Surely this statement needs qualifying. We now believe that God’s “character” is exemplified by Empathy, Compassion, and Abounding Love. Surely it is not sinful to want to possess these qualities, even if only to the small extent made possible by our evolved nature. When Genesis was written, the Jews had not totally discarded the idea that theirs was a jealous God whose power could be contested.
Al Leo
This is the overriding question - we need to understand the “why” of all creation by God, then we may be in a position to ask specific questions. A great deal of theological ink has been used to try and comprehend the “why” of Creation. Early theological discussion accepted that angels (spirits) had chosen to sin against God by desiring to be god themselves.
I think that a great deal of difficulty arises when questions are asked within a context of materialism (often under the guise of biological evolution) - however the entire Bible is based on the premise that God is Creator, and that imo is the starting point for enquiry.
To all scientists, let it be translated not as the tree of knowledge, but as the tree of moral realisation.
The fall is clearly the central philosophical part of the bible about the conflict of being human and to get the understanding of the concept of sin, e.g to claim moral judgement based on ones self. To describe metaphysical concepts in pictures of physical concepts has been one of the great achievements of the author of Genesis in creating a poetic picture of the mind using the tree as the symbol for the concept of emergence including the fruits coming from trees.
Considering that the teachings are meant for children and grownups and the illiterate and the literate alike, when debating it at a intellectual / metaphysical level it is helpful to rise above the tree.
As pointed out elswhere, the fall is a poetic description of puberty, e.g. the realisation of the self that is the requirement for making your own value judgement. The disobedience, e.g. the rejection of authority over the self when it comes to moral jugements is the central teaching here, as the core function that makes up the “self”, the ability to make your independent value judgement from consciousness. In the absence of onmiscience it brings you in conflict with the absolute value judgement as we form our own and unless we realise that discrepancy and thus hand back our self we are living in sin. It is not about disobedience but about authority in the judgement which is not about having children or no or refusing to go somewhere but about moral judgement.
If you are a parent you will experience / have experienced that paternal struggle of your children becoming their own self, how after years of washing them and seeing them naked they suddenly think their bit’s fall off if you see them naked under the shower and want that fig leaf. You will also (hopefully) experience their love after all that struggle of puberty, when they are independent and then realise how different it feels to be accepted by that now independent child “willingly” which only can happen if they are free.
However by separating our self from Gods eternal self makes us a mortal self by definition. Thus our death is not a punishment of God for our disobedience but a logical consequence of our action. God knows the problem and showed us the way back and how to regain imortality in Jesus, to see how we can become one again with God by accepting his authority over us, in suffering and death. Jesus died for us not as a trade deal to make God happy but to demonstrate to us that if we put ourselves back under Gods authority that we can endure all suffering and become immortal by learning to live again in anyone’s heart and give our self back. It is something we learn when growing up by giving our self away to those we love, to our spouse and then to our children to our parents and eventually to our neighbours. And we can only give away our self, e.g. love, if we possess it. Pity on those who think love is about the gratification of the self, to expect to get ones wishes fulfilled as a sign of someone elses love and think it their right to expect to have your wishes fulfilled. But then that is how we teach love in the material world by giving others what they wish for and not what they need.
The big sin of Adam was actually not the one of taking authority over the self, as that in the end is a learning process we have to go through in order to grow up and return to God, but the denial of the being one and not taking responsibility for it, be humble and repentant. Sarcastically said, Men still do what Adam did in the beginning in Genesis 3:12, they blame the woman 
and therefore implicitly God for giving her to him - or for giving us the wrong kind of genes. Funny that, when feminists want to be equal to men, I always wonder why they want to sink that low, and why they do not see that they already are there by fulfilling their own prophecy. They already have become like the ones they aspire to be - by blaming the others
Now moderators, please see the irony in my comments and don’t think I believe all men and women to be like that - have a smile yourself and have a nice day everyone and enjoy the season -ing. Sure God smiles at us as well, as we do when we love your children however silly they can be. It is easier for him, as unlike us he has the benefit of being able to offer us unlimited comfort when he takes us in his arms, a peace that is beyond our comprehension, but not beyond our imagination as we can experience when we take someone in our arms for giving comfort.
