Adam and Eve and Apple and Serpent

Great Debates
1

Here’s a possibly obtuse question that I’m sure some Christian will be able to answer right off. It involves some pretty fundamental matters, though, so I’m starting it in GD.

First, a Biblical passage:

Gen 3:3-5 – But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now, we all know what happened after they ate the fruit. My question is: if it was the fruit that gave them knowledge of good from evil, how were they supposed to know it was wrong to eat the fruit in the first place? Seems like a Catch-22 to me.

Was the promise of the knowledge of good and evil just a pretext the serpent used to get them to eat the fruit? I don’t think so, because the passage where they suddenly realize they are naked and make aprons out of fig leaves serves as an illustration that they did indeed have a newfound sense of shame. Why would a just and loving God create beings with no sense of good and evil, then tempt them with a fruit tree planted right in the “midst” of the garden? Seems like He was just looking for trouble. God did tell them not to touch the tree. Was this supposed to be an isolated piece of instruction that Adam and Eve were supposed to follow like Pavlov’s dog, having no moral framework to place it in? What was in it for the serpent?

Just to head off a potential unproductive direction that may be taken by responders: I know most Christians don’t take the Adam and Eve story literally. My question, however, does not have anything to do with the particulars of the story; it’s strictly about the moral relationship of man and God. I don’t want to hear that it’s only a parable, because if the Bible is worth anything, its parables ought to be a perfect theological analogy of the actual story, however condensed and homogenized from the truth.

2

They were instructed not to.

3

I’ve always suspected that they were supposed to eat the fruit. The way it was set up, it certainly looks that way to me. Think about this: if you have a small child, and you don’t want them drinking the Clorox, do you call their attention to it, forbid them to drink it, then leave it right where they can get their hands on it and walk away, leaving them unsupervised (at least, as far as they know)? What are they going to do, being young enough not to know any better? Quite likely, satisfy their curiosity regarding the “What will happen?” question.

Surely, it can’t be argued that God did not forsee this, especially with the Serpent down there (which God also had to know about) to practically ensure that they would (which God had to know it would do). I’m not so certain that it was a test of their obedience as it was a test of their (and our) intelligence. For all they knew, the Serpent was right, and God had it wrong. How are they going to know who to believe without finding out? By remaining obedient, they would never know if God was telling them the truth. By setting it up to appear as an obedience test that they failed, realising the true nature of the challenge would also be another intelligence test for them (and by extension, us).

Just a theory, though…

4

(Assuming truth to biblical tales for the purposes of this post, something I don’t usually do… :slight_smile: )

Except, since they had no concept of good and evil, right and wrong, etc, they would have no way of conceiving that eating the fruit would be wrong, or that disobeying those instructions were wrong. In effect, they had no way of understanding that they should follow these instructions, because they had no way of understanding that they could disobey them, either.

In effect, it seems almost like god was playing mind games with them. He tells them something they have no possibility to understand, then punishes them because they don’t understand it. He’s evil, I tell you :wink:

5

Yes, they were instructed not to. They had no knowledge that disobedience was evil, prior to disobeying, at which point they thought (in the original translation) “uh oh.”

The part about that particular bit of Genesis that I’ve always found very interesting is the reasoning behind God’s giving them the boot. The disobedience was a bad thing, but the really worrisome part to God was that if something wasn’t done pronto, they (Adam & Eve) might well chow down on the Tree of Life, and become as they (God) were. Now, that bit does flow rather more logically than what the OP’s on about.

I’ve never been to Sunday School, but everyone I’ve talked to that has been, that’s never been an aspect that they’ve talked much about.

6

I find this part of the bible interesting. Just think about it.

God says: (paraphrased) Don’t eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you do, you’ll die.

The Serpent says: Go ahead and eat from the Tree. If you do, your eyes will be opened.

Adam and Eve then eat from the tree. Do they die, like God says they would? No! Their eyes are opened, just like the Serpent said! God then takes drastic measures to make sure that Adam and Eve don’t eat from the Tree of Life.

Given this, who’s our friend: God, who lied to Adam and Eve, trying to keep them ignorant and mortal, or the Serpent who wants us to become enlightened (and possibly immortal). Given that, I find it confusing that the Serpent is traditionally cast as the bad guy…

7

Yes, they were instructed not to. I don’t think morality deals into this, as blind obedience isn’t necessarily a moral trait.

I view it as a test. Of intelligence, maybe. I think it has more to do with God seeing whether or not, if you’ll excuse the expression, we had the balls to disobey him.

To take the text literally, for all we know, God said the same to every other animal in the garden and we were the only ones to actually take a bite. This is why we enjoy the status we have today. (I said enjoy. . .)

Anyway, I always viewed it as a metaphor for the emergence of consciousness.

