience was a more important cause for their exit from Eden than God's concerns.

It seems to me that this stretches the narrative beyond what is actually written. Also, it focuses on part 1 (the disobedience and curse) and ignores part 2 (God not wanting humans to be the equal of Himself or "Cherubims" (Gen 3:24)). Part 2 seems to be parallel the Tower of Babel story giving this idea credance.

A plain word interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 would seem to be that the disobedience in the garden is merely the origin of why we are different from other animals and why God doesn't choose everything to be perfect rather than inherited corruption. Adam and Eve's exit from Eden due to the tree of life seems to derive more from God's concern that they become his equal rather than further punishment for the disobedience.

Doesn't the plain word interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 seem to favour the Jewish rather than Christian outlook?

stephan huller

In one sense that is true but you also have to see that God may have set up the commandment in order to prevent the process of enlightenment. It is interesting to note that the Greek Orthodox tradition differs from the Roman Catholic Church in arguing that the original state of Adam and Eve wasn't perfect. This is a most sensible explanation. As such, it can be argued that the process of improvement isn't necessarily condemned by God as perhaps encouraged by the expulsion. In Hebrew the word for snake has the same value as the messiah. The messiah is often identified as one who enlightens. Also the Hebrew in 3:22 nihyeh ke'ahad mimmennu means literally 'we shall be like one of us.' In certain rabbinic interpretations the past tense is used to explain the passage "see man had been like one of us."

sotto voce

The 'fall' story is, according to Genesis, the story of all of us, individually. We each have a private, personal choice of good and evil, and, sooner or later, we choose to do evil. Nobody, present or past, makes us do it. If this choice was inevitable, it would not be evil, it would not be sinful. The act of deliberately choosing what our consciences tell us we should not do is a sort of death, an experience that cannot be ignored. According to Genesis, and the rest of the Bible, it remains in the consciousness even after the death of the body. One might well say, in the light of today's knowledge, that guilt is a product of evolution— inevitable, ineluctable. The Bible elsewhere describes us as gods, and this act of choosing must be what is referred to: the sovereign decision to choose between good, and evil. In later biblical terms, this divinity consists in the choice to eternal existence, which is inherently glorious, or to self-destruction, which, in those same terms, never includes annihilation; consciousness of the soul is inextinguishable. So, if the Bible be true, this is the most important of all ideas, beside which the affairs and commotion of this world pale into insignificance.

In the Genesis allegory, the original Edenic state signifies our original innocence, that does not, cannot condemn us, and therefore does not, cannot condemn us before God. But after we have sinned, we become like God in that we know the difference between good and evil from personal experience, and we know the horror of sin, even if we are reluctant to admit it. Now God knows the horror of sin, and has not sinned. But because we know that horror, and because we have sinned, we are therefore excluded from the presence of God by our own self-condemnation, if not his. God does not exclude sinners because of jealousy, but because the guilty cannot have fellowship with the perfect. It is because God cannot relate to us as moral equals that there can be no fellowship with him. 'The tree of life' is not biological life, but life after death, or 'eternal life', and this 'tree' is unavailable— except by the action of a Messiah, whose future presence is foretold, as human offspring. "He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel" may or may not be taken as fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus, known as Christ or Messiah who desired fellowship with mankind. The claim is that, by this means, conscience is cleared, perfection is attained, and there is a return to an Edenic state of loving companionship with God, as 'equals'.

Whatever the truth of that claim, while this pericope expresses the despair of the human condition (as perceived), it simultaneously provides the hope of remedy. One might say that the rest of the Bible is enlargement on it.

Tommy

But we read that God's motive was to prevent Adam becoming immortal rather than any concern about their improvement. Your interpretation makes as many assumptions as the othodox Xian view.

So both the serpent and God were telling the truth? - the serpent as Adam and Eve did come to know good from evil and God becuase the disobediance triggered a spiritual death? The serpent's depiction as cunning or subtle and God's subsequent curse seem to render this implausible.

Tommy

An elaborate and symbolic interpretation - how do you get to that from the text?

sotto voce

This is not the way to get attention.

Toto

sotto voce - posting cryptic one line answers to a question is the way to get attention from the moderators.

What is your source? Tradition? Commentary from a trusted source? Personal revelation? Eisegesis? Something else?

sotto voce

The source is the Bible.

stephan huller

tommy

i am not developing a comprehensive interpretation of the material. just random notes in no particular order of importance. here's another. the snake on the cross is an important symbol taken from the book of numbers by way of ephesians chapter 2 (enmity). if i was a priest i'd say "think about it"

sotto voce

This symbolises the complete acceptance of blame for all sins by Jesus; so he became 'Satan', and thereby achieved atonement. The Numbers incident is analogy of justification; that by having faith that Jesus 'became sin' on one's behalf, one's sins are forgiven, and one is justified by that faith.

The enmity in Genesis is that between Satan (as snake) and the woman, and in particular, her offspring, Jesus, whose heel was to be bitten by the snake. (Note that the snake attacked from low down, and from behind; by extension, in a cowardly way.) The enmity in Ephesians is that between God and mankind, that atonement dissolved.

A priest offers sacrifices because, for him, there is no atonement.

'God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.' Eph 2:6 NIV

A priest behaves as though the head of the serpent has not been crushed, because he and his followers perpetually make sacrifices in order to be 'seated' with Christ. A priest therefore finds Ephesians 2 anathema. If his followers were 'seated' he would have no role!