In Genesis 3, God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life in order for them to not live forever. From what I've seen from other online explanations, this seem to avoid them to both physically and spiritually live forever away from God and in the state of sin (as we are today).
However, (and although without physical immortality) separation from God (hell/second death/etc) is also a consequence of rejecting Jesus. Does that mean the (only?) difference between the two situations is the opportunity to choose for the second time (Not to eat vs eat; Jesus vs living in sin)?
Additional:
(1) What does it mean when God said "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil" ? Did he mean it they way the serpent did few verses back?
(2) Is Eve's understanding in Gen 3:2-3 incorrect? If yes, whose fault is it and why does a form of misunderstanding existed in perfect creation? If not, is this poetic language or a deeper understanding of what God said initially?
Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Few questions on Genesis 3...
by jimwalton » Sat Nov 19, 2022 5:20 pm
> In Genesis 3, God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life in order for them to not live forever. From what I've seen from other online explanations, this seem to avoid them to both physically and spiritually live forever away from God and in the state of sin (as we are today).
The loss was not Paradise, but instead it was access to God's presence. Their relationship with God was shattered. Oh, God was still there (He's omnipresent), and He was still involved in their lives (He is a God of mercy and grace), but their relationship was altered. As John Walton writes, "When a family goes through a divorce, and mom & kids have to move from their beautiful home to a cheap 2-bedroom apartment, whatever sense of longing they have for their prior house is insignificant compared to the loss of their home—the family relationship that has been shattered. This is what we mean by separation and the loss of God’s presence—the family is now broken. It’s not just feelings of sadness, but a sense of true loss, regret, and emptiness."
You're right that the idea was they God didn't desire them to live forever in a sinful state, but that was physical life, not spiritual. The fruit on the Tree of Life was not the food of immortality, protecting them from death, but rather it seemed to protect life, allowing them to extend life beyond their natural mortal years.
> However, (and although without physical immortality) separation from God (hell/second death/etc) is also a consequence of rejecting Jesus.
This is the spiritual part that was not part of their expulsion from the Garden. Expulsion from the Garden withdrew God's relational presence from them, and therefore we were all born separated from God (born in sin). Those who die in our sinful state, however, become separated from the presence of God in a different and eternal way (spiritual death; this is the second death, Rev. 20.14-15).
> Does that mean the (only?) difference between the two situations is the opportunity to choose for the second time (Not to eat vs eat; Jesus vs living in sin)?
No, that's not what it means. When Adam and Eve sinned, separation from God (death) came upon all humanity. We have opportunity during this life to rectify that situation, however, by responding to the invitation from God to accept His free gift of salvation and regain our relationship with God. Neglecting to do that, people pass from this life without coming into relationship with God and so become finally and spiritually completely separated from God, which is called hell.
I don't make any connection with any "second time," or "not to eat vs. eat." You'd have to explain more what you mean by this for me to comment further.
> (1) What does it mean when God said "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil" ? Did he mean it they way the serpent did few verses back?
What were they choosing at the tree, then (Gn. 2.17)? Elsewhere the knowledge of good and evil corresponds to the ability to decide. As it stood, while A&E were choosing rights and wrongs, goods and bads, in the middle of the garden was this tree that was vested with spiritual import: would they choose self over God? Would they make the ultimate choice in good and evil—the created world and its values over against the Creator? As archetypes of humanity, while we all have many moral choices to make, the paramount one is whether to follow God or to use self as the referent in rights and wrongs.
If we jump to Gen. 3.22, we find God using the same phrase with much more loaded import. “They have indeed come to know good and evil.” In the ancient Near East, “good and evil” is a legal idiom meaning “to formulate and articulate a judicial decision.” The idea is that of “mature wisdom” that has reached a level of accountability and culpability. The phrase is used other times in the Bible to correspond to the making of moral decisions. In making this particular decision in direct disobedience to the spoken word and will of YHWH, the humans have attained an accountability and culpability, setting themselves up as judges, and declared their autonomy from God. They have become like God in some ways (completely self-determining, autonomous, and "sovereign" over their world), but in other ways they have cut off their chance to achieve these things properly.
> (2) Is Eve's understanding in Gen 3:2-3 incorrect? If yes, whose fault is it and why does a form of misunderstanding existed in perfect creation? If not, is this poetic language or a deeper understanding of what God said initially?
She is correct in v. 2. God did say they could earth freely from the trees in the Garden. She is admitting the right to choose, though she neglects to mention the one tree from which they were forbidden to eat. Then she incorrect adds to God's prohibition ("and [we] must not touch it.
She also weakened God's warning of punishment for disobedience, though that's not clear in the English. She changed the terminology. God promised that death would follow disobedience ("You will be doomed to die."); Eve implied only that death might follow ("or lest you die," theoretically possible). She has not misrepresented God, but she has blurred a very important nuance in what He said.
> If yes, whose fault is it
Eve's. And Adam, who was there (Gn. 3.6), didn't step in. The lunk just stood there not saying a thing the entire time.
> why does a form of misunderstanding existed in perfect creation?
