Bob Hill said:
I believe that God created Adam and Eve free. However, they did not know anything about evil. When Satan tempted them, they disobeyed God and sinned by disobeying Him. All of us human beings inherited their new state. We all, ourselves, have sinned on our own. Christ died for all of our sin, but we must trust in Him to cleanse us from our sin for our salvation.
Ok, I have a question now. If Adam and Eve were free, then I have to ask what is your definition of freedom? Because I thought we had reached a concess on the fact that you are defining freedom as the ability to choose between given options. In other words, before us are set good and evil, and we are allowed to choose one or the other without any forces influencing our decision. Now the last time I checked, if one doesn't know what evil is one cannot be allowed to choose evil, for what is not set before us is not an option.
Now in the garden it is quite clear that not only is the turning from God left out as an option, but it is also barred off. And the consequences of disobedience to this mandate of God is death (i.e. God will no longer sustain our life if we disobey). The consequence of disobedience is distortion and degredation and destruction. When we don't find our life in God, we have no life at all.
I'm going to give my reading of this Genesis passage, and any who might be interested can choose to read it. If not, no big deal.
Satan is never mentioned once in this narrative of Genesis 3. Satan is not even mentioned once throughout the narrative of Genesis. No, in the garden the temptor is the serpent, who is one of the creatures that God created (and as a creation of God is not evil in itself, but is in fact on of whom God had declared "this is very good"). So we have a setting in Genesis that is before any influence of distortion has entered the Creation. Now we as "good" Christians will take the passage in Revelation, which equates Satan to the "serpent of old," and start there before we start in Genesis (kind of ironic to me, seeing how Genesis means beginning, and Revelation is quite obviously at the end; it is even more ironic when we discover that early manuscripts of Revelation were written on the back of Genesis, which suggests that one must read Genesis before one can rightly read Revelation). But more than that, we will pick up a bunch of other theology that has no strong foundation in the scriptures. We will talk about how before the Creation God made the angels, and how the angels had a dissenter among them, and how this dissenter (Lucifer) caused a bunch of his fellow angels to fall from Heaven. And we will assume that all of this can be placed before the Creation story, and yet not a shred of what we say can be shown in the scriptures. Oh sure, we take bits a pieces and string them together in our own chronological order, but the scriptures themselves have not done this. So when I read Genesis, since it doesn't assume that Satan is present, I won't do it either (and I think this is much exegetically sound). If we want talk about Satan, we need to do it after we have read the passage for what it actually addresses. So in this story of Genesis we have a serpent.
Now this is not just any serpent. The word in Hebrew is quite nuanced, and in fact is a play on the word for naked. You see, at the end of the second chapter you have this phrase, "And they were naked, but they were not ashamed." So the natural state of humanity is nakedness in the garden, and to be naked without shame. In essence nakedness is full disclosure. You can't hide anything while you are naked. And if you are naked without shame, there is nothing to hide.
But the very next verse (which we disconnect from the preceeding one through a chapter break in our English translations) we have this statement, "Now the serpent was the craftiest of all the creatures God had made...." Of course we assume that the craftiness is a bad quality, an evil trate in this creature (for we as good western readers are looking for the antagonist). But in the Hebrew there is no such connotation to the word. Craftiness is also rendered clever or ingenious even wise. It is a trait of humanity as well, and is not in and of itself an evil quality.
