Augustine and Original Sin

Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo in the early 5th century AD.  He wrote several books reviewing Genesis and the Eden story in particular.  In Augustine's view, the consequence of Adam and Eve's transgression was the loss of bodies capable of being transformed into a better and spiritual condition without dying, as would have been the case if they had remained obedient and would have been allowed to continue to eat of the tree of life (Augustine believe that the tree of life was meant to be continually eaten to stay off disease and old age).  Their bodies became a battleground in which the law in the members was at war with the law of the mind.  They became completely naked and interiorly deserted by the grace which they had offended by pride and arrogant love of their own independence.  They became susceptible to disease and death and subjected to the drive animals have to copulate and have children.  However, he further notes that humans did not digress to the level of animals to such an extent that they lost rational souls.  This is evidenced by Adam and Eve's feeling of shame, the shame of nakedness and disobedience.  

According to the midrash, the Jewish view of the source of evil is that God created man with two inclinations: one good and one evil.  In another passage we were assigned to read, the rabbi writes that Adam didn't desire his wife when he didn't see her, but (in Gen 4:25) he desired her whether he saw her or not.  I do not know how this relates to evil except that Augustine believes that when man sinned lust entered the world.  So this rabbi may be trying to say that lust is the root of evil.

I believe that evil's origin is found in every rational or soul-bearing being.  I do believe that Satan is a real force to be reckoned with who can influence evil things to happen or people to make bad decisions but I also believe that humans have free will.  We can choose to do as we please, sometimes those choices are 'good' or morally right and sometimes they are 'evil' or immoral.  Satan is just another rational being, powerful yet immoral and desiring to become more powerful.  He makes the chose to act immorally and those choices can and have influenced the world.  Yet, we too are soul-bearing creatures and we too can make the choice to act immorally.  Evil is the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light.  Evil is not its own separate entity or force like good and goodness.  God is good and goodness.  Evil is the absence of that, a cavity that was opened, I believe, when the minds that God gave soul-bearing, choice-making creatures began to become prideful and dissatisfied.  Maybe that began in Eden, maybe it began with Lucifer, maybe with neither.  Regardless, the soul-bearing, choice-making creatures (like humans and angels) chose to be prideful and dissatisfied at some point after their creation, because God gave them that choice.  After all, the love you receive from someone who choses to love you carried more weight than the love of someone forced to love you.  With that momentous love comes it's opposite, and that seems to be the way this universe works, does it not?  Light and darkness, up and down, good and evil.  Who would or could deny that there is good.  You cannot know one without the other, unfortunately.  So I suppose, in a manner of speaking, one could argue that the origin of evil is good. 

Allegorical Interpretation: Philo and Origen

An allegory can be interpreted to have an underlying meaning, it is a metaphor with meaning or a parable.  If I were interpret Genesis 2-3 allegorically, I would make the case that it serves as the etiology of several things like marriage and reveals the origin of the physical world and mortality.  But I would like to propose that Genesis 2-3 illustrates the Neolithic Revolution, the emergence of farming.  This is obviously very farfetched but allow me to elaborate.  In the Neolithic Revolution, human being began to domestic plants and animals and move away from the life of hunting and gathering.  No one knows why this happened, in fact, the odds are against it.  Hunting and gathering requires less work and less dependance on weather conditions.  A life of hunting and gathering is similar to life as described in Eden.  But in both cases, something happened and humans became farmers, whether quickly or slowly.  Some believe that climate change or population growth was the cause, and this may very well be.  Perhaps the changing climate was attributed to or personified as 'God'.  God or climate change forced them to leave the life of hunting and gathering to work the ground.  There are of course many holes in this theory.  For example, what about the snake? What about the tree of life? Why would people have thought the climate was punishing them and how does that relate to the eating of the forbidden fruit?  Nevertheless, this is an interesting thing to think about and that is how I view this story as an allegory.

According to Philo's allegorical interpretation, the Garden of Eden is the source of all wickedness.  He believes that man in solitude was blameless, resembling the cosmos and God.  But when a woman was created, man was glad to see another being like her.  There being together produced love, unity and a desire for union in order to produce children.  Philo says that this desire lead to bodily pleasure from which came 'wicked deeds and violations of the law'.  This is how they lost their immortality.  Origen agrees with the the idea that bodily pleasures lead to wickedness.  He writes that if the soul turns to the inclinations of the desires of the flesh, it will be called a harlot.

To be honest I do not understand the other reads we were assigned for this assignment.  I do not understand the other Philo passage nor how the Aristolte relates to Philo.

Adam and Eve in the New Testament

In the assigned New Testament passages, Genesis 2-3 is used when the writer is discussing the themes of gender and sexuality and etiology of death and need for new life.  Attention is placed on Eve and Adam’s relationship as husband and wife and the act they did against God.  For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:3-12, the author builds upon the idea that the man shall rule over the woman.  He says that the husband is the head of every wife (Gen 3:16), that he is the image of the creator (Gen 1:26-27), and that woman came from man (Gen 2:21-22).  In another passage, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, the author writes that death came into the world through ‘one man’.  Later in the verse, it is implied that the ‘one man’ is Adam.  This seems to indicate that before Adam or the ‘one man’ there was no death.

In the New Testament, there is a new interpretation of the Eden story.  First of all, Genesis 1-3 is taken together as two tellings of the same story.  This is indicated when the author references them both in connection to each other.  For example, in Matthew 19:3-12, the author writes that Jesus references both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24: “"Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”  It seems that at the time this was written the book of Genesis had been complied, it says “haven’t you read”.  Also, the story/stories are used as the etiology of marriage.  Passages like Matthew 19:3-12, 1 Corinthians 11:3-12 and Ephesians 5:21-6:9 use it in their discussions of marriage.  Further, the story/stories are used to explain why there is death (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) and why Christ is the way to a life without it.  In Galatians 3:27-28 the author likens being clothed in Christ to how Adam and Eve were clothed after they were exiled.  Adam and Eve were ashamed of what they did and they had to be clothed with animal skin.  The animal skin represents the practice of animal sacrifice in ancient Israel as the way to clean the imperfections of one’s life.  In the same way, the author implied that by metaphorically clothing one’s self in Christ our imperfections are cleaned.  This makes a full thread of connection from Eden to Israel to Jesus.  The story changed from being literal to symbolic.  

Perhaps I am reading into this too much and letting my Christian background affect how I read these passages.  But I do know that in a confessional Christian setting, this passage (along with others) implies this interpretation of the Eden story: Eden is seen as the etiology of death (as well as marriage) and the ultimate reason for Jesus Christ’s life.  That reason is this: Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were kicked out of Eden because they had become imperfect.  Jesus paid the price for this and the rest of humanities imperfections in the same way that animals did when sacrificed in ancient Israel.  Jesus' sacrifice fixed Eden and gave people a way to be perfect again and be with God.  This is very different from the independent Eden story.  This new interpretation is makes some sense but there are a few inconsistancies which would probably de better discussed in class rather than on this blog.  But some of these would be: 1) the story never said that Adam and Eve were perfect, 2) it never said that the snake was Satan and that he 'deceived' Eve, 3) it never said that God wanted people to have eternal life again (I thought that's why the couple were kicked out of Eden), 4) it never said that Adam and Eve got 'married', although they are referred to as husband and wife.  Considering there particulars, is this new interpration valid?

The Snake

Did the snake lie or tell the truth?  He only speaks two sentences in this story, "Indeed God said, you will not eat from every tree in the garden" (Gen 3:1) and "I assure you that you will not die, because God knows that when you eat from it both your eyes will be opened and you will become like gods/God, knowing good and bad" (Gen 3:4-5).  Consider the rest of the story.  After eating the fruit, God did not kill Adam and Eve on the spot and they realized the difference between good and bad.  What the snake predicted came to pass.
But did he know this for certain? After the couple ate the fruit he was condemned to slither and be the lowest of animals, why would he subject himself to such a fate? He must not have seen that coming.  But was he really 'beguiling' Eve (like she says in 3:13) or simply stating the facts to her without any motivations? This comes back to the question of the snakes motivation.  Just because he was crafty does not mean he was evil.  Perhaps he is better described as clever and he was clever enough to know the truth about the tree.
Maybe he did have wicked intentions, if so did he really know that God would not kill Adam and Eve on the spot and they would realize the difference between good and bad?  Did he think he could get away with it? Did he want to be cursed?  My logic would say that one of 3 scenarios is possible.
1) The snake had wicked intentions and despised God and/or Adam and Eve and wished to spoil what God created by having the humans disobey God.  If he hated the humans, he may have wanted them to just die.  If he hated God, he was just acting to annoy him.
2) The snake was acting against God but not if 'evil' intentions.  Perhaps the snake knew that God wouldn't kill the humans and sought to prove that God was a liar.
3) The snake was ignorant and was just telling Eve the real facts about what the tree would do to her if she ate it.  He may have told her and been on his merry way.
If the snake was evil, then most might agree that his punishment was warranted.  But if the snake was trying to prove God a liar, then God sounds almost evil himself.  And if the snake was ignorant of the repercussions, why such a harsh punishment?

Sex in the Garden (or Playing Checkers in the Garden)

A small anecdote:
In high school we read Homer in English class.  Now Homer has no problem explaining which gods or humans are sleeping together, but my English teacher liked to sugarcoat it.  In class and on tests, 'sex' was always translated to 'playing checkers'.

I find references to sex in these passages in Genesis: 
1:22 (animals commanded to be fruitful)
1:28 (humans commanded to be fruitful)
2:23-24 (etiology of marriage)
4:1 (man 'knew' his wife, this is the first definitive mention)

It could be argued that sex is mention in these passages:
2:5, 15 (man working the ground)
2:19-20 (man naming the animals)
3:6 (husband who was with her)
3:16 (woman's desire for husband)

The rabbis mentioned in the book Eve and Adam in general seemed to find sex in this story every time two being interact, in fact, any time humans are mentioned.  For example, when Adam is referenced in Genesis 5:2 ("Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."), he is interpreted as being a hermaphrodite.  In Genesis 2:20 Adam names all the animals and a rabbi interpreted that to mean that Adam had sex with all the animals and was not satisfied so God made Eve.  Additionally, when the serpent comes on the seen in chapter 3, apparently it falls in love with Eve and wants to marry her because it saw Adam and Eve having sex.  Another rabbi even says that the serpent did have sex with Eve and infused her with passion.  This passion was taken away from the Israelites on Mt. Sinai later in the Torah.  From all the references these rabbis made to sex, it makes the Garden of Eden story seem like a story driven by sex and sexual desire.

Issues on Translation

Genesis 3:16:

(NIV)

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

(KJV)

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

(RSV)

To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

After reading through Genesis 2-3 in these three versions, I have found that this verse contains the biggest difference between the three translations.  While the RSV and NIV say that childbearing and giving birth will be painful, the KJV has that giving birth and conception will be painful.  Also, while the NIV and KJV say that the woman will desire her husband as an independent phrase, the RSV says that the woman will give birth with pain yet she will desire her husband.  What this means exactly and why this was done, I do not know.

The Garden of Eden Story as Etiology

The Garden of Eden story has served, and for many continues to serve, as an etiology or story that explains the cause or reason for things in our world.  This is very fitting since it is a creation story and is meant to explain the origins of everything.  Well, maybe not everything, not at least the origins of our world.

In fact, I would say that the first thing this story explains is how our world came into being.  I can imagine this story being the ultimate answer to an annoying child's constant question "Why?".  This story explains where the ground, plants, animals, water, and people come from, naming (the Lord) God as the source of everything one can see.  This story also answers the question, "Why is a giraffe called a giraffe?"  Gen. 2:20 Adam names all the animals.  In verses 20-23 we learn why there is a difference between male and female.  Even in 3:21 we see the origins of clothes.

