But The Snake Told The Truth!
by Andy Hanson
The story of The Fall has been and always will be the bane of biblical literalists. I have never heard a sermon preached that dealt with the entire story. It’s as if Genesis 3:22 & 23 doesn’t exist! Consider the facts as reported in the NIV.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it…
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
What is to be learned from this story if taken as literal truth?
God told Adam and Eve that if they ate or even touched fruit from the tree, they would die, but they didn’t!
The Snake said, “When you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. It happened.
According to the story, even after The Fall, Adam and Eve could have lived forever as long as they had access to the tree of life. However, God didn’t want these two, disobedient, newly minted “gods” to live forever, so He kicked them out of the Garden, and made their lives, the lives of their descendants, and the lives of all other flora and fauna on the earth so difficult that they would have to ceaselessly recycle their immortal genetic material.
If taken literally, the story suggests that Adam and Eve were simply higher order animals before The Fall. Their disobedience made them “gods.” If the story is taken literally, Eve’s disobedience happened because God created a wife that was endowed with more curiosity, daring, and desire for wisdom than her husband had previously exhibited. If the story is taken literally, Eve’s disobedience was a crucial evolutionary step in the creation of not only human beings but free will, i.e. “knowing good and evil.”
And what about the Snake? If the story is taken literally, it was a talking animal innately devious and hateful enough to create unimaginable disaster. Why would God create such an animal?
He didn’t, of course.
Why treat the story literally? It's a "story". A story that has human kind created, male and female, and given _every_ seed bearing plant and tree fruit (Genesis 1:26-30) and then in Genesis 2 & 3 the creation of Eve and the restriction on which fruit may be eaten. Taken literally it kind of sounds like contradictory nonsense.
So I vote for a non literal approach. Why then was the story of the creation of the garden, Eve and the restricted tree leading to the fall told? It may require some imagination.
Yes, Andy and Fred, it is just a story. The whole thing is just a story.
Even so, for some it is taken as revelatory of the nature of women or of snakes, or as a basis
for abhoring broad spectrum knowledge.
Most five-year-olds would probably recognize that a story about talking snakes is fictional
(made up, pretend) unless told otherwise by adults.
Andy
People can take things literally differently! You are creating a strawman literalist who does not exist! If you believe the creation account is just a story then why are even a seventh day adventist! So exactly how many accounts in the bible are just stories?! walking on water, resurrection , ascension , second coming, revelations? the historical critical method is the death of true christianity, it elevates man to where he can pick and choose what in the bible was real and what was not!
At what what point do we as adventists draw the line on whether one can still be an adventist and believe certain things? Don't we also have the right to hold to particular, distict beliefs? To project your beliefs on an entity and still want to remain part of the same is a viotation of the right of an entity to believe what it wants to believe? Freedom of conscience and freedom of worship do not apply within an independant relligious entity it apllies to a country if you disagree with what adventists believe then………………………………… then use you freedom of worship and start a church or go where you beliefs are espoused. having your freedoms does not mean at the expense of other freedoms for people to believe particular beliefs as well as defined by that entity.
Good point about picking and choosing. If there were not picking and choosing then all literalists would agree. Turns out that the bible is not just our closest best revelation of God, it is also a mirror. We see in it a reflection of our own current ideas and approaches to life. That's why we each need a measure of humility. I could be wrong.
Tapiwa,
You say that an entity should have the freedom to believe what it wants to believe. There is one fundamental problem with that, and it applies especially to Adventism.
If the SDA Church was founded on the same principles as the Church of the Flying Spahgetti Monster – then yes it could believe anything it chose. Such would be a "club" of like minded folk. Those not of that mind would be elsewhere.
I don't need to point out to you that the Adventism is NOT founded on these principles. It is founded on the principles of truth is it not. Seeking, identfiying and believing in "truth". So, NO, it does not have the freedom to believe anything it wants to. In fact it has a responsibility to be open to new and changing understandings of what is and is not true.
There just happens to be a large number of SDA's who believe the church needs to grow in its understanding of certain areas. Perhaps a lot of them. If the church has been wrong, and it genuinely is open to truth per se, and what people are suggesting just may be true, what right do YOU have to suggest people move on when in fact they are only following the principles upon which Adventism was founded!???
The problem with this Chris is that the principles that may be identified as those upon which Adventism is founded are, if nothing else, that the Bible is where the truth is introduced and found; and that Jesus is the embodiment of truth and of the Word of God.
Adventists who don’t believe this will find truth difficult (if not impossible) to find; because they are looking for something else.
Hi Stephen, please read again what I said. You have addressed something I did not say.
I said nothing about where truth was or was not to be found, only that the SDA church was founded on the principles of being open to and searching for truth. As such it is indeed NOT free to believe whatever it chooses, as is the church of the flying spag monster!
now…as far as the point you raise as to where truth is to be found. ie bible. That raises the interesting question of how far back you are going to push the principle of being a truth seeking church!
If, repeat, IF we are going to be true to that principle: how far "back" do we go? Is the question of whether or not the Bible is indeed the ultimate source of truth allowed or not? I would say it must be allowed without bias or prejudice. I figure cooperate Adventism would not.
So, that leads to the next question: If people within Adventism are there because they seek truth, (or as close as they believe they can get to it), how can cooporate Adventism refuse them the right to ask questions, find answers, and enlarge the tent if need be.
Let me ask you a serious question on another level: If there was the possibility that Christianity was a hoax of no greater value than the doctines of the flying spag monster – would YOU want to know? A simple yes or no would suffice.
of course we would Chris. why not?
because anyone who a priori accepts the Bible as the place where truth is found/determined is ipso facto unable to determine the answer to the question. Therefore, they cannot honestly say "yes", until their prior position is open to question.
Until that time, they are stuck in their safe little circle of circular reasoning and such questions and responses are playing with words and self deception.
btw Who is the "we"?
Ah, but what you did say does not represent any statement of Adventism, or Adventist founding principles, or beliefs Chris; whereas my statement does at least reflect a stated belief or principle of Seventh-day Adventism.
I definitely would want to know if it could proven that Christianity is a hoax; that is, if it could be proven that Jesus Christ never resurrected anyone or was not resurrected Himself; wouldn’t you?
I would certainly want to know if it could be proven that Moses never was told by God that He created the world in six days as well.
But, getting back to Adventist founding principles; whatever they are, they are rooted in the Bible being entirely inspired by God; and not some amorphous search for ‘truth.’
On the other hand, if you or any hypothetical Adventists are searching for truth outside of a Biblical context, or independent of a Christ-as-truth paradigm, then that has nothing to do with Adventism. That would simply be representative of an individual pursuit.
That is not a criticism, of course.
"I would certainly want to know if it could be proven that Moses never was told by God that He created the world in six days as well."
God no doubt told Moses the world was created in six days. As prophets do, Moses utilised a heavenly thought and transferred it in limited human words through the prism of his own culture – which is how God seems to like it. However, whilst Moses no doubt naturally thought God meant six 24hour days, God never explictly said that.
Given Gen 3 is actually all about Satan, Adam and Eve all putting words in God's mouth that were not strictly true, about whether Adam and Eve could eat of any fruit at all in the Garden (not true – Satan was wrong), or whether touching the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil would mean death (not true either – Eve was wrong), we need to be careful about putting words in God's own mouth here as well.
Stephen Foster, you will not have to look very far to find statements showing our Pioneers were anti creedal. Same for a "present truth" focus.
As for your use of the word "proven". It is not a word I like to use. Your use of it may be innocent, but it has the sound, to me, of someone setting a bar so high they know they are safe behind it. In other words, you can say whatever you like about being open, because you know very well no one can "prove" anything.
Why don't you pause to consider: Given the world we live in devoid of resurrections, self resurrections, Moses – like declarations etc is not the problem yours: Prove the events you described DID happen.
re searching for truth outside the Bible. Again, you won't need to read very far to find EGW suggesting that Nature and Revelation alike Testify about God.
As for my original question about would you like to know if Christianity were/was a hoax. I think you are safe in your circle of reasoning. An unfalsifiable position is a safe harbour.
Stephen Furguson, "God no doubt told Moses the world was created in six days." Actually I thought there was a lot of doubt about that! Almost as much doubt as there is that there ever was a global flood of Noachian proportions, with an ark, and two by two's etc. If one wants to get into "proving" things, the geological evidence against such a flood is almost beyond doubt against it.
So, in keeping with the theme of this insightful blog…The serpent, as with the rest of the story has fairytale proportions…
Chris,
Then it appears you are grudgingly acknowledging the fact that our church pioneers were in search of the truth as it is in Jesus the Christ; and that they considered the Biblically-identified Holy Spirit in the Holy Spirit-inspired Bible, and the information therein, as the primary source material.
In other words, Adventist pioneers clearly were not searching for ‘truth’ as someone willing to assert or assume that God does not exist might define or describe it; as any such search for truth has really nothing to do with Seventh-day Adventism.
As for my use of the word “proven,” how is it really any different than your use of “the possibility of”? Any burden of proof in matters of faith for faith communities, and/or within faith communities, is based on what God is saying related to what God is meaning.
This brings us to Stephen Ferguson’s point about God possibly not meaning literal 24-hour earth days when He contextually was talking about a specific one of those days in relationship to others of those days.
Stephen, with all respect, if someone is willing to consider that God meant six epochs or something, when He said “days,” who is it that is putting words that God didn’t say into His mouth?
Why did God tell Daniel 1260 days if He meant 1260 years as Adventists have long taught?
The Bible is full of such double-meanings, that are not apparent to the original author and audience but only understood by later generations.
Why did God suggest Elijah would return before the coming of the Messiah, when He actually meant John the Baptist?
Why in Matt 24 does Jesus seem to be talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans but also at the same time the actual real end of the world?
Why do John suggest the 7 Churches in Asia Minor are real Churches and yet suggest 7 Church epochs?
Do I need to go on to illustrate the principle?
No, there is no need to further illustrate the “principle” of God occasionally saying something to us that is actually representative or symbolic of something else; or of more than one thing. I think I get that.
However, as we have previously discussed, what undoubtedly needs to be further explored is why, when this happens, the Bible seems to elsewhere reveal or explain what God meant; at least to the extent that a doctrinal understanding, or more accurately several doctrinal understandings, of precisely what He meant have been developed—but no alternative doctrine or understanding of what He meant in claiming to have created our world in six days has been derived, although it certainly appears that Jack Hoehn is determined to come up with one. (That is not a criticism, of course).
Really – so where does the Bible further clarify that the texts suggesting the world was flat actually didn't mean that? Where are the latter Bible texts that clarify that the world is in fact round? Where are the latter Bible texts that clarify our understanding of the Great Controversy isn't limited to just heaven and earth being the sum total of reality but rather the universe involves billions and billions of galaxies? Where are the latter Bible texts that clarify that human nature, and think of theological issues of original sin and inheritence from Adam, actually involves these things called genes and DNA?
So far science has only been the source of this Divine Truth, and yet these scientific discoveries have each had profound theological implications.
And who says God has stopped revealing Himself through prophetic human beings? Doesn't the Bible suggest the opposite in Joel and other places?
Forgive my ignorance on this Stephen, but I am not at all familiar with the Biblical doctrine of the flat earth.
“Where are the latter Bible texts that clarify our understanding of the Great Controversy isn't limited to just heaven and earth being the sum total of reality but rather the universe involves billions and billions of galaxies?”
Again, I’m not sure that the Bible denies the existence of a vast universe; or what this has to do with God saying one thing and meaning something which further study of other scriptures reveals to represent something else.
“Where are the latter Bible texts that clarify that human nature, and think of theological issues of original sin and inheritence from Adam, actually involves these things called genes and DNA?”
My friend, I’m sorry but I don’t perceive any discrepancy in what the Bible says about the nature and consequences of sin, or the promises of Deuteronomy 28, or the later indication that sin “brings forth death,” and human genetics.
God may not have commented directly or specifically about genetics—although we don’t know all means by which He “[visits] the iniquities of the father’s upon the children”—but the degenerative effects of rebellion are somewhat apparent in any case; aren’t they?
How this relates to God saying “six days” is not very clear to me, but suffice it to say that if you think that scientific evidence is compelling or conclusive or whatever, to the extent that God meant/symbolized something else when He said “six days,” what else can be said—other than that Scripture doesn’t indicate multiple millions/billions of years-long sequences for Earth’s creation, or anything other than six days?
If some believe that new prophetic light is being shed on Earth's six days of creation in the spirit of what Joel referred to, then so be it. Personally I reject this notion as unbiblical.
Andy,
Does the story omit important elements? Or, does it give us the setting for exploring the great issues of salvation and the real natures of good and evil?
What was there about the differences between God and His creation that He did not want them to know about sin? Was that not a great act of love instead of an arbitrary and uncaring decision depriving Adam and Eve of something we view as essential because it is a normal part of our existence?
Are there not greater differences between God and man than just knowing the difference between good and evil?
Was the serpent really evil? Or, is that not record of the first case of demonic possession?
We can, of course, see meaning in stories, whether or not the meaning is really there….
It is a fable; but fables carry fundamental truths about humanity. We are curious, ut without that gift, and it is a gift from God, we would not have advanced beyond the infancy that was our fate in Eden.
The serpent spoke truth: once the fruit was eaten, we knew good and evil; before that Adam and Eve were like innocent babes, and if God intended us to remain in that condition he would never have allowed the serpent access to us.
Unable to know the difference between good and evil we would have no recognition of the results of our choices–in fact, would it be possible for free choice without the knowledge of good and evil? If everything was good, how could there be choices?
Andy,
I was right there with you all the way until I ran up against the the suggestion that knowing good and evil is by definition free will, and free will is the difference between a higher order animal and a human being created in (or in your illustration evolved into) the image of the Divine.
Free will would make us God it seems, and we are not God, now, are we. Knowing good and evil is not the same as being able to 'choose' between good and evil. Indeed, there is solid biblical support for humans having no choice .. 'by one man, all' … God the potter and we the clay … 'for all … come short of the glory of God' … 'it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do' … and so on.
If there were such a thing as human free will, we would not unviersally be mired in a life of joy and sorrow, of dancing and disability, and of every one of us standing in the need of Grace. As Ellen Whilte herself commented once, if by our free will we somehow could contribute to resolving our plight as humans, then 'the Creator would be dependent on the creature,' a situation that was by implication rhetorically anathama to our understanding of God's sovereignty.
It is so easy to stray into eloquence with the matter of free will. The fluent mixing of supporting biblical passeges and rhetorical rationalization leading up to the topic of free will tends to become pure human rationalization once free will comes into focus. It is no wonder scripture is laid aside when making the case for free will as it is a topic with which biblical authors seem unfamiliar.
With this in mind, well, perhaps God did, indeed, create and through the serpent indeed instigate the first pair coming to know good and evil, and in this regard becoming like the Creator. And that is what perplexes us about Theodicy.
The biblical support for this line of thinking is the division of responsiblity when the Createor confronted the first pair over their new nakedness. The man blamed God by way of the woman the man said God had given him. The woman blamed God for the serpent the woman said God had put in the garden. And God turned his full attention to the the serpent, taking full responsbility in front of both the man and the woman for dealing with the serpent, the source of the human plight, before explaining the pair's future, the man sustaining human life by the sweat of his brow and the woman conceiving and tending to the perpetuating of human life.
Of course it is a story, like Jesus parables, easily remembered and endlessly useful no matter what the culture so long as one ponders what the story means rather than what the words mean. And that I think is at least one of your points, and a point well made if but by inplication.
Whether it happened exactly as recorded is not as important as the meaning of a story if one believes it to be inspired, or not. It takes more than a cursory reading of any story to find its meaning or the author's intention. If one is not willing to do that, it makes little sense to speculate on it.
Since we come to such stories with subjectivity (masked as cynicism, dogmatism, etc.), we waste our time without at least trying to remove the mask in respect for the millions who have believed the story for thousands of years.
This is a rich, profound story that tells us about who God is and who we are. It is much more than a fable And I'm glad, Andy, that you reject the truth vs falsehood paradigm in which the story is often encapsulated by well-meaning Christian moralists. The battle between good and evil is not one of truth vs lies – but trust vs truth.
The serpent began not with a propostition, but with a question: "Did God really say…?" And when Eve responded, "Yes, indeed," and here is the reason, the serpent challenged the justification. For if the reason underlying the command was invalid, then God's word could be disregarded. The serpent was right. The fruit was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desirable for gaining wisdom – and clearly, the fruit did not produce death, as the serpent was very much alive and well. What more did Eve need to know once those fundamental realities had been empirically validated? Obviously, God hadn't really meant what she had understood Him to be saying.
It was truth which caused the First Couple to distrust God. Once they began to use their powers of reasoning to filter God's word, they were free to use the truth of their reasoning powers as a shield against the word of God. And they did. It led them away from God; it led them to hide from God.
Perhaps the "richness" of this story is less in the fanciful tale itself, and more in the range of lessons or values we see in it. The tree and the fruit itself were attractive enough, but they were forbidden by God, and the happy couple refrained from touching or tasting the forbidden fruit.
But along came the wise serpent, a smooth talking advocate who bequiled the woman with persuasive rhetoric. There is no mention in the story that the snake had eaten the fruit or that he even claimed to have done so. Maybe the snake implied that he knew more about the fruit than the story reports. The way the story is told indicates that the serpent was deliberately misleading the woman. That is the point.
If the story were literal, how could we know? Well, a talking snake is the first clue…. One can imagine the story beginning "Once upon a time, when pigs could fly and snakes could talk…."
How could Eve have known she was being misled? She was naive. She had no experience with liars or falsehoods. For her, there could have been no such thing as empirical evidence or validation. There was, in her world, no need to discern between truth and error. The only dichotomy in her world, it seems, was between a vast array of trees and fruit she was free to enjoy, and one that was forbidden. Being human, she was attracted to exactly that one.
So, in my view, it was not truth which caused the first couple to distrust God, it was that they were ill-equipped with critical thinking skills and were rather easily misled by the arguments of the serpentine advocate for Lucifer in pursuit of his prosecutory campaign against God.
Maybe the lesson is more to be wary of advocates who might mislead you than to regard truth or empirical evidence as the enemy.
But, it seems to me, it is just a story….
You are of course free, Joe, to interpret the story any way you like. Your interpretation would be more interesting – and credible – if you argued that the story of the Fall is really a primitive Freudian tale about sexual repression, from which the serpent – obviously a phallic symbol – offered liberation. Ever wonder why Adam and Eve didn't have any children in the Garden? Hmmm. Maybe God was afraid of their creative potential. Yes. of course! I'm sure that's right. It's as plain as the nose on your face. The fruit was symbolic of Eve's womb, and eating it unlocked her womb, to God's great displeasure.
Since a 5 year old would recognize it as fictional, and you, Joe, don't take it seriously, I'm not sure why you see it as worthy of comment, except as it advances your agenda of denigrating faith in a transcendent personal God who reveals Himself through the Bible. If you want to have some laughs with the story, at least try to be a little creative and imaginative. Maybe you just didn't take enough literature courses in college.
Joe,
Your proposed lesson from the story is both timeless and very timely to today on multiple levels where we are bombarded by messages advocating for differing points of view. God speaks to us plainly. Those who would deceive us speak smoothly and appeal heavily to our emotions to beguile us into accepting what we might reject if we considered more than just what they were saying.
The real problem regarding most opinions here is the superficial reading of Scripture without the use of readily available tools; viz., the Hebrew and Greek lexicons via Strong’s numbers – the Concordance. The phrase in Genesis 2:17, “you shall surely die” is in the Hebrew “mûth mûth,” literally meaning “causatively to die,” or “dying you will die.” The cause is disobedience to God’s one simple test of trust. The result being a process, which in Gods’ great mercy, was a probationary time to see the results of self-trust – a disconnect from the Source of life. Here is where the Faith of Jesus had stepped in to shield the guilty pair as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
The second readily available tool is that which has been consigned to the theological trash heap by higher criticism. Such terminology as “higher” is only philosophical contortioning, verbal flatulence – that is the same form of self-esteem held by “scientists” opining outside Noah’s ark. If such as on this forum (who claim to be SDA’s) could objectively assess their attitude and motives, they would find themselves outside the realm of SDA membership integrity. That more specifically is acknowledgment of and adherence to church interpretation of Revelation 12:17, 19:10, and 14:12. A humble reading of Patriarchs and Prophets’ chapter two would leave no room for these many futile opines. Satan did (as he was well able to) assume the form of a serpent to achieve his purpose. And that same serpent now disguises himself as decoys in Adventism. Such are showing their true colors, to dazzle, delight, smear, insinuate doubt, and proudly clamor for attention.
While am not knowingly a tool or embodiment of the devil, and I am, a so-called "scientist," I am not bound by the SDA creed, and I do not "claim" to be SDA. On the contrary, I have openly declared that I left the church long ago when I found that I could not be open and honest about what I believed (or didn't believe). I was no longer able to claim to believe the dogma of the Fundamental Beliefs. I get the sense from discussions here that a number of people feel they have as much claim to the church as the next member, even if they no longer accept some of the FBs and feel they should be changed. There is merit, I think, in that view. But, I certainly am an outsider and make no claims otherwise.
It is so easy to point fingers. If the story of Lucifer being cast out of heaven to earth is true, and he (now Satan) claiming to be as good or better than Christ, then the purpose of earth is to show God’s justice. The story does paint Eve as nieve, almost stupid, which many men believe women to be. But without the fall, God’s claim to love and justice could not be demonstrated. The whole creation story had to be much mor complicated than what we can read. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The bible is not a science book, subject to analysis.
Whether Aesop's fables were true does no change the intent. There is a "moral in Bible stories" that far surpasses the question of literality. Just as Christ's parables may or may not have actually happened, he told them for the message, didn't he? Or, is the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus to be taken literally??
Elaine, ever wonder why—of all the parables Jesus told with "nameless" people—the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus includes a man with a name? The literal point of that story was Jesus' assertion that the hardened leaders of Israel wouldn't believe . . . even if a man named Lazarus came back from the dead.
And do you know where Jesus went immediately following the telling of this parable? He went to raise a man named Lazarus from the dead. (And, unfortunately, the literal point of His parable was correct.)
John 8.44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
So at best we can only say that the snake told a partial truth in order to convey a bigger lie. If it is true that the Gods acknowledged that Adam and Eve 'become like one of us, knowing good and evil,' wherein is the lie?
Andy says:
God told Adam and Eve that if they ate or even touched fruit from the tree, they would die, but they didn’t!
I beg to differ. They did die that instant. They separated themselves from the Eternal Life-giving Spirit and they died within themselves. Physical life continued for a time, but until they were able to reconnect with Spirit, like so many today and always, there were dead in spirit.
There are doubtless other ways of interpreting meaning in a story such as this. But what is crucial is that we search maturely, below and beyond the surface meaning which is worth of a child's understanding only.
Pr 25:2 ¶ It is the glory of God to conceal a thing; But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
I think Andy Hanson asked a marvelous question at the outset of this blog: "What is to be learned from this story if taken as literal truth?"
It appears that I am in the minority here, but I take this story as literal truth for many reasons. (Jesus referred back to it in His discourse with the religious leaders on divorce, Paul uses it in his arguments many times, Ezekiel 28 asserts that Satan was in Eden, the devil is identified in Revelation as a serpent, etc.) At the very least, if we were going to characterize it as a fable, I suppose we'd have to discuss why the Bible doesn't present it as such (and what the implications are for that) and what implications that has for the rest of Scripture, of which this story is a cornerstone.
But putting that aside, Andy's original question deserves some good answers! What is to be learned from this story if taken as literal truth? I'd like to put forward some suggestions:
1. God is so committed to freedom and fairness that He allows Satan to introduce his viewpoint to Adam and Eve.
2. God is so committed to Adam and Eve's freedom that He does not allow Satan to follow them around the Garden, pestering them, but restricts his access at the tree.
3. God tells the truth about the consequences of sin. It does, in fact, lead to death, and (while I won't go into the Hebrew explanation of Gen 2:17 here), that death began when they ate the fruit.
4. The "death" that GOD subjected Adam and Eve to after their fall into sin (the first "death") is NOT the inherent result of sin. Instead, it is, as the Bible says, the result of being barred from the Tree of Life. The degeneration of our bodies and our environment is a cause of this banishment and is not the death that is caused by sin. (That death was demonstrated on the cross by Jesus.) In our sin-affected state, the banishment from the Tree of Life is a blessing.
5. Adam and Eve's genetic material was NOT immortal. This is evidenced by the fact that it began to fall apart as soon as God banned them from the Tree of Life. That they began to experience this physical degradation was not caused by their sin (although God only banished them from the Tree of Life because they had fallen).
6. God was willing to look like a liar here in the Garden and all down through the centuries until the time came for Jesus to come and demonstrate what true death (the second death) is. His death answered the question of what happens when a created being separates from its Creator.
7. God's commitment to freedom means that His creatures have the choice to intimately acquaint themselves with evil. (This is what it means to "know" good and evil, and it's the change that occurred in Adam and Eve when they rebelled.) This isn't a necessary step in moral development. All of God's loyal angels were aware of the controversy between God (good) and Satan (evil) and chose sides without intimately acquainting themselves with evil. Eve's (and, subsequently, Adam's) decision to act in a rebellious manner went beyond education.
Did anyone pick up anything else about God from this story?
Very thoughtful, provocative ideas, Kelley. Thank you. I really agree with you that Adam and Eve's choices were not the result of inadequate information or understanding. It is risible, though tempting, for some to think that, if only Adam and Eve had had PhDs in moral philosophy or ethics, we might still be living in The Garden.
In fact, better information and understanding were precisely what they sought and received by eating of the forbidden fruit. God speaks to us not so much to inform us as to evoke a response of trust and obedience in loving, covenant relationship. When we stray from Him, we begin to question what He said and what He meant, and we fall prey to the seductions of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Does that raise a point about the danger of thinking that knowledge (as opposed to belief and faith) can save us? Do many Christian groups, including Adventists, embrace this proto-Gnostic idea – one thoroughly disproved by the Fall?
The strongest temptation of man has always been the sexual driving demands. It is inclusive through out
the OT, with exception of the Creation story. Nathan suggested for Joe to conside a more probable tale
" Sexual repression w/serpent as a phallic symbol"; maybe more? The Bible has many allegories? Also,
after the strong buildup of Adam, his demeanour was rather wimpish.
Tapiwa, just having a discussion here. No need to call out the thought police. And why is it that those who fail to live up to your personal beliefs are the ones who should go away? Doesn't sound like a warm invitaion to Christian fellowship.
God said to Adam " for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"………..
Adam lived 930 years. Moses prayer to God, 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but a yesterday when it is past." So, Adam did die the day he ate the fruit?
Makes an interesting point then for those who say 1 day in Gen always has to mean 1 x human day (24 hrs); whereas, the fact Adam lived for 930 years, just shi of 1 x God day (1000 years), is the only way not to make God a liar.
Adam didn't die. He is asleep; unconscious; changed into another form; but not dead. Jesus is the only one who died the death God warned them about. When Jesus said in John 11, "Anyone who believe in me WILL NEVER DIE" really meant it. It is really true.
And everyone is right!
Did not the snake's tale contain what all "good" lies have — a little truth (which usually appeals to one's vanity), mixed with purposeful deception?
"God told Adam and Eve that if they ate or even touched fruit from the tree, they would die, but they didn’t!"
Not sure if someone else has noted this, but God never said that touching the tree would kill them – He only said eating the fruit would kill them (Gen 2:16-17). It was Eve herself, not God, who said that touching the fruit would mean death (Gen 3:2-3).
Thus, Eve actually added in an extra burden onto herself, one which God did not strictly require. In the process, by being more 'conservative' than even God on the matter, it actually made it more likely that she would chuck in the whole thing as too hard.
Interestingly, the Serpent kicked the whole thing off by making an outrageously conservative statement, that ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? (Gen 3:1).
Thus, beware of heaping extra burdens on yourself, as Eve did, or extra burdens as the Serpent did – burdens that God Himself did not actually require.
I believe the Talmud somewhat makes this point.
'If the story is taken literally, Eve’s disobedience was a crucial evolutionary step in the creation of not only human beings but free will, i.e. “knowing good and evil.”'
Yes and no. One could look at it the other way. God already had a whole bunch of animals. Adam and Eve were kind of animals, but kind of special as well – certainly kings of nature. God had already made them in His likeness before the Fall, and God had delegated His sovereign power to them to care for the garden and name all the animals. It would seem that given the wilderness already existed outside Eden, this involved a 'Great Controversy' struggle of a sort, given God commanded pre-Fall mankind to subdue the earth.
The problem with the Fall is not that Adam and Eve evolved past their animal instincts but rather than they inherently scumbed to them. The allowed their basely appetites to fruit best their logic and reason of God's command. The fact that the Serpent may also have been a symbol of sexuality, something many scholars have long recognised, and not something in itself evil (given it says Adam and Eve knew no shame), but again suggests Adam and Eve falling back towards the behaviour of just another animal.
The thing is, human beings are animals – but we are more than animals. We are post-evolutionary and post-animal beings. For example, all the 'clean' animals are effectively example of basic cloning, so the manipulation of the natural enviornment around us is actually a good thing. Similar, the RC dogma against IFV, condoms or euthenasia are all laughable, because it suggests humanity return to acting just like another animal, rather than the post-animal beings we could be and God wants us to be.
It makes me laugh when I hear people condemn others as 'unnatural'. The point is, God created Adam and Eve as 'unnatural' beings. They were beings to rise above the tooth and claw of nature. They were told to subdue nature. They were not to live according to the 'natural' world we see around us today but rather an idealised, heavenly 'nature'.
That is why it was a Fall. Adam was God's post-evolutionary and post-animla chance in the Great Contoversy struggle on earth. But He failed.
And to make it more dangerous, Adam retained his divine image, but his base animal nature remained. That is why human beings are the most dangerous species on earth, with the power and tendency to destroy worlds.
"And what about the Snake? If the story is taken literally, it was a talking animal innately devious and hateful enough to create unimaginable disaster. Why would God create such an animal?"
The OT later tells us this was Satan. It illustrates that even in pre-Fall Eden, there was already sin and corruption (as Satan was possessing another innocent lifeform) in existence.
It also illustrates that one needs to read Gen 1 and 2 in the context of the rest of the Bible, and other extra-biblical sources of Divine knowledge, and not in a vacuum.
I also think the wilderness that Adam and Eve were kicked out into, as well as the command for pre-Fall man to subdue the earth, suggests whilst Eden was a sin-free zone the rest of the world wasn't. Eden was Adam's womb, and he was to use it as a base to extend the Garden outwards to fight the corruption on the planet. Unfortuanly, Adam was found wanting.
Stephen, the command not to eat of the tree of good & evil was given to Adam before the animals & Eve were created. Not certain God ever spoke directly to Eve. Adam may have paraphased God's instruction, and also said, "Eve, don't even touch it". Eden couldn't have been a sin-free zone as God let Satan in to do his dirty tricks, and mankind has suffered for billions of years. Once Satan got his chance to discredit God, the result is Earth has been a killing field. With God unable to stand the stench, He also drowned all but Noahs family. This is perplexing. Jealous & envious Lucifer, with an apparent sustaining lifecycle, not eating at the tree of life, is a enigma.
Interesting thoughts there Earl.
The serpent told Eve “You will not certainly die,” [Gen 3:4] which was a big lie because they did – and that was certainly not the truth.
I feel compelled to repeat this. Adam and Eve did NOT die. The only person who has ever Died the Death that God had warned them about (the Death caused from sin) is Jesus. Everyone else has only gone to sleep. Every person who has gone to sleep in this world will be awakened again. God didn't warn them about the 1st death. It is not a big deal; God speaks and we wake up. It's the Death from sin that God warned them about.
"Adam and Eve DID not die."
And death is a mirage; I am the tooth fairy and all the funerals were a farce.
Who have you convinced of that? The confusion of faith and reality has a DSM code with a distinct diagnosis
Dear Joyce Wilson
I understand what you are saying and get your point. Jesus on occasion called the condition of death a sleep too. (Matt 9:24 [ISV]) he said, “Go away! The young lady hasn’t died but is sleeping.” But they ridiculed him with laughter.
Adam died as a result of sin entering the world after the Fall. When Adam died, he was no longer alive. The same word for 'die' (muwth) used in [Gen 2:17] is used in [Gen 5:5] which refers to Adam's death.
I also think that 'sleep' can only be used in terms of who Jesus is: the Resurrection and the Life. In other words, death in Christ's presence is only but a sleep. In [John 5:25] Jesus uses the word 'dead' and not 'sleep' when he speaks of the resurrection.
(John 5:25 [ISV]) Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, the time approaches, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear it will live.
(Gen 5:5 [ISV]) Adam lived a total of 930 years and then died.
(1Cor 15:22 [ISV]) For as in Adam all die, so also in the Messiah will all be made alive.
(Gen 7:22 [ISV]) Everything that breathed and everything that had lived on dry land died.
There is also another lie told by the serpent when he misquotes what God said in Gen 3:1 in order to mislead Eve. "…Yea, hath not God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden?" This Eve corrected but the serpent came back with the next lie – that they would not die.
Jesus confirmed in John 8:44 that the devil is a liar.
Indeed, the Talmud has a good commentary on this point – see my comments above. The snake's lie was deliberately outrageous, and it appears the serpent knew Eve wouldn't buy it. But it then challenged up Eve to say a lie or misinterpretation of her own – that God had supposedly told them if they even touched the tree they would die; whereas, God only said if they ate the fruit they would die.
Point is, both Satan and we ourselves add extra burdens that God Himself doesn't even impose.
As for the lie that they wouldn't die, isn't that the original lie of spiritualism, found in most religions of the world today?
The serpent magically became satan about 3,000 years later. Before that, he was just a serpent. "Interpretative freedom."
That's what the Bible says (Ezekiel 28:13-15). That's how progressive revelation works. We can't expect God to have revealed everything there ever was to Moses. That is a major point conservative Christians forget, so I am surprised you are raising the argument you do.
You will find the Bible is full of progressive revelation on a range of theological topics, including as something as basic of life after death.
Did "progressive revelation" end when the canon was closed?
Even if the much later "revelation" revealed that the serpent was really Satan, it was not known until thousands of years later and is a reinterpretation of the original story; something that continues to this day.
For my enlightenment: where and when was the serpent identified as Satan?
Stephen Ferguson,
You suggested: "We can't expect God to have revealed everything there ever was to Moses."
Why not?
If the revelation of some fact or point was to be of value to humanity "later", why delay?
"If the revelation of some fact or point was to be of value to humanity 'later,' why delay?"
That it an ancient and profound question, Chris. In fact, it seems to me that that question can easily be inferred from the story of The Fall. The seduction of the serpent, in whatever form it appears (BTW, why have feminists never focused their energies on regendering Satan?), has always whispered or shouted that God is not to be believed in or trusted because His "revelations" are not only parsimonious, but usually incline toward the curvature of highly imperfect human understandings. He is therefore most likely merely a projection of human fears and fantasies.
Various forms of gnosticism have been built on the heresy that Truth is to be found on the pathway of knowledge, rather than in covenant relationship with a living God. This "truth" was the first lie; it has persisted throughout human history; and it will be the last lie.
"Why have feminists never focused their energies on regendering Satan?"
Because it is the opposite sex that is always the seducer. ;<)
Nathan:
"Various forms of gnosticism have been built on the heresy that Truth is to be found on the pathway of knowledge, rather than in covenant relationship with a living God. This "truth" was the first lie; it has persisted throughout human history; and it will be the last lie."
On what basis and why do you use the word "heresy"? ie please explain why that is not an a priori statement built on prejudicial assumptions.
What I mean, Chris, is that it is a heresy for Christians It is indeed an a priori statement, in that it assumes the existence of an identifiable body of orthodox Christian beliefs which have historically deemed gnosticism to be heretical. And yes, narrow-minded and provincial as it may seem to some commenters who are blessed to have no a priori beliefs built on prejudicial assumptions – at least in their own eyes – I am, humbly and gratefully, deeply prejudiced in favor of a Christian world view.
Die? What's that?
Preston observed what others have echoed: "The snake's arguments contained the characteristic of all good lies all good lies – a little truth, mixed with purposeful deception."
Can't the same be said of God's command? Does anyone think that Adam took God's warning to mean that he (Adam) would die some 900 years later? There is no hint in the Genesis account that God gave Adam and Eve a course in Evil 101 so that they would be mentally and emotionally equipped to do battle with the serpent. Why would Adam need reason and logic if he knew and trusted the voice of God?
I am dumbfounded at how many people gravitate toward the notion that the first sin was caused by Adam and Eve's failure to outsmart the serpent or think their way through the situation. We cannot outsmart evil. Human finitude means that all abstract, propositional truth, which we think we understand and try to express, is partial truth that can readily be employed by evil. The minute we think we have grasped truth and understand good, they morph into deception and turn to evil. God's ways are not our ways; neither is His Truth our truth.
Loving submission and obedience to the voice and presence of a God who wanted to walk with them and talk with them were the only way for Adam and Eve to recognize and resist the seductions of the serpent. It is no different for us today.
Adam was a special creation (different from all other humans?) He lived for almost 1000 years. He had to defend his family against wild animals, outside of Eden. He had to scavenge constantly to eat. His
progeny must have been rebellious, right from the start, for being God forsaken, which led to God unable to tolerate their human degraduation, annihilated them. How long was Adam in Eden? How long did he eat from the tree of life? Were some of his offspring outside Eden for several generations, before Adam was exiled?
"God told Adam and Eve that if they ate or even touched fruit from the tree, they would die, but they didn’t!"
If one is going to discuss truth, it helps to be accurate. According Robert Alter, anything but an apologist for scripture, the correct translation of the Hebrew is: in the day that you eat of it, you will be doomed to die.
"If taken literally, the story suggests that Adam and Eve were simply higher order animals before The Fall. Their disobedience made them “gods.”"
Only if one fails to distinguish between a late 20th/early 21st century mindset and an author/audience with a totally different worldview.
"Higher animals" is a dead giveaway. Both this Genesis account, and the ancient mind, saw a discontinuity between man and the animals of all kinds. Both the words "in our own image" in Ch. 1 and the action of sculpting man from clay and woman from the rib in Ch. 2 make that discontinuity obvious.
In fact, before the fall, they had known only good. After eating the fruit, they became like God in that one narrow way. So the serpent's words were a truth told in a way to mislead.
There's no problem with a literal, literary interpretation. The problem is misreading, missing, or misappropriating words and expressions.
You can dissassemble a fine swiss watch and ridicule it as a teeny tiny bicycle, but that doesn't reflect on the watchmaker's workmanship. Genesis is a literary work, and a good one at that. Hacking around here and there as though it was an instruction manual or an engineering spec, or even a news report, is a mistake of approach. Such an approach cannot yield worthwhile results.