Now I love when we read the next part of the narrative, because we as good evangelical Christians have been taught what questions to ask and have had all really good questions purged from our mind, but the first honest question that comes to my mind when I read what follows is this: The serpent can really talk? How is it that the serpent could talk? And if the serpent could talk then why is it that the serpents we encounter today do not talk? And if serpents didn't normally talk in this time, why does the woman respond to this serpent as if it were only natural? She doesn't seem startled at all. You go through the rest of Genesis and you never encounter another talking animal. It is not until much later in the scriptures that we once again encounter one (which is given power to speak by God, a donkey who speaks some sense into his master and really startles his master) and after this later example there are no more to be found. But we don't ask why the serpent can talk in this story when I think it ought to seem a bit strange to us. We pretend we are being all reverent about our scriptures, giving them due respect, and yet we encounter this very unique dialogue and treat it like all others. This bothers me, because the fact that a creature of God other than human beings is talking in this narrative makes it a "larger than life" kind of story, a narrative that is not just held in the past but that encompasses our life even today. We just treat it like any other part of the scriptures, and this is sad because it is much more.
Now, when the serpent asks the question, we automatically assume that it is temptation he is offering to the woman, for we have this insidious notion that the serpent is evil from the beginning. Once again I note the fact that the serpent is not evil from the beginning, because the serpent is also a creature of God, a member of the Creation that God declared to be "very good." So, if we leave our assumptions behind, we can listen to the question as the woman would have heard it. "Did God truthfully say: 'you shall not eat of any tree in the garden?'" She answers, very matter-of-factly: "We can eat of the other trees, but of the tree in the midst of the garden God said: 'You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die.'"
So what took place? Is the question itself a temptation? Is it wrong for the serpent to ask this question of the woman? In the narrative it would not appear that the woman and the serpent are even near the tree at this point. She doesn't say, "This tree," or even, "That tree over there." So all we have here is the question about what God has said, and then the very clear answer from the woman. And she answers in good Jewish fashion, not only does she state the commandment, but also she puts a barrier around it. It is like when Paul not only tells the churches to abstain from temptations, but to also flee from them. If this is where the narrative stopped, nothing evil would have taken place.
Yet, fortunately for us, the story continues (otherwise it isn't much of a "larger-than-life" tale). At this point the serpent demonstrates his craftiness, his practical advice to the woman: "You are not going to die, but God knows that as soon as you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like divine beings who know (determine or set) good and bad." Even here the serpent has not sinned. He is a "wise" and "crafty" serpent who is putting in his two cents on the matter. The serpent doesn't even appear in the rest of her decision (he is not towering over her with a wicked grin waiting her demise). He has given his advice and leaves it at that. And we might expect the woman to repeat to herself the first answer she gave, but instead she begins to reason for herself (to engage in little bit of a craftiness of her own).
Now a question that ought to come to our minds at this point is one of two questions: first, where is God in all of this? Why has God not stepped in? Secondly, where is God in all of this? Why has the woman not sought him out?
You see, the sin of the woman was not to hear the serpent, or even to entertain his wisdom. Her sin is that she kept this from the God who walks among the humans in the garden and has cared for them throughout, and has demonstrated no malevolance towards them. Rather than disclosing her questions (raised by the serpent) to God, she has decided to be "crafty" and make the decision herself. She has taken her "nakedness" and has created a reason to be ashamed in it.
Her reasoning for eating the fruit was simple: the tree had lucious fruit, and fruit that looked good enough to be eaten (I suppose she is wondering why it would be prohibited if God had made it to be so desirable). Then the
advise of the serpent (not the actual serpent) comes back to her, and she decides to eat. But what is even more ironic is that the man is dumb (silent) in all of this and just eats. Not a word from his mouth, like a lamb to the slaughter, he just does it. And what happens when they eat of the tree? They in their nakedness (in their questioning of God) ate of the tree (which God had prohibited them from) and they now have a reason to be ashamed (a reason to hide their nakedness both from God and from one another). The theme throughout this narrative is not the fall, but is rather why are we ashamed when we are naked (naked being both literal and symbolic). The answer is to our shame is that we act before we go to God, and without consideration for one another.
You see, the fall in Genesis does not culminate here in Genesis 3. No, the fall reaches its peak in the stories of the flood and of the tower of babel. And the fall is a slow progression of distortedness in humanity that quickly escalates into a blurring of the lines between humanity and the divine.