There is no indication that the Garden of Eden was a place of perfection. Instead, it is a place of the presence of God, where He could meet in relationship with Adam and Eve, and where they had daily decisions to make. They were free will agents, capable of thinking and of choice, and we see Eve doing that here. It's not a sin to think and ponder, which is what she is doing. Her mistaken ways of thinking and her choice to act in rebellion against God are couched here as one event.
> If not, is this poetic language or a deeper understanding of what God said initially?
Neither. It's historical narrative and a misconstrual of hat God said originally said.
The loss was not Paradise, but instead it was access to God's presence. Their relationship with God was shattered. Oh, God was still there (He's omnipresent), and He was still involved in their lives (He is a God of mercy and grace), but their relationship was altered. As John Walton writes, "When a family goes through a divorce, and mom & kids have to move from their beautiful home to a cheap 2-bedroom apartment, whatever sense of longing they have for their prior house is insignificant compared to the loss of their home—the family relationship that has been shattered. This is what we mean by separation and the loss of God’s presence—the family is now broken. It’s not just feelings of sadness, but a sense of true loss, regret, and emptiness."
You're right that the idea was they God didn't desire them to live forever in a sinful state, but that was physical life, not spiritual. The fruit on the Tree of Life was not the food of immortality, protecting them from death, but rather it seemed to protect life, allowing them to extend life beyond their natural mortal years.
> However, (and although without physical immortality) separation from God (hell/second death/etc) is also a consequence of rejecting Jesus.
This is the spiritual part that was not part of their expulsion from the Garden. Expulsion from the Garden withdrew God's relational presence from them, and therefore we were all born separated from God (born in sin). Those who die in our sinful state, however, become separated from the presence of God in a different and eternal way (spiritual death; this is the second death, Rev. 20.14-15).
> Does that mean the (only?) difference between the two situations is the opportunity to choose for the second time (Not to eat vs eat; Jesus vs living in sin)?
No, that's not what it means. When Adam and Eve sinned, separation from God (death) came upon all humanity. We have opportunity during this life to rectify that situation, however, by responding to the invitation from God to accept His free gift of salvation and regain our relationship with God. Neglecting to do that, people pass from this life without coming into relationship with God and so become finally and spiritually completely separated from God, which is called hell.
I don't make any connection with any "second time," or "not to eat vs. eat." You'd have to explain more what you mean by this for me to comment further.
> (1) What does it mean when God said "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil" ? Did he mean it they way the serpent did few verses back?
What were they choosing at the tree, then (Gn. 2.17)? Elsewhere the knowledge of good and evil corresponds to the ability to decide. As it stood, while A&E were choosing rights and wrongs, goods and bads, in the middle of the garden was this tree that was vested with spiritual import: would they choose self over God? Would they make the ultimate choice in good and evil—the created world and its values over against the Creator? As archetypes of humanity, while we all have many moral choices to make, the paramount one is whether to follow God or to use self as the referent in rights and wrongs.
If we jump to Gen. 3.22, we find God using the same phrase with much more loaded import. “They have indeed come to know good and evil.” In the ancient Near East, “good and evil” is a legal idiom meaning “to formulate and articulate a judicial decision.” The idea is that of “mature wisdom” that has reached a level of accountability and culpability. The phrase is used other times in the Bible to correspond to the making of moral decisions. In making this particular decision in direct disobedience to the spoken word and will of YHWH, the humans have attained an accountability and culpability, setting themselves up as judges, and declared their autonomy from God. They have become like God in some ways (completely self-determining, autonomous, and "sovereign" over their world), but in other ways they have cut off their chance to achieve these things properly.
> (2) Is Eve's understanding in Gen 3:2-3 incorrect? If yes, whose fault is it and why does a form of misunderstanding existed in perfect creation? If not, is this poetic language or a deeper understanding of what God said initially?
She is correct in v. 2. God did say they could earth freely from the trees in the Garden. She is admitting the right to choose, though she neglects to mention the one tree from which they were forbidden to eat. Then she incorrect adds to God's prohibition ("and [we] must not touch it.
She also weakened God's warning of punishment for disobedience, though that's not clear in the English. She changed the terminology. God promised that death would follow disobedience ("You will be doomed to die."); Eve implied only that death might follow ("or lest you die," theoretically possible). She has not misrepresented God, but she has blurred a very important nuance in what He said.
> If yes, whose fault is it
Eve's. And Adam, who was there (Gn. 3.6), didn't step in. The lunk just stood there not saying a thing the entire time.
> why does a form of misunderstanding existed in perfect creation?
There is no indication that the Garden of Eden was a place of perfection. Instead, it is a place of the presence of God, where He could meet in relationship with Adam and Eve, and where they had daily decisions to make. They were free will agents, capable of thinking and of choice, and we see Eve doing that here. It's not a sin to think and ponder, which is what she is doing. Her mistaken ways of thinking and her choice to act in rebellion against God are couched here as one event.
> If not, is this poetic language or a deeper understanding of what God said initially?
Neither. It's historical narrative and a misconstrual of hat God said originally said.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Sat Nov 19, 2022 5:20 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests