I like this answer the best. It was a test. They failed it.
If I remember correctly, the author Tom Robbins compared the tree of knowledge to a wallet on a string.
Yeah, if “Genesis” were a new story being shown on HBO, we’d have threads galore here on how none of it makes sense, there’s plot holes all over the place, and how God of Season One seems very different from God of Seasons two and onward.
I mean, let’s look at this: They acquire knowledge of “good and evil”, and the first manifestation of that is that they realize walking around naked is “evil”. But God made them naked, and didn’t make them any clothes! So there they were, being all “evil” according to God’s own rules, but they just didn’t know it until they broke another of God’s own rules.
The only conclusion is that God is a perv, who got off on watching Adam and Eve be evil, without them even knowing it.
Is this correct? That being naked was truly “evil”? I always got the impression that they were aware of their nakedness and ashamed of it, but not that it was inherently evil. More like a young child becoming aware of social mores and suddenly becoming hyper-aware of being exposed in public.
As for the tree, IMO, it’s a metaphor. Humanity falls from a state of blissful ignorance and one-ness with God. That is described as “eating the forbidden fruit” because that is an easily-understood story.
If it didn’t fall on the “evil” side of the spectrum, why be ashamed of it? Plus, look at the history of religion vs. sexual things. There’s far more sex-negative religions than sex-positive. It might not be genocide-level evil, but just being naked is definitely considered to be a little bit evil. And hey, at the time, we couldn’t even commit genocide, so this was probably the most evil act ever committed, up to that point.
To me this part makes sense. They were aware of their nakedness … no longer naked like a toddler running through a sprinkler but aware as in now with sexual desire. The shame was not in the nakedness but of the awareness, the arousal, the desire. Conscious desire was the source of their shame, not nakedness per se. Naked Adam now with his first erection was a bit embarrassed.
Not a sex positive message.
And there were plants and birds and rocks and things.
To me, there’s enough about the story that doesn’t add up or make sense if you take it at the strictly literal, surface level that I’m pretty sure we’re not supposed to take it at the literal, surface level, but rather to read it as allegory or metaphor or parable. Which might be the point that @C_K_Dexter_Haven was trying to make here:
I suspect that allegory has fallen out of favor somewhat, and that people today are less adept at recognizing and appreciating it than in the past.
The fact that it’s called “The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”—that’s the kind of thing that you often find in allegory, making the abstract concrete and giving it a label like that.
The bit about Adam and Eve suddenly realizing they were naked and being ashamed of it is, to me, another clue. Is eating the fruit a metaphor for growing up? Little kids often have no shame or embarrassment about running around naked, but when they get older they develop modesty. Or is it a metaphor for the human species becoming more than just another animal? Other animals don’t wear clothes or have any issue with nakedness. Or is it something else, that still may be analogous or reminiscent of one or both of these?
Hm. That’s a fair question. Certainly the story-tellers equated nakedness with sexual desire and lust and put that in the “not good” bin.
Again, I tend to look at the whole story metaphorically (and did even when I was a practicing Christian), because it makes very little sense literally. It’s an attempt to explain why things are the way they are. Why do we have to cover ourselves? Why is it wrong to lust after our neighbor’s wife? Why do we have to listen to those pesky Priests?
I love the comparison to Aesop’s fables, because that’s basically what it is. A just-so story to convey a message.
Great questions. I think it was meant to be something more than just “growing up” or “becoming human”. Something like: moving from a state of perfection with God to a state with free will along with an understanding of “right and wrong” sufficient to make it “fair” that humans be punished for that free will.
Which I guess is related to the idea of “growing up” in that you wouldn’t punish a child for being naked because they don’t know why that is “wrong”. In the metaphor, it would be wrong for God to punish Adam and Eve because they are unaware of “wrongness”.
But something is missing or off in the story because, as told, Adam and Even literally did nothing wrong until they ate the fruit, which they couldn’t have done if God hadn’t put the tree there. I think you have to assume that the eating of the fruit was inevitable, just like growing up is. Sure the serpent tempted them, but they would have eaten eventually anyways.
Well, that’s kind of the issue here, isn’t it? My impression of the OP was, “What was the in-story justification for the tree?”, rather than “What was the story-telling purpose of the tree?”
Once we start talking about metaphors, the sky’s the limit, of course, and I expect that the whole, “This represents growing up and loss of innocence” thing is probably most likely. But in a world where a lot of people brag about being “Biblical literalists”, it’s a legitimate question to ask them, “Okay, what was the literal purpose of this tree?”
Either this makes no sense, or the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. Of course I don’t expect them to admit either of those points, but watching them waffle is sometimes amusing.
This is close to what I would answer, to wit: It’s a plot device. Ever wonder why there usually is an anti-hero or opposition party in every story? It gives the author something to play off of. Conflict can be used to move the plot along and it also serves as foreboding, another plot device. If you introduce a Ha-Satan (the accuser), it’s likely to be a factor later, when the author needs it.
I mean, sure. But that doesn’t really explain the tree. It could have been anything God told them not to do. So why specifically a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
If you wanted to test the loyalty and/or obedience of your innocent young children, wouldn’t you start with putting Oreos or somesuch on a plate where they can get to it, and not a loaded handgun?
“You’d better stand back…I don’t know how big this thing is going to get.”
I always thought it was obvious that ‘knowledge’ and ‘life’ offered by these trees were the powers that God had. This was confirmed by my Sunday school teacher circa 1960. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised others have discussed this subject since then. Still just seems to be an obvious temptation so God could find out if his creations were obedient and could be trusted around such great power. I’m a little surprised he didn’t expect this outcome, but we all get at least a little disappointed when our kids first demonstrate that they aren’t precious snowflakes after all.
I don’t think there is meant to be a reason, as such, in the story.
But in terms of post hoc rationalizations, I like fordgt100’s:
The tree doesn’t give knowledge, or teach anything. It starts a chain of events that teaches you something.
Like “Pull this string to learn about gravity” where pulling the string releases a bowling ball that drops on you.
I’m voting for No Purpose, just a folk explanation of a human trait. Nearly all people are plagued by doubts, shame, and a sense of wrong and right, and the story offers a reason — one that was entertaining around an evening fire.
The story then provides an explanation of the snake’s weird anatomy:
“So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.”
That sounds like a good explanation to me. God is to be considered perfect, and will only create something perfect like Eden. Therefore everything bad that happened afterwards is to be blamed on us as flawed humans rather than on God making a flawed creation.
In other words, it’s a way to explain why bad things happen in a world created by a perfect God.
I’ve heard the version that it was actually a pomegranate.
You need to ask God. Let me know what he says. Also, let’s not forget. He works in mysterious ways. Which explains anything God does that we don’t/can’t understand.
I’m less philosophical about it than that.
To me there are several potential purposes for a culture’s myths. Two of the biggies:
Folk science: why does winter happen for example.
And providing a justification for laws other than power enforcement alone, one that follows even when those with power are not actively watching.
This story, and the bits later about Choseness, and later yet the concept of Heaven and Hell getting top billing, are more the latter with a smattering of the former.
But stories can get reinterpreted!
Through today’s lens this is a Matrix decision. Knowledge is the red pill, not pretty but worth it, and God was rooting for serpent success.