8

From Phoenix Dragon:

There’s also the teaching thrown out somewhere that Satan is the “god” of this world and God is the “god” of the next. Sorta makes you wonder if we’re confusing the two in the whole thing. The God in the story punishes them for something they could not know was wrong, while the Serpent brings enlightenment. Makes you go “Hmmmm…”

I heard somewhere long ago that the venoms of some snakes can become hallucinogenic if you can survive being bitten enough times to build up immunity to their more deadly effects. I’ve always wondered if the “Serpent as Bringer of Enlightenment” may have come from this.

9

Son of a B!#@H.

The serpent should have told them to eat of the Tree of life FIRST!

Stupid serpent.

10

I can’t give a Christian answer, but from the Jewish perspective, the story is a sad one of people moving from a higher spiritual level to a lower one - from a knowledge of ‘Spiritual truth’ to a knowledge of mundane ‘right and wrong’. Man did become mortal as a result of this, and therefore did die (Adam and Even both died later, and people now are not immortal), but didn’t become more like God by knowing how to do the wrong thing, as the snake promised.

To answer the OP, Adam and Eve already had a moral sense before taking the bite of the fruit - afterwards, they had a knowledge of sin in the same sense that a child who puts a fork in an electric socket gains a knowledge of the power of Physics: a real (albeit incomplete) understanding, but a painful and destructive one. After this event, the evil inclination, which had previously been outside the body in the form of the snake (for example), moved inside individuals and led to the particular type of freewill we currently have: choosing between the immediate benefits of giving in to the wishes of our body or the long term benefits of considering the needs of the soul. This is the primary struggle in Jewish theology, between the soul, which attempts to pull the individual towards God, and the evil inclination, which attempts to pull the individual away from God.

The evil inclination is not interested in the individual’s freedom, but merely in its debasement, and therefore uses feelings such as depression and guilt, and generally emotions that disable a person from being able to improve themselves. Notice that the snake nicks off and doesn’t stay around to argue the case for Adam and Eve once its work is done. For example, if the evil inclination convinces you to yell at a friend and embarrass them, afterwards it will prey on your mind by making you feel bad about yourself, or guilty, so that you’ll be less likely to make amends for what you’ve done wrong.

I expect some of the more knowledgable Jewish posters to the board to add to or correct what I’ve written, but this is my understanding of the episode. Importantly, the only ramification of this sin is that humans are mortal, women suffer in childbirth and physical labour is needed for work (all three of which are, interestingly, being overcome by science and technology), and there is no other stain of sin on mankind because of the event.

11

As a Catholic who doesn’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis story, I STILL find the story of Adam and Eve instructive.

You can think of it as a myth similar to that of Pandora’s box. Both were legends designed to explain a tough question: why don’t we live in a perfect world? In both stories, the explanation hinges on the first woman ever created. She’s told by the god(s) not to do something, she disobeys, and presto! There’s evil in the world.

But there’s a subtle, important difference in the Genesis story. In the tale of Pandora, evil is something inside a box… and later, it’s something that’s escaped from the box, and is all around us. That is, evil is an EXTERNAL threat.

Once Adam and Eve ate the fruit (the Bible says “fruit,” it never mentions an apple. I’ll explain more about that later), they had the KNOWLEDGE of evil. That is, evil (the capacity to sin, the capacity to do wrong) was now INSIDE them!

The Jewish author of the Genesis story was making this point: “You want to know why we don’t live in PAradise? Because we’re capable of evil. We’re not like dumb animals- we’re KNOW a lot more than they do, and we’re capable of making good and bad choices. That’s both a blessing AND a curse.”

SUPPOSE, just suppose, that God had been super-forgiving, and said to Adam and Eve, “Well, you didn’t know that eating the fruit was wrong, so no biggie. Go back to Eden and we’ll forget this ever happened.” Well… since humans now had the knowledge of evil, just how long do you think Eden would have STAYED a Paradise? Banishment from Eden wasn’t necessarily a punishment, just a NECESSARY result of human ability to be evil.
Oh, back to the fruit. By sheer coincidence, “malum” is the Latin word for apple AND the Latin word for evil. When the Scriptures were translated into Latin, the pun must have been irresistible!

12

I agree with HenrySpencer for the most part. A few changes and additions. though:

When they were placed in the garden, they were both immortal and innocent, although somehow different from God. They were given a test of obedience, they failed and thus became both sinful and mortal. God kicked them out of the garden before they ate of the other tree, because he knew that if they were sinful and immortal, that would only lead to eternal unhappiness. From a Christian perspective, this is why God then had to bring a Savior into the world - to undo the effects of the Fall. Since we did not share in Adam’s sin, we don’t have to do anything to gain immortality -Jesus took care of that. However, he also made it possible for us to repent, so that we won’t be both immortal and sinful, which would lead to eternal unhappiness. Anyway, that’s how I see it. A test of obedience that they failed, which made a Savior necessary. Did God know they would fail it? Undoubtedly. But, like any good parent, he knew there was a time when he had to let them make their own choices (even though some choices would be mistakes) - how else would they grow? He wanted them to become as he was, and he coudln’t accomplish that by coddling.