Big hug to everyone and thanks for giving us the gift of the hug
2 Likes
I can not believe the timing of this question. I have been struggling with this concept for a while, and is something that from time to to I go back to and try to research, but inevitably give up because I am unable to find the answers that appease my questioning. I love the answer that the fruit is for other beings and perhaps for us at a later time. Part of my question has always been, God says, “don’t eat from that tree you’ll die.” But death did not exist within the world. Death would have no meaning to Adam and Even. If I told my son he was free to eat anything in the kitchen except the cookies because he’ll surly get a disease if he eats only the cookies, then (he’s 5 of course he eats only cookies) he eats only cookies and I let him, I then blame her for having diabetes. Who’s truly to blame for my sons preventable diabetes?
I have only been able to think of a few reasons why sin was needed to be “learned” not imputed into a creation from beginning. I believe creating a being with the ability to sin, would force Gods hand to create sin, which would be against the nature of God. Not against his ability to do so, just against his nature, and against who He is.
Or, evolution played a role and we were sinful, natural ape like creatures first, learned of God, and turned back to nature and away from Him.
But I think the tree, from a biblical perspective, was needed because:
- Creating a being with true understanding of good and evil would be against Gods nature.
- True free will involves knowledge of both good and evil without that knowledge is not free will, its random choice.
- God gave to us one of the greatest gifts, that being the ability to choose between Him and Darkness. And, one of the most important things we can do as believers is to give it back. God with this amazing grace takes it from us and we say, “Take this cup from me Father it is far too much for me to bare.”
1 Like
When the Roman Catholic hierarchy was routinely confronted by pagan beliefs, pagan sites, pagan Gods, they deliberately intended to “swallow up” the paganism by re-writing a legend or myth, by building a church on top of an old temple, by changing a pagan god into a local hero.
Would it make sense to think that the Roman Catholic church had some special intention behind the effort? Perhaps some of the time. But sometimes the purpose is just to make sure that the next generation doesn’t fall into pagan and idolatrous ways!
The Tree of Knowledge is a reasonable translation of the Sumerian god Ningishzida; in fact, literally, the deity was called the “Tree of Good”! The Sumerians were quite able to visualize a deity as a serpent and as a tree Simultaneously!
For the Jewish priests to “swallow up” an old God from the Old world view, requires no special explanation. And it would make more sense to look at what the Jewish writers thought of the story of Eden as the first filter for understanding the Eden story.
Good day to all!
I suggest we need to distinguish between what is the implicit difference between the idea of Adam and Eve being an archetype and being individuals (which I see as being necessary)
(I am sure my observations have already been posted about a million times here, so forgive me if this is out of place.)
My Question to the discussion Adam & Eve and the Tree is Morality before Mortality?
We have been discussing archetyping at length which is easily debated concerning morality. However, mortality is more appropriate to an individual than an archetype.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is illustrated in Adam and Eve’s response to having eaten. They cover themselves because the feel naked.
What do we feel if we are caught naked? Embarrassed! Yet we often fail to see the obvious in the word itself em(my)-bare-ass! This is humorous at least, but the thought I get to is actually buried under that first laugh.
The Knowledge of Being Mortal
Having eaten, they suddenly understand that they are going to die! They now have a fear of death, which is perhaps not fully cognizant to the other living human outside the garden.
Their first action is to cover themselves. They feel threatened. The first response of anybody who feels threatened is to cower and cover!
Two actual humans are introduced to another being who is (presumably teaching them as he walks with them in the garden). The time was “ripe” for Elohim to introduce his purpose in creating the world in the first place. So he gives them a question via the tree. I am presuming at this point Elohim has awakening in them something not experienced previously. So when that knowledge is suddenly introduced, they cower and cover in both embarrassment and fear of death.
