Granted, that the first two chapters state that humankind is the superior, final creation above the animals, and that they established that humans ruled and named the animals. They also lived in concord with the beasts and all creatures were vegetarians.
However, in that they were naked and unashamed, that they did not possessive the knowledge “to be as gods”, and lacked whatever moral sense can be determined from “the Fall”, in those senses they were more like animals.
A few thoughts:
The sin is not merely disobedience, but hubris. The final temptation to which the woman succumbs is to be “like gods who know good and bad.” (The word ELOHIM can be read as “like God” or as the plural “like gods.”) The sin of hubris will re-appear in the Babel story and elsewhere.
After eating, the immediate reaction is that their eyes are open, so they see that they are naked and are embarrassed. What does this imply happened? (i.e., what is the “knowledge of good and evil”?) Possibilities: carnal knowledge; knowledge of good and evil and they chose evil; all knowledge A-to-Z.
Early in the chapter, the two senses of sight and sound are opposed. The woman sees the tree (to see implies to possess), they perceive/see that they are naked. But then they hear the sound of God. I read this is they see each other naked, and know that they are NOT like God.
The curses on males and females are parallel: man must raise/give birth to food through agricultural and toil; woman must raise/give birth to children in pain. One reading: the two curses are famine and fraternal conflict, and the rest of the book of Genesis is full of stories about both. (When we get there, Joseph “undoes” both these curses: he rations food to counter famine, and he forgives his brothers for their attempted fratricide. There is an interpretation, then, within the Genesis text, that the curse on Adam is ended by Joseph.)
On cherubim, the only other mention in the Hebrew bible is as decoration over the ark of the covenant. For a (very lengthy) commentary on angels, see: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2059/whats-the-deal-with-angels … cherubim are covered way down there:
More on the cherubim from Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible, edited by Karel van der Toorn, et al.:
"… the sphinx throne with the sphinxes as an integral element of the throne itself (thus not only flanking the throne) is a Syrian innovation from the time of the 19th Egyptian dynasty. While the Egyptian lion-paws throne never carried a god, the Syrian sphinx throne was used for both gods and kings…
In discussing the cherubim, the iconography of the Solomonic temple and that of the Priestly tabernacle must be properly distinguished. The Solomonic cherubim are ten cubits high (I Kgs 6:23) and stand parallel to each other in the adyton, facing the nave
(2 Chron 3: 13). Their inner wings meet eachother and are conjoined (I Kgs 6:27; 2 Chron 3: 12) forming the throne seat of the invisible deity. The ark is placed underneath the conjoined inner wings as the fool"tool of the LORD (1 Kgs 8:6-8; I Chr 28:2). The usual assumption is that the cherubim stand on all four legs, just as the sphinxes known from the plastic arts…
While there is now a fair amount of agreement about the iconographical background of the cherubim, there is still disagreement on the religio-historical implications. Since the cherubim serve both a.1; Yahweh’s throne and as his vehicle, the chariot (Ps 18: II; cf. Ps 104:3), it may be that the EI traditions of the enthroned deity and the -·Baal notions of the “Driver of the Clouds” have merged. Whether or not one should then presuppose an influence from the lion dragon of the weather god is a different matter."
That makes me wonder why Jesus and his followers thought of it, then. You’d think there’d have to be some Jewish tradition with that interpretation, even if it was later labeled a heresy.
But that’s really a discussion for later in the Bible, I guess. This is going to take a while.
On the serpent:
First, there is only one other talking animal in the bible (unlike most mythologies), and that’s Balaam’s ass (donkey-type, not what you were thinking).
The serpent here is clearly NOT an immortal, the plain reading of the text does not allow an intepretation of the serpent as Satan. The serpent is introduced as “the shrewdest of all the wild beasts that the Lord God has made” and is cursed for “all the days of your life.” It is a mortal being.; Sarna says, “It is not demonic, only extraordinarily shrewd.” The identification of the serpent with Satan does not occur until the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, around 100 BCE.
The humans are given a chance to explain themselves (however futile), where the serpent is not.
And I need to amend my earlier statement. The line in 2:5 is clearly “… like gods who know good and evil.” The word ELOHIM means both God and gods, but the verb “know” here (yo-day) is clearly plural, so the translation “… like God who knows…” is incorrect.
If you subscribe to a view that the Old Testament contains “pointers to Christ”, then the Joseph narrative is a Christ analogue. The ultimate resolution of the fall being fulfilled in the person of Jesus (Paul calls Jesus the second Adam 1 Cor 15:45, Rom 5:12-19), and the curses explicitly broken in the Last Supper (this is my body … take, eat) and the Crucifixion (Father, forgive them …)
Is there a term for this type of retroactive interpretation of the Old Testament? I remember going through Song of Songs as a teenager and seeing the one-line descriptions at the top of the page referencing Jesus repeatedly.
