At the end of Genesis 3, Ish and Isha (Adam and Eve) are expelled from the garden of Eden: "So YHWH, God, sent him away from the garden of Eden, to work / the soil from which he had been taken. / He drove the human out / and caused to dwell, eastward of the garden of Eden, / the winged-sphinxes and the flashing, ever-turning sword / to watch over the way to the Tree of Life" (Fox translation).
Within the Jewish tradition, this is known simply as the expulsion from the garden, whereas in the Christian tradition it is understood (typically) as "The Fall." Basically, this amounts to two different readings/understandings of the story. In the first (Jewish) reading of the text, it is a driving out, an in-out movement. In the second (Christian) reading, it is an up-down movement.
So for this post, I'd like you to comment on these two different readings of the story. The difference in interpretation, though it seems subtle, is actually quite significant, and says a great deal about what the readers see or expect to see in the text. What are the implications of each reading? What do they mean? What do YOU see in the text? How do YOU read this text? These are some questions to get you started, but you are not limited only to these.
Remember--try to avoid incorporating religious beliefs or ideologies. Try, instead, to look just at the text.
Also--I'm looking to see that you think critically in your responses. This means I'm not looking for length, but quality.
Finally--be sure to read the responses of your peers before you post your comment. Try to respond to your peers' comments. Think of this as an online discussion, a virtual classroom, where you can engage in dialogue with one another. Feel free to disagree with people, but be courteous. Also feel free to raise additional questions that will enrich the discussion.
Don't forget to include your name!
YOU MUST POST A RESPONSE NO LATER THAN MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 8PM.
40 comments:
I think it's intriguing how these two interpretations differ. The Christian side seems much more negative; it's almost like a "descension" from heaven to hell, of sorts. The Jewish view, however, portrays it more as a fall from grace, where it is treated more as a sin, but not AS harsh as the Christian viewpoint. While the Jewish thought makes it seem more like a story surrounding characters who made a mistake, the Christian interpretation appears to make more of an example out of the story, in order to show all humans what will happen if they disobey God. This makes God appear to be less forgiving in the Christian take.
I did not interpret this reading as derogatorily as I once had. It did, indeed, seem to me to take on more of the in-out quality, making it appear that humans were still alongside God. I think this also makes an interesting reference to the way humans think: how they feel entitled, as if they deserve to control the world.
--Kate Padgitt
I agree with Kate in a couple ways. I can see the differences in viewpoints from Jewish to Christian, but they are almost the same. If you look at it in the jewish viewpoint, where it was treated as a sin, well that is what christians view as falling short of God. Therefore I could almost see these ideas being the same but just worded differently. Yes it may seem that the Christian side is a little harsh, but a lot of what is in the bible sounds that way for a reason. It almost seems like a fairy tale because of how they had everything and then got "kicked out" but I believe that the two versions have a lot more similarities than what is seen in the text.
I would have to say that I saw it more as up and down then in-out which goes against how I ever thought of it before. The idea of two different viewpoints from the Christian versus Jewish perspectives were completely new to me. A in-out interpertation as Kate said would give more of an apperance of being alongside God rather than the up-down theory.
From our text 3:8 stuck out to me and made me wonder where this garden was. YHWH, God, is walking within it and I couldn't help but wonder if this was not an uncommon action for him to do as they recognized the sound of his coming. The question I even wonder is could God live in the garden with them. That would change the direction of where God banished them in relation to himself. Is he above them at the end of Genesis 3 (down-up) or living within his creation (in-out)?
I definitely agree with Kate, that the Christian example seems to make more of an example out of Adam and Eve for all of humanity. In looking at the text myself, though, it seems to give humans more control in the Christian text. "The Fall" seems to bring forth the idea that it was all human effort and failure, separate from a God who is either not involved or just being silent. The up-down suggests, as Michelle said, a track they follow apart from God, whereas the in-out illustrates more interaction with God. This Christian view seems very human-centered and evokes the narcissistic tendency of the authors that we discussed in class. The other, Jewish interpretation- the sideways one- seems to bring forth the idea that God created and gave humanity everything it would need, and humanity failed, thus being rejected by a God who had warned these humans of the consequences they would face.
In both versions, Ish and Isha are punished for disobeying God. I can see how classmates are claiming that moving down/falling is worse than being caste out, but they both sound hurtful. Nobody wants to be banished from a place, especially a place where God seems to be physically present and all seems to be given to them. Both versions go on to explain the punishments of working the land and painful child bearing. Michelle brings up a good point at the end of her comment mentioning how the Christian translation seems as if we fell from God’s grace and are no longer perfect (if we ever were in the first place) while the Jewish translation pushes humans further away from God but not necessarily further under. The Christian translation makes me wonder if they believed that Eden was a type of heaven since they were caste down when they messed up. The Jewish reading makes me feel as if the relationship is a more loving one. For example, if kids annoy parents by doing the wrong thing, parents will send them to their rooms (in-out), parents don’t elaborate on how the misbehavior makes them less of a good person (up-down).
3:8) Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden. (http://www.biblegateway.com/)
To agree with Michelle, if God was present in the Garden of Eden it would seem more like a "falling" than expulsion.
I have always seen God as above us in the heavens and we were below him. To have God present and visible would almost seem like we were UP with him instead of on earth. By getting kicked out of Eden, it is like getting kicked out of what we think of as a heavenly place higher than Earth. I completely agree with the both interpretations because both do make sense. Expulsion does convey being kicked out or banished, but the “Falling” does imply Adam and Eve were in a higher place than what we know as Earth.
This website had other beliefs on this situation. It mentioned that in the Catholic Church it was a “Rising” instead of “Falling”… “It describes the rise, not the fall, of humanity. It portrays God as having created Adam and Eve as proto-humans. They were not fully human because they lacked a moral sense -- the main difference between humans and the rest of the animal world. They had no concept of right or wrong. God deceived Adam and Eve into believing that the fruit of the tree was poisonous… (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene0.htm_).
If I take what I read from the text literally, I would think that it more closely resembles the Jewish interpretation. It says in 3:24 "He drove the human out/and caused to dwell, eastward of the garden of Eden" which implies the in-out motion.
When others mention that they heard God walking around in the garden, I interpreted that as God coming down to Earth to confront them about what they had done, and then casting them out from there.
I think the idea of the "down-up" direction that Kayla brought up is really interesting. Because it does say "Here, the human has become like one of us, in knowing good and evil." This implies that the humans had risen from a lower position to a higher one once they realized their sins and the concept of good and evil.
However, I still personally view it as an in-out motion, when regarding the actual cast-out. I don't think the knowledge they gained necessarily sent them in any particular direction, but rather their act of disobedience did.
I can't agree that God deceived Adam and Eve. I don't see that suggested or implied anywhere in the text. God warned Adam of the consequences of eating from the Tree of the Knowing of Good and Evil - "on the day that you eat from it, you must die, yes, die." I don't believe that this meant that they would die on that very day, but meant instead that on the day they ate of it, death was on its way to them. It was inevitable and irreversible. If they hadn't eaten, they wouldn't have ever known about or experienced death. I believe the "knowing" indicates a loss of innocence. Innocence lost can never be regained. I mean, you can't ever "unknow" something.
When talking to the serpent, Eve, maybe a bit like an adolescent who's trying to make her parents look more harsh and strict than they really are, added to God's words about the tree when she said at the end of 3:3 "and you are not to touch it, lest you die." God never said that they weren't supposed to touch the tree, just that they weren't to eat of its fruit. I think maybe Eve's stretching things a bit was her way of helping herself to feel more justified in following through and doing what she was tempted to do. To me, the tree and its fruit are metaphors for every disobedient thing any human is tempted to do.
And it doesn't seem like she had to hike any long distance to get to that tree. From the way verse six reads, she had her conversation with the serpent while standing within arm's reach of it. Verse six states that after she, "saw that the tree was good for eating/and that it was a delight to the eyes,/and the tree was desirable to contemplate." "She took from its fruit and ate and gave also to her husband beside her,/and he ate." So Adam was standing right there beside Eve, the serpent, and the tree.
Back to the idea of humankind being given free will, it was Adam and Eve who made the choice that resulted in their being expelled from Eden, not God. God, their Creator, gave them a choice; they were free to choose obedient action or disobedient action. The thing that they (just like us today) were not free to do, was choose their consequences.
I don't really see this as an up/down or an in/out issue. I see it as contentment vs. discontentment, obedience vs. disobedience, a close relationship with YHWH, God vs. a broken relationship with Him.
I also see this as God protecting Adam and Eve from eating of the Tree of Life and living forever in decaying, death-ridden bodies.
I still think that you need to call this a fall. It seems from Gen 1:26-28 that man was given dominion over everything in the shamayim, the aretz, and the mayim (showing off my Hebrew).
It would seem that Yahweh wanted to make man be his vice-regent upon the earth. God wants to utilize mankind (ha adam) because they were created in his image. God has not given up on man, for in chapter 12 we will see that God will again call man to carry out his purposes. This person will be Abram, who will bless all of the nations (Gen 12:3). Isa 42:6 and 49:6 tell us that Israel was supposed to embody this feature of representing God's light to the whole world.
Therefore, where Adam failed, God's chosen people are called to fulfill.
"Remember--try to avoid incorporating religious beliefs or ideologies"
I don't this is helpful. We can't pretend our biases and prior knowledge don't affect us. As a matter of fact the "Jewish", and "Christian" positions are exactly that - socio-religious positions held in history.
I'm also curious what the "Jewish" position comes from? Perhaps the Talmud?
I can definitely see the in/out of Eden. Many comments in the talmud reflect on eden/temple/jerusalem metaphors. The only problem with the Christian position is the radical individualization that has happened recently (last several hundred years)
I guess that first of all I want to get out some side questions that quite honestly can't be answered for sure but that I think are still interesting to think about....or possibly discuss. 1: I think it's interesting that God told them that the day they ate of it they would die, yet how would Adam and Eve have any concept of what death was? Had they ever seen anything die or for that matter ever even felt pain? Yet, the text seems to infer that they knew death was bad. 2: God had to have created this serpant...a serpant that is talking. I wonder if this is supposed to be taken literally. In Bible school growing up I had the steryotypical depiction of a snake wrapped around a tree having a conversation with Eve. I just think this is something weird to think about. Wouldn't she think something was a little off when this one and only animal was speaking to her?
And I think someone else mentioned this earlier, but I was also curious about whether Adam in fact was standing right beside her when the serpant was speaking to her because it says in 3:6 ...She took from its fruit and ate and gave also to her husband beside her, and he ate.
As previously discussed about the falling or in-out motion of Adam and Eve, I tend to think that the Garden of Eden is in fact on Earth and that they were driven out of it in a in-out way. I think that the falling thought of Christians comes from how our society works. We tend to think of things as a status and the higher the status the better whether it be money, intelligence, number of friends, and so on. I think the word fallen was therefore used for us to understand the negative connotation. I further think that it was an in-out motion because God in 3: 24 seems to have almost protected the area or made it guarded. If it wasn't a place on Earth were Adam and Eve are it wouldn't need protected.
This last part of Genesis 3 confused me a bit with the wording, so I was looking forward to discussing it in class.
When I first read it I immediately related it to an in-out movement. I had never heard of the Christian version of the up-down movement before. Although I like the pointing out that Michelle makes with the location of the garden since they were used to hearing God then could they be above before? I have tried considering this thought and cannot make it seem more real then the Jewish version. Since they were moved eastward how could it be down and eastward, as someone had mentioned. In class we talked a lot about humans being selfish or very critical. I feel this comes into play a bit. Maybe the Christians are more neg. then the Jews are by saying "up down movement". To me that would be worse, although, that could also be because of heaven being above and hell is supposedly below maybe that is just how we think as down being worse.
In my mind I still feel it an in-out movement. It just seems more logical to me because God was supposed ruler and he gave power to Ish and Isha. So if he was ruler he would be in Heaven and come down to the Garden of Eden. Though it is interesting to hear the other version because I had never heard it before.
Since Ish and Isha are the first humans to exist on earth, they are experiencing everything for the first time. It's hard to imagine what their thoughts and perceptions were as they lived in the garden, since they had no other example of a human to emulate. This lack nurture could have been supplemented by natural reinforcement from God when he created them. I think that God could have given them some sort of intelligence, such as how to talk and create names for every living creature. It seems that God caused them to understand their duties of what to do and not to do (i.e. not to eat of the Tree of the Knowing of Good and Evil). God may have also given them the insight to know that dieing was a negative consequence of eating of the tree. But, again, it's hard to know their awareness of good and evil before they ate of the fruit.
As for the Jewish and Christian views of this chapter, I also never knew or thought about the differences of interpretation. When the human first arrived at the garden of Eden, Genesis 2:15 says that "YHWH, God, took the human and set him in the garden..." I think most Christians would think of "set" as downward motion and not upward, which would confuse the stereotyped view of "The Fall," unless the human goes even lower after he eats of the tree. It's interesting to think about these directional viewpoints, but doesn't overshadow the fact that Ish and Isha are banished from the garden of Eden, never to return. Whether it's in-out or up-down, they have disobeyed God's one command for them not to eat from the tree and are no longer able to live in the garden.
This passage holds so much intrigue and mystery; it’s quite a lofty task to offer insight on its two different primary readings. It’s easiest for me to begin from the Christian perspective, but I’ll do my best to cleave my prior views from the discussion.
It makes sense that the Christian perspective would view this whole drama with the apple as “original sin”. Check out Masaccio’s fresco painting Expulsion From The Garden Of Eden.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/6b-Fall.jpg
[Sorry, art history nerd… I know] The angel Gabriel (who hasn’t even been mentioned at this point—actually, angels haven’t even been mentioned yet come to think of it) drives the humans out with a sword to the neck and grotesque expressions on their faces. Prophetically, God said, ‘Don’t do this…,’ Ish and Isha did it, and all of this bad stuff starts to happen. Going back a couple verses (3:16), God brings forth pregnancy pains, manual labor, and thorns—new things in this world that haven’t been mentioned yet. If you’re reading Eden to mean Heaven on Earth, the logical parallel for getting expelled from Eden (Heaven) would be damnation (as in to Hell).
This [up → down] movement of humans, or “the fall”, is taking what we will know about the Bible (The Fall, The Need For A Savior, Christ, etc.) and attributing significance to this certain action.
The Jewish reading of [in → out] is interesting in that there is no outright judgment married to it. It reads as ‘They did this; God did this; Go forth from here….’ It makes the expulsion more about being sent out of God’s favor. Because it technically may be “original sin” it doesn’t carry any implications of how this will translate into the sinful nature of humans.
From a literary standpoint, we’ve established a setting and the main characters, and this is just the beginning of the rising action of the story.
I see this passage as more of a fall than an outward movement. In Genesis 2:16-17, the human was told that he/it could eat from any tree in the garden except the Tree of the Knowing of Good and Evil. The Tree of Life was also in the garden, but God did not forbid them to eat from it. The footnote says that the Tree of Life gave “immortality on the eater of its fruit”. This means the human could have had immortality like God. However, after Ish and Isha ate from the Tree of the Knowing of Good and Evil, winged-sphinxes with swords came to guard the Tree of Life. It is my interpretation that Ish and Isha are not only banished from the garden but also from immortality.
I agree with Michelle. The text makes it possible that God was walking in the Garden of Eden with Ish and Isha. Even though God created these two begins, God could have seen them as his companions, rather than as two inferior beings. He granted them access to the Tree of Life, showing that he desired them to live forever if they should abstain from eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowing of Good and Evil. Once they eat the forbidden fruit they fall from the status of God’s companions to his subjects or simply inferior beings. They no longer can live in the same garden as God nor have eternal life like God. While I can understand the Jewish interpretation, I personally found aspects of the text to show more support for the Christian fall than the Jewish Expulsion.
--Noelle Tharp-Taylor
I can see that there could be two different interpretations of this part of the bible. I think its more of a matter of whether you believe that God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve, or if he was always above the earth. I would say that since it says in genesisi 3:8 that they heard the sound of of God I would say that they(Adam and Eve)did have a fall or else God was unable to stay with them since they were unpure after they ate the apple. I also think that while the Jewish and Christians have two different interpretations they are both getting "punished" for not obeying God. So either way they were unable to stay in a perfect place.
The differences between the Jewish(in-out) method and the Christian(up-down) method are completely new ideals to be. I found this reading derogatory in manner, however, I also felt that is was a new experience for Adam and Eve. They did not know the feeling of doing something wrong or the emotion of guilt because they were completely innocent and they only knew only good things.
I'd like to point out that I think that the up-down Christian view, does not really mean literally falling down like that of heaven to hell. I think that it is just the words used. I feel that they "fell" by being, not exactly equal, but next to God, or as close to God as possible.
This is precisely why I like the Jewish version better. I feel that the in-out method is more realistic because Adam and Eve were close with God. They "heard him coming" (and from the way I interpretted it I felt like God was ever present there, and that they were used to being around God and the sound of him coming closer was not an unlikely thing to hear.) and were banished from the Garden. I feel the in-out method is a better description because they were close with God and next to God and then they were forced to be apart from God which was perhaps the point where they lost their innocence.
~Leah Dow
I agree with Leah Dow that the Jewish version is more realistic in a literary sense. Although God created Ish and Isha, God is still a character in the Garden and, to me, it seems as if an in and out motion portrays that better. I have to say that I don't think the exile from the Garden is where the lose of innocence is first apparent. Gen.3:8 states Ish and Isha "heard the sound of YHWH, God, walking about in the garden...[they] hid themselves from the face of YHWH, God..." Clearly, their eyes have been opened at this point to the fact that they are naked. Because of this, they are ashamed. Also, since God said, saw, separated, and called (referring to Gen. 1), very few other actions have been applied to God, until now. It is hard to imagine God, the creator of all of this, walking around and Ish and Isha hearing the crunching of leaves, or whatever sound they heard. Suddenly, Ish and Isha have applied human characteristics to God which convinces me they have lost their innocence and, whether down or out, lost their place in the garden.
The in/out Jewish view when compared to the up/down view of Christianity does suggest to me that humanity remains at some equality with God in the Jewish view. Our position in relation to God was not lost but changed. The fall would say that we were once something better or had something better and we lost it for good. The more literal Jewish translation may contain more hope in regaining what was lost by solely human standards. (By just walking back into the garden?) To me, the wording is not as important as the idea that is trying to be expressed. When the bible was translated, it seems to me the translators just wanted to convey that humanity was at one time very closely in touch with a creator, speaking, seeing, and living with a creator, but because of humanities actions, and because the creator said for us not to do something and we did it, something was broken, and the relationship we had with God was changed so much that we could not remain with God. The in/out, up/down, wording of different versions is just trying to relay that what Ish and Isha did was severe enough to result in them having to leave God’s presence. I do not see anything lost in describing an up/down movement instead of in/out movement. The two types of movement could describe two qualities of the change in relationship we had with God better than one ever could.
I have been thinking about this question for about a week now and I keep coming back to the same conclusion. This question has a large theology base. I know that we aren't suppose to look at in this light so I'm going to try my best to keep my theology out of it.
I have always thought about Eden as a large garden somewhere in the western Iraq(in modern terms). So then the Jewish meaning is more precise if you take the reading word for word. "He drove the human out/and caused to dwell, eastward of the garden of Eden" Gen 3-24. While taking the Bible word for word the Jewish verison is better.
Now with that said I do also think that the Christian has merit also. I believe that "The Fall" was not suppose to be taken as a psychical fall but as a fall from God's graces. The stories title "The Fall" was an used as way to show new Chritians that while we were perfect and once on Gods level but we messed up and perfect like him. I also feel that we, as a human race, are inferior being to God and the term "The Fall" was used as a jusification of the thought.
Andrew Beck
As in Genesis One (without exact quoting), it was said that God created man from dust. This is signifying that God is higher than man and man submits to the consequences of good or bad put out from God after a decision. Through the decision to eat of the Tree of Life, this would be looked at as a bad decision, because Adam was being deobedient to what God had said. If God is looked at in this story as a father figure, when a child does something bad, it is usually punished through the child being "grounded." This would be looked at as something with an up/down movement. The child, in this case Adam (and Eve), is humbled or disciplined through the expulsion of the garden. I would also agree with Adam's previous comment of the idea that this situation is focused also on the idea that we were once something better and now we have "fallen" to something with sinful nature (slightly paraphrased from his version), and how the fall can relate to the change in this intimate relationship with the creator that changes with this humanistic decision.
Every time I read this passage now I can’t help but think of Holden Caufield in Catcher in the Rye. There’s a line by a character Mr. Antolini who says, “This fall I think you're riding for - it's a special kind of fall, a horrible kind. The man falling isn't permitted to feel or hear himself hit bottom. He just keeps falling and falling.” And while the whole story is alluding to Holden’s coming of age and fall from innocence this particular quote has a significant effect on my understanding of humankind’s expulsion from Eden. I think we could look at a dozen different bibles and come up with a dozen different interpretations of this scene, but when it comes down to the big picture it is all the same, Creator and creation must be separated. Therefore, I believe the question this passage imposes lies not in how humankind was expelled (up to down or in to out), rather where or what Eden really is. To me Eden is not really a place, rather a state of being. It is innocence in its purest form, much like we are as children, and from the first moment that innocence slips, we are in a ceaseless freefall. One realization of the world around us only leads to another one and we soon realize that the more we discover the less we really know. The expulsion from Eden is something we have all gone through, whether we wanted it to happen or not. So by saying we’ve fallen would assume we’ve landed somewhere, and personally I believe the day we land is the day we return to the soil.
In verse 28 of the first chapter of Genesis, God commands humankind to have dominion over all the earth and to fill and subdue it. He gives them authority over "all living things that crawl upon the earth." As we read here, and as we discussed in class, God's original plan is clearly to have humankind rule over the earth.
Because of the sin they committed (eating from the tree) they were expelled from the Garden of Eden (2:23,24). God also told them prior to their sin that if they were to eat of the tree they would surely die (2:17). Calling this "The Fall" somewhat relates to calling it "the Expulsion from the Garden." While "The Fall" often seems to be up for interpretation, as seen in previous posts, it nonetheless describes man's fall from the standards of God. Because they failed to keep the standards of God set for them, their disobedience triggered their eventual expulsion from the Garden.
The difference in the two titles of this event is that the expulsion from the garden strictly applies to Adam and Eve. While on the other hand, "The Fall" refers to the fall of mankind because of the sin that was committed then and that is still committed by humankind today. Referring back to what YHWH, God, said in Gen 2:17, "...you are not to eat from it, for on that day you eat from it you must die, yes, die." Obviously Adam and Eve were not struck down in that moment, the point was that now death was inevitable. This, again, applies not just to Adam and Eve but to all mankind, hence the title "The Fall of Man."
I have been trying to post all morning, i have dial-up so:) yeah. I didn't include the last couple of post...
I agree with some of those who said it is hard to keep your own beliefs and what not from influencing our ideas and interpretations. It is difficult for me to just look at the Bible as literature, because it is not just that. When you interpret the Bible as literature, you can twist the scriptures to say many different and conflicting things. But when you actually read the Bible as God's perfect Word under His leading, there are no contradictions.
Anyways, just had to share my feelings on that...
Now with the whole issue of an "in-out" or "up-down" movement, I agree with Daye- I don't think it is really that kind of an issue either. I also don't think the two ideas are as different or opposing as some think. I see both of these actions separately. The expulsion from the garden was one thing that happened, and the "fall" was another.
The Christian tradition of referring to this event in Genesis 3 as "the fall" actually comes from future passages such as Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and FALL short of the glory of God" I see the fall as describing the consequences of sin. I think Noelle mentioned the issue of the man choosing a mortal life when he ate from the tree. Before Adam ate of the tree that God commanded him not to (sin by disobeying God) he wasn't cursed. Through this act of sin we can see many consequences: the snake is damned from verses 14-15, the woman in verse 16, and the man in 17-19. Before sin the humans were in the presence of God, whether that means physically or spiritually. They chose sin, which means a world of pain and death (spiritually and physically).
There is also the expulsion from the garden, which I suppose if you want to use the words “in-out” to describe it you can. God clearly drove the human out, verse 24. Sure, not much to say about that.
So I was reading through the notes in my bible, which is the Macarthur study bible NKJV, and there was a very interesting point I never really saw before. Before they are expulsed from the garden, there are still in it right? The Tree of Life is still in it. In verse 22 God said, “Here…knowing good and evil. So-now lest he send forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live throughout the ages…!” Immediately after that God sent him away from the Garden of Eden in verse 23. Maybe He was concerned that that if Adam ate from the Tree of Life, he would live forever in his pitifully cursed conditions. So driving them out from the garden was more of an act of love and grace to prevent them from being sustained forever by the tree of life.
One thing I love about this chapter is after God curses the man, woman, and snake, in verse 21 he makes clothes for them. It shows his fatherly character, that his children have disobeyed Him, there were consequences for their disobedience, but still He loved and cared for them. What an awesome Father.
@Dan,
One could approach the text that way and come out with your conclusion - it is very logical. However, and again this is why I took issue with the idea that we should look at this passage in pure isolation from all previous beliefs/interpretations/traditions, it doesn't do justice to the conclusion of the matter - the curse the creation lives under, nor the corporate affects for mankind. Your interpretation is a classic case of seeing yourself (and not you as an individual, but an individualist western 21st century person) in your theology.
The best we can do to help us understand the Genesis creation stories are by comparing them to other creation stories as seeing how much different it is; comparative studies. A tremendously helpful book I found on this topic is "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament" by Walton of Wheaton College
Mmk, It is very difficult to determine whether our seperation from God was more of a in-and-out movement , or a falling, the fall of humankind.
We see that God definitely is kicking them out of Eden, but with clothing, which is quite nice. When we look at why Ish and Isha hid from God, it is not because they are ashamed from eating from the forbidden tree, it is because they are naked. It's almost as if they did not know right from wrong. gen. 3:5 reinforces this point: (when the snake is talking to Isha) "Rather, God knows
that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes will be opened
and you will become like gods, knowing good and evil."
So even though God told them not to eat from the tree, it's as if they just didn't get it. Even though Eve did question eating from the tree in Gen. 3:3.
So, all this being said, they didn't tell God they were ashamed when they were hiding, but rather, they were naked. So, maybe they didn't literally just realize they were naked all of a sudden, since they were naked this whole time. But rather, this is a metaphor for their shame, feeling naked.
So, even though God is pissed, he turns out to be a huge jerk to Eve, in Gen. 3:16, (man will rule over you and your birthing process will be really painfull.). And he tells Adam he's got to work with painstaking labor to plant crops, along with dealing with thorns.
Lastly, humans now die, and return to dust. That's a huge letdown for the human race, if I must say so.
But, God still decided to clothe us (Gen. 3: 21) So that's a plus for us, God doesn't completely screw us over.
So in Gen. 3:22 God says we have become like one of them (polytheism? probably not, Trinity, maybe...but still weird)
because we NOW know good and evil, which still brings up confusion on whether we understood eating from the forbidden tree was bad.
What cracks me up though is in the same verse God says if we grab from the tree of life and eat from it, we could live throughout the ages.
So instead of letting us even come close to this tree of life, he gaurds it with winged-sphinxes and the flashing, ever turning sword.
I don't think Adam and Eve have a chance against these things.
Even if we take this as a metaphoric passage, it definitely shows that we screwed up with God, he's not gonna let us get back easily at all. So with us getting death, laboring to survive, and awfully painfull times during pregnancy, it's obvious we are pretty far away from God now, so I would have to say this is just a wee bit more than a simple in-and-out movement, but a pissed off, we-screwed-up situation, where we are just far away from ever getting to that tree of live. (it's almost as if God taunts us with having that tree of life there, with it gaurded like that)
This is quite interesting. I have heard both terms in reference to the story but have not thought of them separately. I have heard "the expulsion" in the telling of the story and "the fall" in the discussion of the story referencing interpretation of symbolism, etc. However, of the two, I would more readily refer to the story as "the fall." But, as I visualize the story, I see a horizontal "expulsion"
In strictly reading the text, I see nothing defining a physical "fall," but verse 24 does note that "the human" was "caused to dwell, eastward of the garden of Eden," an implication of a more horizontal "expulsion."
In reading "the fall," this implies that Adam and Havva were on the same "level", e.g. as mentioned, heaven, as YHWH before "the fall." This implies action upon Adam and Havva to fall. This demonstrates the set-in-motion theory that YHWH set creation in motion and set laws for cause and effect, e.g. disobedience -> "fall." This implies that in order for Adam and Havva to return to Eden and the Tree of Life, they must obey the set laws that would lead them to return.
In reading "the expulsion," this implies that Adam and Havva are on the same "level" as YHWH before, during, and after "the expulsion." This implies action upon YHWH's part to expel. This demonstrates the active God theory that YHWH is actively involved in creation and that YHWH has the "final say" in all that occurs in creation. This implies that in order for Adam and Havva to return to Eden and the Tree of Life, there must be an intervention on behalf of YHWH.
As many have noted, verse 8 mentions YHWH "walking about in the garden," this occurs before the curse given by YHWH but after the eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowing of Good and Evil. Thus, given the interpretation above, the laws for cause and effect should have resulted in the "fall" of Adam and Havva, which is not the case, in the physical sense. But, as noted by Katie Dill, the interpretation "fall" is likely not physical but spiritual. To add to "the fall," I found it interesting that this happened at the "breezy-time of the day," i.e. the evening, in which the sun, or light, would be "falling."
--Nathan Hartje
Addie raises some good points in her side questions. I have also always pictured the snake having a conversation with Eve and telling her to eat the fruit but never really though "wow that is strange that she is speaking to a snake and they understand each other". No where does it ever say that any of the other animals could or could not talk to us. Maybe as part of Genesis 3:7 "The eyes of the two of them were opened and they knew then that they were nude." that their eyes were open to other things that seperated them from God. Maybe at that time they would no longer speak with animals.
I had never really thought about whether it was an up-down or in-out movement. I assumed that it was an in-out because they were part of the garden and dwelled in that area amoung the trees and animals while God was somewhere else looking over them. He then of course would then be able to see that they had eaten from the forbidden tree. Some form of punishment would then be given. I think there are several that can be seen in either text. God punishes Adam and Eve by making them aware and ashamed that they are naked. He also give Eve child labor pain and Adam must work the land for his food. He also punishes the serpant/snake by making him crawl on the ground and eat dirt. Then the untimate punishment comes when he "throws them out of Eden".
To me I see it as them leaving his great paradise type place full of peace and no worries and then having to live in a "cruel" world where they both must work to eat and survive. Living with everyday reminders of their disobedience towards God. Just a little reminder of how, although he gave us power to think and make decisions for ourselves, that he is still above us and that our actions have consequences.
~Chelsea Beets
I found it interesting and surprising the differing Christian and Jewish translations of the movement of humans after the disobediance against God. I view it more as an in-out transition rather than the up-down, a seeming "fall from grace." I feel that that Adam and Eve were created human and not on same level as God, and therefore did not reside with God. Even though the text states that God interacted with Adam and Eve (almost as a tangible figure) in the Garden of Eden, this does not necessarily mean that God resided there. The punishment moved Adam and Eve from a utopian environment to one in which they had to work. This seems to me to be an in-out movement rather than an up-down movement.