Yes, this could be archetypal, but I defer to scholarship on the “particularity” required for some points of theology in the Genesis account.
Notice in Revelation that the final thing thrown into the Lake of Fire is Death. The Scriptures are carefully crafted and reading Genesis and Revelation together (reading the last chapter of Rev in conjunction with the first chapter of Genesis) shows the recovery of Eden that was lost. If Death is the Final thing into the Lake of Fire (after Satan) then we should read Genesis looking for Mortality as the thing to be addressed before Morality (Evil). Obviously it is “Death” by the very proscription for the tree.
The Tree of Life, then would have enabled them to understand or experience life without mortality in some way we cannot at this juncture understand.
So the discussion of morality is fine for an archetype, but the discussion of mortality, both implicit in the Tree of Good and Evil, requires individuals.
I am new here and enjoying the discussion.
Ray
1 Like
Do you agree that, based on God’s own words, if He had left Adam & Eve in the Garden - - even after having eaten from the forbidden tree - - that they would have been able to maintain their immortality by eating from the Tree of Life?
I can’t get some Christians to even agree to this idea … so I need to know where you stand with it.
Yes. Because Elohim never never goes back on a promise.
IE Abraham being the Father of many nations. Even after he sins in begetting Ishmael, Ishmael turns out to be “a son of promise”, but not “the” son of Promise. And the result is twelve chosen grandsons begetting tribes versus twelve great -grandsons begetting tribes. Each becomes a nation that is at war with its cousin’s nation and a religion at war with his cousin’s religion. The current state of the mid-east.
Another example is the promise of Abraham being incredibly capable of begetting wealth.That ability is part of how he made a nation and his offspring have largely inherited that capability. Yet when fallen away from YHWH’s promise, they are incredibly hard-headed and selfish with their money and capabilities. I know personally having spent some time in close relationship with some Orthodox Jews and a close friend with one who was a Rabbi and left his calling and faith–and better for it! (an almost Christian at this time. I’m working on him!).
The threat of even more disaster was real if they ate of both trees. By removing it he was protecting them anbd allowing an alternative to everlasting enslavement to evil with no recourse.
Example: The Tower of Babel was not about punishing the nations. It was about protecting the Children of Seth from the evils of the other nations. How do I know this? If you replace “The Lord” with “YHWH” and read the Bible multiple times, it becomes clear that the Name YHWH is always used in conjunction with a relationship with his people *as promised in Exodus 3:14. Any time Elohim is used (sans YHWH with it) it is in judgement or dealing with the world.
For example: The account of Noah. The name YHWH stops before the actual flood account, and is not used until after. A references to deity god is Elohim until after the Noahic covenant. Then YHWH is used again. And that is only one example throughout the entire OT.
So, the answer is yes.
I don’t really understand how your discussion supports your answer to my question.
I would have answered that God set up the Angel and the flaming sword because Adam and Eve could still benefit from eating of the Tree of Life. … even after the first sin!
[Edit: “first son” was supposed to be “first sin”]
I was explaining why he set up the Angel! I wanted to explain why the obvious was done!
So what you are saying is that the tree was symbolic of our shortfalls as humans in understanding the intentions of the God who created us. Is this not why we argue that the story itself should not be taken literally? The creation story is very rich in symbolism, and some of it is lost if it is restricted and limited to a literal interpretation.
I think you’re on the right track, Brad, and as you probably know, yours is [close to] the prevailing understanding of what kind of knowledge the phrase “knowledge of good and evil” refer. More specifically, the “knowledge” gained by eating of the fruit was carnal knowledge, i.e., sexual awareness and the ability to procreate. In contemporary terms, to eat the fruit analogically represents puberty.
Here’s Nahum Sarna’s discussion of Ibn Ezra’s view of this knowledge:
“Ibn Ezra, followed by many scholars today, understood carnal knowledge to be intended meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and bad since the first human experience after eating the
forbidden fruit is the consciousness of nudity …; moreover, immediately after the expulsion from Eden it is said, “Now the man knew his wife Eve.”
Why were they expelled?
Because immortal beings who reproduced would soon destroy the garden so God had to prevent access to the tree of life, hence their necessary expulsion.
I’ve written extensively about this interpretation and teach it in my Genesis creation class here at the U. of Montana. If you, or any interested participants in this thread, are interested I have an essay here including a survey of the 5 of the other interpretations and why they were rejected.
The story is a beautiful and profoundly deep allegory of the relationship between the human and evil. The surrounding pagan religions believed that evil was largely (but not always) caused by nature (nature gods). This story demythologizes the pagan belief that evil is inherent in nature and posits that evil is soley the result of human choice. Only humans were offered the choice of becoming moral agents.
If you want even more details (including the technical translation), you might want to click over to this commentary for (Genesis 2:16-17)
Cheers,
This view does tie in nicely with the nature of the curse that went with Expulsion:
“Unto the woman he said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband…”
A close look at the sequence of these phrases is certainly tied to the sexual act.
And it even suggests that there would have been much less conception within
the realm of Eden - - perhaps one that would suggests that eventually God would
allow Adam and Eve to age and die … which would require a replacement level of
childbirth - - perhaps 2 new children every several thousand years!
Thanks for the response George. I believe you’re correct to tether sexual reproduction to the expulsion. And, just to carry this thought a bit further, note the following two points:
First, when God confronts Eve He has procreation in mind.
Why procreation and why is God telling Eve about conception and the consequent pain of childbirth? Some context might be helpful. Suppose a circumstance arises in which a husband and wife learn that their child has engaged in sexual intercourse. Would the parents sit the child down and discuss with her the risk of physical trauma inherent in a head-on car crash or some other ghastly fate entirely unrelated to her choice? No, they would talk to her about the risk and consequences of getting pregnant (among other things).
Well, the reason why God brings up procreation (i.e., conception and childbirth) is likely because Adam and Eve engaged in sexual intercourse immediately upon acquiring erotic awareness and Eve may have already become pregnant. Additional context supporting this idea is provided when we remember that before acquiring this knowledge neither were shy about their nakedness in each other’s presence. Afterwards that changes. Once this knowledge is acquired they feel compelled to cover their genitals.
Second, what’s the evidence for sexual intercourse?
As for sexual intercourse, a contextually and grammatically correct reading of Genesis 4:1 strongly suggests that Adam and Eve engaged in sexual intercourse sometime prior to being expelled from the garden. Here’s my translation of the Hebrew,
4a And the man proclaimed his wife’s name Eve, because she was [the] mother of all the living. 4b Now the man had known his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man together with the LORD.” (My emphasis)
The Hebrew verb yada (יָדַע) is grammatically structured as a past perfect verb, i.e., an action that had been completed sometime in the past.
As I mentioned in the post to which you responded, this story uses the consequences of choice (in this case choosing mortal life over immortal life) to claim that sin is completely within the human realm. Unlike the pagan religions surrounding the ancient Hebrews, nature plays no role in sin. “The gods made me do it” justification of the pagans does not work in God’s moral order. The control of sin is entirely within the human, moral realm NOT in nature.
Blessings,
1 Like
And that’s an important theme that runs throughout Gen. 1-11. Good to see you again. Hope your class went well.
Good to see you again. Hope your class went well.
Thanks for remembering, Jay. Yes, the course went very well - certainly beyond my expectations and those of the faculty committee who approved the course. Class was oversubscribed which suggests that there is a real hunger for ‘meaty’ biblical content out here in the hinterlands of Western Montana. The demographics were really fun - we had a Catholic priest, a Messianic Rabbi in the class … and a Hebrew scholar who really kept me on my toes.
If there was one downside, I had hoped to garner a few more scientific types, but all I found were physicians - there’s something about God that physicians seem to latch onto more than other scientifically-based professions. But, most students were lay people many of whom were very knowledgeable.
What I learned was that people really seem to appreciate biblical understanding as it emerges out of controversy. We spent a lot of time talking about the various views of the representation of time in the first creation story and sexual awareness in Genesis 2 and why certain views seemed to win out.
Sorry, for rambling, but I’m in the midst of preparing for this fall’s class and I’m stoked.
Blessings,
M
1 Like
That’s great! An old friend of mine lives in Missoula, but you won’t find him lurking around any Bible classes, unfortunately. Sounds like an interesting group. Teaching is always more fun with a class that is engaged.
Interesting observation. I’d say that is true, just judging by the number of docs who hang out here. They’re forming a cabal …
I agree, as long as the controversy doesn’t turn into all-out war!
I have written a trilogy about this topic called Torn Between Two Worlds, that goes into all the details of WHY the garden was created as it was based on the work of the enlighten Greeks. Socrates is an honorary title which describes the goal of his life: to expose the sophisticates - to expose rhetoric. Socrates, and the enlightened founders of science, saw in The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as the prince of Rhetoric - this is the definition of rhetoric: good and evil. Socrates peeled away rhetoric to discover Wisdom. Wisdom is Life - The Tree of Life. (Remember, the first Christians were Greek decedents of these enlightened people.)
Genesis tells us the Garden was in Paradise, the same place that Jesus tells the criminal next to Him where they meet after they die. (Luke 23:43) This first test of Adam and Eve occurred in Paradise, and ethereal place outside of the material world. It is not until the Fall from Paradise, that God enacts His second plan of Restoration.
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24)
So, between Genesis 3:24 and Genesis 4:1 God created the Material world. About 13.7 billion years later, Adam and Eve started their second chance. This time incarnated into Human bodies. The bible does not mention the huge time span because it is not important for the story of restoration. All we need to know from the story is that Adam and Eve had a simple test to pass, and failed. So, they were given a second, much harder test to pass, as we all have.
I am not sure how to interpret this. Do you mean that Adam & Eve’s first chance in Paradise preceded theBig Bang?
Al Leo
1 Like
In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word “evil” in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the word, “ponēros”. It comes from a word that means “to toil, to labor.” God intended man to live from The Tree of Life, from His life, which is a life of resting in Him, which is eternal. I believe the trees were both actual trees and mediators at the same time. It is also correct to say God put the tree there to establish free will. But the main objective was a matter of life and death. Only God is good and trying to be good apart from God is evil, laboring in vain. It’s a hard way that leads eventually to death.
Now guess what the sister word for poneros is in the Arabic? It is the word Jihad! It has the same meaning as our Greek bible uses, “poneros.” These words have the same implication -To toil or labor, the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin or to be good apart from being in union with God’s Spirit. An extensive study of the Hebrew word will also give the same meaning. Every religion in the world tries to live off this tree, trying to get right with God by toiling, laboring to be good, trying not to sin.
In other words, working and laboring to be good apart from a union with God is evil according to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When Adam and Eve failed to trust the Truth /Grace of God they failed in the obedience of faith which could only be given by God’s Grace, they died spiritually. They were then left with a human spirit which lost connection to God’s Spirit which is eternal. See Strong’s definition of grace.
Like Adam and Eve, we all have a tendency to live off the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil by trying to be good, and not living of the Tree of Life which is, the life of God, the grace and the faith of Jesus Christ in us the hope of glory. That is what Jesus came for, that we might have life. He is that Tree of Life. The other Tree only brings death.
I hope this clears up the meaning of The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. When you look for Jesus and how it is His desire to work in us, both to will and do of His good pleasure, then there will be no toiling or striving, only resting that is found in Him. Rest is found in His kingdom of “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For if we serve Christ in this way, we will be pleasing to God and even approved by men.” Romans 14:6. He who has Christ has eternal life, he who chooses The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil will perish.