Back to Genesis 3. For those of us who were asking where God was in this story, we get an answer at this point. The humans have hidden in their shame and the scene changes as God enters into the garden. And the humans hide from their Creator, because they can no longer be fully disclosed without shame. Yet the Maker of Heaven and Earth is not content to let them disappear into the shadows. Instead he calls out the most profound question that we will find in all the narrative of the scriptures, because it reveals to us so clearly the nature of our God. The God who already knows the answer to his question (as he will demonstrate later in the dialogue) still asks the question, and it becomes an invitation to us to be disclosed. This God from whom we hide our faces in shame because of our sin is the one who calls to us to be revealed before him as we are. God asks, "Where are you?"
And what God desires in the asking of this question is simple; he desires for us to be the creatures he has made us to be. We are not made to hide in the shadows of darkness, but we are made for fellowship in the light of our God, in the care he offers us in love, in the joy of sharing in his glory. We are creatures made in God's likeness so that the Creation might through us be brought into the rest that is God's (true worship).
And what is the response of humanity as God extends to us this wonderful grace? We remain in the shadows, hiding behind our poorly-made clothes (which don't hide much). We stay in darkness. "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid." And the poor covering with which we have clothed ourselves gets revealed for how poor a covering it is, because God's answer is, "Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?" God knows the answer, and yet he is asking for a simple reply from the man. "Did you do it? Yes or no?" He doesn't threaten condemnation at this point, for he could have easily exacted punishment for the crime (God already knew the answer to this question). Yet, there is a certain grace in the way in which God judges the man. It is not the harsh judgment of a judge simply seeking out the one responsible for a crime and exacting payment for it. It is the loving inquiry of a judge who has set what is right and wrong, and who knows how to deal with those who fall on either side.
But what is the response of the man? What had he decided concerning God's position over him? Did he perceive a God of grace, a God whose authority over the man had been established by his care for the man in the garden, or did he perceive a coersive and power-hungry God, who had hidden the reality of things from his Creation and had withheld a good thing from humanity? Clearly it was the latter and not the former which had now shaped the man's perception of God. And as a result the man answers the question assuming that God is seeking retribution. He knows that God already is aware of the answer to his own question, so he skips the answer and jumps right to the blame-game. You can almost here the man yelling out, "It's not my fault, God, don't kill me yet. I can explain everything. You see, this
woman that
You gave me to be my side mate, well, um, I think you were a bit wrong in your assessment of her, because she gave that fruit to me and I ate it. You can't blame me for this; it's her fault, and more importantly I think
You have some explaining to do as to why you would give me this temptress. You were out to kill me from the start, weren't you?"
The grace was given, yet the man refused to see the God of grace and exchanged that grace for punishment, for God will give the man exactly what he was expecting God to deal out to him (only the punishment will still be grace, for God will not kill the man for his insubbordination).
But God doesn't stop with the man. He extends the grace also to the woman, saying, "What is this you have done?! Is the man true in what he says?" And the woman is much more truthful with her God, yet she remains hidden behind her poorly made clothes, "It really wasn't my fault, Lord. This serpent (which is a member of your Creation) he duped me. He claimed to be wise, and I listened to him. I ate the fruit." And though the truth of the woman was still veiled by her blame of the serpent (with the implication that God was ultimately responsible) this will not result in her death, for God will show her mercy still.
And now the God who has been the judge will pronounce his judgment! He will not hear the side of the serpent, for at this point it becomes clear that the serpent was twisted in his wisdom. The cleverness of the serpent was not evil in and of itself, but when the serpent claimed to be wise and turned his wisdom against his Maker, he turned himself into the enemy of God and of humanity as well. His wisdom had almost led to the destruction of humanity, and had begun to unravel the Creation itself, so God will not tolerate his insubbordination. The serpent didn't get duped!
God says to the serpent, "Because you did this, more cursed shall you be than all cattle and all the wild beasts: On your belly shall you crawl and dirt shall you eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; they shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel." First we might note that there is only one action that God actually performs in this curse, "I will put enmity...." God does not pronounce this curse as an authoritative God who is now showing his evil side, a side that must coerse and control the Creation. Instead, the curses are passive. "Cursed shall you be...." God does not say, "I will curse you." The actions of the serpent are enough to condemn him, and he brings the curse upon himself. The only action of God will be to divide this serpent from the woman's anscestors, so that, I would imagine, humanity might be saved from total destruction.
Next God moves to the woman. "I will make most severe your pangs in childbearing; in pain shall you bear children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Once again, God is active very little in this curse. He does not say, "You will now have pain," but rather he indicates an increase of the pain to unbearable limits, "You will feel it." But as far as the woman in her "urge" for her husband and the rule of the husband over her, it is only a result of her actions. She was mastered by the serpent, by which both she and her husband were duped, and now her husband will master her. But one thing we might think about, if she was duped by the serpent (the crafty one), how much worse is it that the man was duped by the dupee?
Finally, we reach the curse of the man. And the Lord God has the most stern words for him, for he was the one initially given the command, and God reminds him of it, "Because you did as your wife said and ate of the tree about which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' Cursed be the ground because of you; by toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life: thorns and thistles shall it sprout for you. But your food shall be the grasses of the field; by the sweat of your brow shall you get bread to eat, until you return to the ground -- for from it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return." Once again God is very passive in this curse. The man's actions are enough to condemn him, to bring condemnation on himself. But the Lord removes the blessing of the land that had initially been given, for now it would no longer produce food for the man easily. No longer would the man enjoy God's rest, but he would labor and toil for all his life. And scarcity would be the descriptor of life on the earth for humanity. And what is more, the image of God is removed from the man, for the man becomes very much an "other than God." No longer would the man share in the life of God, but now his creaturliness would be what defines him. "You will no longer be like me," despite what the serpent may have told you to the contrary, "for you will have days that are numbered, now, and you will truly be creatures of the mud, of the dust (
'adam from the
'adama). "You are dust, and to the dust you will return."
And then we have the most comical note in this passage. "The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living." Why is this funny (though in a satirical sense, not in a joyful sense)? When did the man last name something? It was when he was called upon by God to name the animals. But the kicker is that the animals which were named were also the ones not fit for the man to be his "side-mate." So now the man has set himself above the woman, and by naming her has made her an other to him. The beauty of their first meeting in the garden (when God had drawn the woman out of the man) is now marred, for no longer can it be said that the two are one.
God finishes the scene, first by making proper clothing to cover their shame. If they want to hide their shame from God, he gives them the means (making proper clothing to cover their shame, though nothing now can remove the shame). But I want to stress that this has nothing to do with the grace of God, for God desires full disclosure. But since the man and woman had rejected God's grace, they received mercy (something undeserved, still, but less than grace).
And finally we have God declaring what has truly taken place. The man and the woman, though they truly were not like God as God had intended them to be, as God had called them to be (in his image), they were now like gods in quite another way; they now set what was right. In fact, they became the very gods that they suspected their true God to be. Before God had been the only one determining what was good and right and what was bad. Now humanity would take this upon themselves, to be their own judge, to arbitrate in their own way. And now that they were their own gods, the gift that God had once opened to them would be revoked, for they would no longer be sustained by God to be their own gods. They could make their own judgments now (without seeking God's arbitration), but now they would not last. Their jugments would only hold for a time, and then would be gone. Their life would not continue forever. This may seem to be a move on God's part as if God were threatened by the humans (though the previous judgment ought to reveal to us that God fears no one). So God removes the tree of life from the grasp of the humans, because he will no longer sustain their life forever.
Since I read Genesis 3 in this way, Bob, I find your comments to be very lacking. They stem from a poor exegesis of the scriptural text.
Peace,
Michael
