Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Newbie]

4"You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Hello! I'm taking a class on God and the Problem of Evil right now, and I have some questions that I was hoping that someone could answer. If I phrase something naively I apologize. I'd like as much scriptural reference as possible if that's at all possible.

If you take a more literal approach to the creation story and believe that Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit, what do you think is meant by the verses above? More specifically, if Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, how was the serpent communicating the words "good" and "evil" to Eve? To make a sort of silly comparison imagine some person came up to you and said that if you eat a pastry you'll gain knowledge of "gaowp" and "aklicikleos". Now, if you've had no experience with the concepts behind those words, then how could you know what they mean?

I'm guessing this implies that Eve had some knowledge of "good" and "evil" beforehand, and that the eating of the fruit would only mean that she gained a greater amount of knowledge. Again though, my theology is not up to date.

An answer would be appreciated. Thank you!

[jimwalton]

Let's go back to Gn. 2.9 where we first read about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In many passages in the Old Testament, "good and evil" is a legal idiom meaning "to formulate and articulate a judicial decision." What is being forbidden to the man is the power to decide for himself what is in his best interests and what is not. The man is not supposed to choose for moral autonomy, but instead seek his moral compass in the character of God. The tree symbolizes whether humankind will decide rights and wrongs for themselves or to ground their concept of right and wrong in the nature of God. The tree's role is in the opportunity it offers, not particularly in any quality its fruit possesses.

Now if we jump up to Gn. 3.4-5, we find the serpent (with emphatic Hebrew grammatical construction) contradicting God's words: "It is not so (what God has said) this: dying you shall die." It is literally, "Dying you shall not die." "You shall not die utterly." "You shall not die immediately." The phrasing is calculated, contradicting God but leaving ambiguity: "It is not a proper death you will undergo." In other words, dare to experience the change. Dare to set up your own criteria for right and wrong. He suggests that there is nothing to worry about.

"For God knows..." As if the serpent knows God's inner thoughts.

"when you (plural!) eat of it your eye will be opened." This is true, and God confirms it in 3.22.

"and you (plural) will be like God." The serpent is pushing them toward rebellion. They can make their own rules about right and wrong. In other ancient Near Eastern mythologies, being like god is viewed in terms of achieving immortality, whereas here in the Bible it is understood in terms of moral wisdom. After all, "good and evil" (moral autonomy) would appear to be a positive pursuit. Why would it be forbidden? After all, God wants the people to be like him, doesn't he? Yes. The tree is not prohibited because what it grants is necessarily bad, and it's not prohibited because God is just a big repressive meany, the prohibition concerned timing as well as rebellion. Eden is best seen as a probationary period—a test. Just like the tree of life, the couple would eventually be able to eat from it. God wanted his people to have life, as well as knowledge. When the time was right, and relationships in order, they would be able to "eat" from it. In ways it's like the later temptation of Jesus. Satan offered him the kingdom of this world. Well, there was nothing wrong with Jesus ruling all the kingdom—that was his destiny. the temptation involved bypassing appropriate processes, attitudes, behavior, and time, and grabbing them by a deviant means.

To grab such wisdom as an act of disobedience and rebellion was the wrong way to "become like God." They were not to hold "good and evil" independently from God. They didn't have to grab it from God as if he was a repressor.

What the serpent hid from them is that when their eyes were opened, they would see their own rebellion (as God did).

[Newbie]

Wow! Thank you so much for this fantastic response. I wish I could respond, but I can't. Many of these ideas are new to me, and I'd like to analyze them in detail before I'd write back with anything substantial. I'd love to see what others have to say in response though.

Once again, thank you so much. That was a very insightful post.

You said, "What is being forbidden to the man is the power to decide for himself what is in his best interests and what is not." But isn't that exactly what is being offered by the existence of the tree in the first place?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify. You seem to have just a slight misunderstanding of something I said, so let me try again. From the onset man had the power to decide for himself. In the image of God he was created with free will, with every expectation that he would use it. What was being offered by the tree was whether he would use his free will to be self-oriented, or use his free will to be God-oriented—whether he would find his moral ground in self or in the character of God. In order to be what he was created to be, humankind must continue to orient himself to the unwavering reference point rather than to an undependable one (himself). Much like sailing across the ocean, a sailor has a choice to orient to the stars or, say, to the clouds.

The choice presented by the tree is not "Are you going to be a person who thinks for himself, or an empty-headed slave of God", but rather "Are you going to act as if you made yourself and you know how best to govern yourself, or are you going to act as if God made you and you refer to him as the one who knows you and loves you."

Since "the knowledge of good and evil" is a judicial idiom, humankind was being presented with a choice to judge the legitimacy of God's claim upon him as his creator and moral ground. To decide against that was to cut his ties to God and stand alone as his own Master of the Universe.

[Newbie]

Did God know the outcome of the test before it occurred?

Additionally, if their moral grounding was in God before they ate the fruit, why would they choose to eat from the tree?

[jimwalton]

> Did God know the outcome of the test before it occurred?

Yes, and he had a plan in place about how to redeem it.

> if before they ate their moral grounding was in God, why would they choose to eat from the tree?

There is a lot to explain here, so I will try to be brief and concise. No doubt what I write will prompt other questions, so feel free to ask. I can only say so much at one time.

The Bible is most interested in Adam and Eve as archetypes (different from prototypes or metaphors). As such they represent all humanity. It's a common biblical motif that "one" is chosen to represent all. Abraham, in Gn. 12, is chosen from among the many to bring blessing to humanity through his offspring. The nation of Israel is chosen from among the many to reveal God to the nations. You get the idea. OK, hold on to your seat.

Adam and Eve are archetypes (though I believe they are also historical). If you suppose that humans evolved from other hominid forms, here's the scenario: Sometime in that process, which had been guided by God, perhaps at that moment that geneticists refer to as the bottleneck when humanity (human-like hominids) nearly became extinct, God undertook a special action, giving the entire human population at the time (which may have been few) the image of God. Though they are engaging in activities that will later be labelled as sinful, they are not being held morally accountable by God (see Rom. 5.13). They are therefore, technically, in a state of innocence. Two hominids (humans) are selected by God as representatives of humanity, and are placed by Him in sacred space (the Garden of Eden) to function as priests in God's temple (Eden). Though humans are mortal (made of dust, Gn. 2.7), God is now set to offer hope to all humans for the possibility of life in God's presence. (Though people outside the garden are still dying, God is doing his work of revelation through his chosen ones, Adam & Eve, much as he did later with Abraham, Israel, etc.)

God revealed himself to the couple as the Giver of Life and as the foundation for morality. Though since humans were made in the image of God, they have a free will to make their own autonomous choices, as I explained in response to the original post. So, in answer to your question, their moral grounding was not originally in God, though now that He has revealed himself to them, they can choose God instead of themselves as a moral reference point.

When they ate from the tree they chose to see themselves as the source and center of order, life, wisdom, and morality ("You will be like God..." Gn. 3.5). In that choice, they brought sin (willful disobedience to God) into the world, gained moral accountability for themselves and all human beings through them (as archetypes), and lost the hope of life for themselves and all human being through them. They had decided to cut themselves off from relationship with God, and therefore they were given what they had decided (life without God), and so were barred from the Garden of Eden. They and all humanity with them are now out of relationship with God (dead in their sins) because they have lost their connection to Life, and they are doomed to their inherent mortality.

[Newbie]

Why did they need the test?

And, if we weren't held accountable before, why not just leave us innocent? He knew what the outcome would be if he "tested" us, and still chose to doom the large majority of us. That seems a bit evil to me.

[jimwalton]

You're right there was 0 change. He was offering them an opportunity to change. He brought them to this place, provided for them, showed himself to be good, and revealed himself to them. Now it's their choice. Will they respond in love? Will they recognize that he is truth and love, and love him in return? They were being offered hope for life and and answer to the finality of mortality. Why the test? Because what God desires is a love relationship with the people he made. He never made them to be robots, forced to worship, or forced to have anything to do with Him. The only way to have a relationship of love is if both parties choose it. Well, the Bible says, God chose to have a loving relationship with people, but they had to choose to return it.

In the test they are surrounded by evidences of God's goodness and gifts. Everything he has told them is true. They have even had interaction with him. He has provided for them. But the serpent enters the scene, claiming God is not benevolent, truthful, or just. It's a choice between false reality (self-orientation and self-love) and true reality (God-orientation and a love relationship with God). Is God a provider or a depriver? Is he good or not? What's the truth? What's good and what's evil? The temptation plays on the whole range of human desire, and that's why, though historical, it's also archetypal. They represent all humanity. There is no such thing as a creature which is free but has no choices.

"Why not leave us innocent?" Because "innocence" is a term from literature, but not from the Bible. People were sinning, but they were not being held accountable for it (Rom. 5.13) because they were unaware. You're wondering, "Why change things? Why not let them continue on in ignorant bliss?" Remember Gn. 2-3 is a point on a continuum, not the beginning. God wants to draw them into life with him in his presence, and a love relationship with him. God offered them the potential for wisdom. What you fail to see is that the test was their only hope for life. Here are the potential scenarios:

1. God doesn't do what Gn. 2 says he did, and hominids become extinct (as so many lines of hominids have) along with other vertebrate species.
2. God does what he does in Gn. 2, and many billions of people get to share his life, either as people who were not accountable (Rom. 5.13) or as those who choose to love him. (These share God to differing degrees.) And those who intentionally choose not to love him are consigned to the afterlife where they are still not forced to be with him.

I don't see anything evil about it.

[Newbie]

Why doesn't he just do that for everyone? Why do we suffer due to the choices of a few?

[jimwalton]

In 1776 America's leaders declared their independence from Great Britain. Not every American was in favor of the declaration, but a presumable majority of the people and a clear majority of leaders made their choice. A war ensued, and from on the people of eastern seaboard of the continent were Americans—no longer British. They were legally separated from the king. And everyone born from then on in the country was born an American, through no choice of their own, but due to the decisions of those who had gone before them. But at any time anyone has the choice to return to Britain and become a citizen, despite what has happened. It's everyone's right to decide.

Adam and Eve, as archetypes of humanity, were put in a special position of leadership. They chose rebellion, and they won! The result was that they were legally separated from the King. But at any time, anyone has the choice to return to the King and become a citizen of his kingdom. It's everyone's right to decide. That was clear from the very start. Abel, in Gn. 4, had the right idea. Look at the end of Gn. 4.26. So also Enoch in Gn. 5 as well as , Noah in 6, and so on. No one has to suffer due to the choices of a few. Each person gets to make their own choices.