13

Please also note that the phrase “knowledge of good and evil” is used in ancient Hebrew much the same way that we would use a term like “everything from A to Z”, or “soup to nuts”, a poetic form that means “everything.”

Thus, there is a line of interpretation that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong (and they knew obedience from disobedience) even before eating from the tree.

And the fruit was probably more like a pomegranite than an apple. The Bible text nowhere mentions apple.

14

There is or, rather, was, a minor theological tradition called the “Ophitics” whose starting point is that the God of this particular tale was not God but merely an autocratic ruler, and that the word of the true God was attributed to the serpent (Ophos in Greek).

15

“If you sit down and think about [God] sensibly, you come up with some very funny ideas. Like: why make people inquisitive, and then put some forbidden fruit where they can see it with a big neon finger flashing on and off saying ‘THIS IS IT!’?”
–Neil Gaimen and Terry Pratchett, Good Omens

Personally, I say Adam and Eve were set up by God. He could’ve just used a smidgen of omnipotence to move the tree to a faraway land, or build a twenty-foot-wall around it, but noooooooooooooooooo…

16

I have never heard this, but it is very interesting considering what happens after Adam and Eve eat the fruit. They cover themselves and hide. Along comes God (taking an afternoon stroll) and he calls out asking where they are. Now this isn’t the same God from the rest of the bible, especially the OT.

Another thing that puzzles me. jalopeura says:

Now in Genesis 3:22 it says:

Now lets see before man/woman ate the fruit they were innocent and immortal and sort of like God but not the same. Then they eat the fruit and become sinful (knowing good from evil) and mortal. Now God tells some other gods or maybe angels that man/woman has now become more like them and if man/woman eats of the Tree of Life they will be the same. Does this not end up saying that God is God because he knows the difference between good and evil and is immortal?

I am not arguing for the idea, just saying that the story gets confusing the more you try to figure it out. :confused:

17

Animals are mortal and suffer in childbirth. Does this mean that they ate of the Tree also?

18

I think astorian made a good point about this story. Unless you are a literalist, this story is not history, it is a story written to explain humanities sinful nature.

So, the sinfulness is a given. The story explains the sinfulness. There never was a chance that Adam and Eve wouldn’t eat the fruit, since we live in a sinful world. The author of the story didn’t consider that, looked at a certain way, the story was somewhat contradictory.

The story rather answers questions: Why do we suffer? Where did evil come from?

19

First, I’m confused as to why the OP asks only for the
Christian perspective on a story written by Jews and believed by Jews for quite a while before a certain carpenter shows up (Or is believed to have shown up-depending on your POV) and his disciples found a new religion.

 Secondly, I've always viewed the tale of the forbidden fruit (The original text says only "fruit of the tree". To Europeans, this was apples. Technically, it could have been bannanas, oranges, or coconuts.) as a parable. God creates Adam and Eve. Initially, He is pleased with them. But, He realises that Adam and Eve must be good, as they are incapable of evil. This goes into "the robot who could only be good and Clockwork Orange" territory discussed in countless other threads. In a perfect world where God appears to humans on a daily basis, faith and spirituality are givens. Adam and Eve couldn't blame God for their suffering if there was no suffering. They wouldn't doubt his existence, if he kept appearing to them. The fruit is a solution to this.

  Only with the knowledge of good and evil, and the capacity to act in either can a person choose to do good. Only in a world of suffering and doubt could a person truly have faith. The fruit changes Adam and Eve in to true human beings. Thus to me the message was always that God gives the ability for good and evil so that when we choose good, it is an act of free will. God allows suffering so (among other reasons) our faith is not automatic but can truly be tested. The Book of Job is an excellent example of this. There comes a time that every parent must let their children leave home and fend for themselves. The fruit is both a final lesson and a going away present.
20

These have all been very interesting posts.

Here is what I’ve learned about the Genesis story. God created man in His image. God gave man and woman only one commandment to not break. They break the commandment because the serpent tempted them. Because Adam and Eve know that God created them and that he specifically told them to not eat of that tree, they realize that they commited the first sin. The most important consequence of the original sin is man’s seperation from God. That is why A&E felt naked. The fruit did not magically give them this knowledge. They knew right and wrong and chose to do wrong thus creating a chasm between man and God who can do no wrong.

kniz said

Actually, in Christianity it is accepted that this story (Gen 3:8) is the first example of God’s manifestation as Man on earth. He appeared to Jacob as a Man in Genesis 32:24. He also appeared to Manoah and his wife in the form of a Man in Judges 13:6, 18. God manifested Himself as Man many times in the OT.

Genesis 3:15 was the first prophecy in the OT about the coming Incarnation of God to close the chasm created by Adam and Eve in the Fall.