Found it-Messianic Interpretation.
Not surprisingly, there’s more than one term. Though sometimes called a “Christian midrash”, it’s more usually known as the “sensus plenior” (Latin for “fuller sense”), which looks at the OT scriptures through the rosy glasses of hindsight, and often finds more than is reasonably warranted. Messianic Interpretation refers to that large subset which deals with Christ as Messiah/Savior.
Verse 15 is often interpreted as a Messianic prophecy, specifically a Christian one -
IOW there is going to be enmity between the “seed” (offspring) of the snake, and of the woman. Note that the seed is not of the man and the woman; only the woman is mentioned. Christ is the offspring of a woman and the Holy Spirit - no man involved. This is considered a prophecy both of the Messiah and of the Virgin Birth.
The word translated “bruise” can also be made “crush”. The seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent, thus destroying it. In return, the serpent, who is the symbol of evil, will “bruise” the offspring of the woman on the heel. Assuming a poisonous serpent, the offspring of the woman will suffer and die in the process of destroying the sin and evil that attacks humanity.
Regards,
Shodan
I certainly wouldn’t disagree - I’ve heard some mind-boggling twisting to draw connections where I certainly could not see one.
I’m fascinated by the way God is presented in this chapter and the next. Strolling through the garden, seemingly unaware of what’s going on, talking to people face-to-face. Much different that what we see everywhere else in the Bible.
Just wanted to check in and say I’ve been reading the thread with pleasure and I’m hoping to come back with some more questions after a more thorough reading of this chapter. As someone who studied a lot of political theory, I’m interested in theories of morality and obligation. Not knowing good and evil, how was Eve supposed to know to obey God? Was she obliged to obey him, because he created her? Is that a separate layer of knowledge - it could be, clearly there is knowledge before the Fall, as Adam goes around naming all the animals and what not. Also, what about the morality of God lying by saying that eating from the tree will kill whoever does so, when in fact it does not (that seems like a bit of a gotcha but I don’t mean it that way - I’m including it because I’m still interested in responses).
Finally, I found it interesting that Satan makes his appearance all of a sudden, without being previously introduced or it having been discussed who he is and where he comes from (metaphysically speaking). That would make it seem like he (and evil) existed before the creation. Is that right?
Only if you accept the interpretation that the serpent(soon to be snake) in the Eden story is indeed Satan.
Glad you are enjoying the thread.
One fairly standard answer to God’s “lying” is that in Psalm 90:4 and in 2 Peter 3:8 is the idea that a thousand years is but a day to the Lord. Adam’s age at death is given at 930 years, so he died that “day”.
Whether or not the snake is Satan is a long-standing matter of conjecture. It’s extremely likely the authors of Genesis identified the two. To the best of my understanding, the earliest Satan appears in the writings (based on when they were probably written, not necessarily in the order they appear in the OT) is in the preface to Job, where he’s not an evil character, but the prosecuting attorney of the case vs. humanity. But as he’s shown as an angel there, then, IF the angels are referred to when God says “we” and “us” or in the plural term “elohim”, then he’d have existed before the Creation of the universe.
My bad, I thought this chapter mentioned Satan, but I was wrong. Still, what inspires the snake to do what it does? Is it God testing Eve through a mechanism existing within his creation, or is it evil existing independently from God and the creation? Does the snake actually represent Evil with a capital e, or is it just some shitty self-interested animal that messes things up for other people as a side-effect to his stupid pranks?
Talmudic interpretations say the serpent’s jealous of God’s preference for humanity. Later interpretations say it’s the dEvil with a capital Evil. Whether or not God is testing Eve is a longstanding matter of conjecture. The origin of evil is not addressed.
The “seemingly unaware” is a matter of conjecture. Most readers take this as a situation where a parent confronts a child who has chocolate all over his face, and the parent asks, “Were you in the cookie jar?” fully knowing the answer. Similarly, God is confronting Adam and the woman (not yet named) by asking questions to which He certainly knows the answer (I mean, c’mon, they’re wearing fig leaves? Doesn’t take omniscience to know what’s going on.)
While God is depicted in more anthropomorphic terms in these early stories, He’s not dumb.
The “Where are you?” is taken by Martin Buber as the great existential question.
I’ve read an interpretation along those lines that says that the “nakedness” is not just physical nakedness, but emotional and psychological: confronting a being that knows your every thought, your innermost secrets, knows you down to your core. That’s frightening, to be so naked.
Yeah, I agree, that’s why I emphasized the word “seemingly.” It’s even clearer in the next chapter, when He asks Cain about Abel, and after Cain lies, God says “c’mon, stop with the lies, his blood is calling out to me.”
Can you say a little more about this? Something about being hidden from God’s presence?