-Stephen Zych
I have been thinking about this question for a couple of days now. And I see it as an in-out movement from the garden. Addie had a good question about the serpant talking with Eve and that Eve understood what was being said. This is hard to grasp since none of the other animals have had any communication with Adam or Eve. This book is a big adventure. I have a hard time seeing both sides of the question (Christian vs Jewish). I see that they were cast out of the garden and somehow falling from grace at the same time. They are like children they disobeyed and then they were punished and sent out of the garden. I see the text as simple as that.
Having an entirely literary based interpretation of The Bible, this passage struck me as more up-down than in-out. The in-out movement, the banishment from the Garden of Eden relates in present day to being thrown out of a bar or some other establishment (although slightly more severe). The fall of man is a theme that resurfaces time and time again throughout literature and popular culture. It is more tragic and also more romantic to imagine that Adam and Eve were at one time superior to the common state into which they fall.
I believe that Michelle and others have made a great point with the observation of God actually walking in the garden. I agree that this means man was on the same level as God before the first act of disobedience that would separate them. God was perfect but man could no longer be; he had "fallen" from perfection. I believe that the two views are very similar-man was expelled from the garden because he had fallen from perfection.
Either way they got evicted! Up or down, in or out, its rhetorical and translation reflects upon the individuals belief, not religious beliefs par say, but to grammar and linguistic translation education.
I do like how Kayla said "Expulsion does convey being kicked out or banished, but the “Falling” does imply Adam and Eve were in a higher place than what we know as Earth."
The way i see it... You never know.
As I originally learned it in the Christian sense it was all about what bad was coming because of their sin. Seeing it in the Jewish sense changes it a bit because of how it seems almost...less bad. It's almost like the Jewish form is softening the story up a bit. Not much, but still, it is significant.
I am trying very hard to see these stories as literature and leave out all the teachings I have learned for the past 22 years. I believe the in-out view is more merciful and acceptable to me. The up-down side insinuates we as humans were once at God's level. If we were once at God's level, don't you think Adam would have started creating things on his own? Would Eve had had the need and want to follow the devil's plan into being more like God?
I feel as though the in-out situation is also more personal and less harsh than the Christian "fall" viewpoint.
I enjoyed reading Kayla's perspective of "Rising", especially because the Catholic church is usually pictured as pessimistic and over-critical.
I really find this passage interesting in comparing human choice vs. Divine Intervention (God's predestined plan). As a Christian, I have been struggling with opportunities and the ability to leave things up to God to handle. The literature signifies that humans were given free will and freedom to make choices but the possibility of disobeying God by choice can result in dire consequences.
In my point of view,
I think that Christian way is more harsh because
it seems like in the Jewish text,
God is giving a chance to
humans to live a new life
out of the Tree of Life.
Rather than just kicked out of it.
It sounds very negatively
how God says to human
about their pains.
Why is it painstaking-labor?
and why is pregnancy so
painful?
We can think of it as
more optimistic ways.
Isn't that one of gifts
from God that we have?
To Think optimistically,
but I don't agree with the
text that how God
is just so mad about human
just because
they have accidently
ate the apple.
Kevin Lee
I would be inclined to think that it is portrayed as a expulsion for a slightly weird reason in the first instance, and that is because of the fact that because all of God's other creations (animals etc) continued to live with the humans, then it stands to reason that God expelled all living things from the Garden, and it wasnt just a matter of a fall from grace.
But in saying that, the simple fact that the humans will "be as gods" after eating the fruit might indicate that they now hold some larger sense of power and control over their own fates, and so it was more of a 'fall' from God's grace.
How I would like to read it would be to say that Eden was an idea or theory, not a literal Garden, and that after the instance of Original Sin, Adam and Eve were neither fallen nor expelled from any place, but rather had a different sense of their relationship with God, whether that works out for the greater good or entirely worse wont be seen until later.
Kieran O'Connor.
I believe that the Christians characterize it as “the fall” because they view themselves as being higher up than they really are. They put themselves on some a pedestal. Since God walked with them in the garden, maybe they believe that they were on the same level as God. But, in the Jewish tradition, if they characterize it as being “pushed out”. Maybe they take that as a more literal meaning, meaning that they were actually driven out of the garden. There might not be any underlying meaning in the Jewish tradition. Also, in the Christian view, it could mean that we fell into mortal beings. If you recall, God said if they ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, then they would die. So maybe in the “fall” meant that our quality and length of life had been altered or shortened.
Post a Comment