Aside from these surface level questions, Genesis 2-3 answers deeper cultural and theological questions.  In 2:7 we learn why humans are "superior" to animals, we were given the breadth of life by God.  In 2:24 we find the etiology of marriage and see the establishment of the most widely acceptable practice of heterosexual relationships and marriage.  In chapter 3, we learn why life can be hard and why people must farm (3:17-19).  The explanation: God is punishing us and making us work for our food.  Other answered questions include:
Why childbirth is painful (3:16) - God causes it
Why snakes slither (3:14) - God causes it
Why men are superior to women (3:16) - God commanded the men rule over women
Why every human eventually dies (3:22-23) - God has prevented us from reaching the fruit of the tree that gives eternal life.  I would say that in the garden humans were immortal.  God allowed them to eat of every tree, but one, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  They were allowed to eat of the tree of life and I don't see why they wouldn't.  However, they question then remains, if they had already eaten from it, why were they banished and why did they die eventually.  One could argue that they were allowed to eat from the tree of life but had not yet or that long life could only be obtained by continual eating of the fruit from the tree of life.  God could also have stripped them of their privilege of eternal life when they disobeyed him and he banished them so that they could not get it again.  I believe this is a likely scenario.

I can still imagine the aforementioned child, sitting beside their mother or father and pestering them with these kinds of questions.  By telling that child this story, that parent could attain some relief from all the questions.

Getting to Know the Story

Doing several deep readings of Genesis 2:4-3:24 reveal to me some details of the Garden of Eden story I had never noticed before, and I came away with some questions.  But, when one compares Genesis 2 to Genesis 1 even more things begin to stick out.  Genesis 2, beginning at verse 4, can easily be viewed as a creation story.  It begins, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (2:4).  It is interesting to compare these two chapters as two creation stories.  I put Genesis 1 and 2 side-by-side on my computer screen and they have striking differences, and it almost seems like two different people penned them. 

Although they both declare that God created the earth and heavens, they give God different names.  This may be due to the translation I use (NIV).  In chapter 1, God is called God (1:1) and in chapter 2 God is called the Lord God (2:4).  I don’t know if this distinction is made in the original Hebrew, but it seems that either the NIV translators gave God two names or the writer did.  Since I do not think NIV translators would have given God two names without reason, nor would an ancient Hebrew writer, I hypothesize that chapter 1 and chapter 2 had different writers.  Each used a different name for God in Hebrew, like Yahweh versus Elohim.

A comparison between the two chapters showed me more differences than similarities.  Genesis 1 is a rather detailed account of God’s creation process, carried out systematically in days.  Each day is a new piece of the world, as humans understand it.  God is the main character of the story and the focus is on God’s actions and feelings toward what he creates (“…and God saw that it was good.” 1:10). 

The chapter feels like a poem or song.  After God creates a new kind of thing, be it light, fish or land, the text reads: “And there was evening, and there was morning—the ____ day” (1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).  In addition to this, the chapter rings with the words “and God saw that it was good” (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31).  The repetition of these phrases and the presentation of creation as a systematic process give this chapter a rhythm which could be likened to a piece of poetry. 

Chapter 2 has qualities that make it more narrative-like.  First I must mention that Genesis 2:1-3 seem out of place.  The content makes it seem like it belong with chapter 1 but to me the way it is worded does not sound like chapter 1.  2:4 begins what sounds like another version of creation.  God becomes the Lord God and the order in which things are created changes.  The “heavens” are only mentioned in verse four and no where in the chapter does it mention the Lord God creating the sun, moon or stars.  It begins with the barren ground, before rain had fallen or the ground had been tilled and before anything had grown (2:5).  Streams first watered the earth and after this the Lord God created a man from the ground by breathing the breath of life into him (2:6-7).  After this creation, the Lord God planted a garden in Eden and placed the man there (2:8).  Genesis 2:9-14 give a description of the garden and its location.  By verse 14, the writer has clearly showed us that he is writing a narrative.  He has given a setting, the Garden of Eden, and introduced the protagonist, Adam.  The rest of the story takes place in the garden and revolves around the experiences of Adam. 

The order of creation continues to differ from the order in chapter one.  In verse 9, the Lord God creates the plants and in verse 19, the animals.  The Lord God’s motivation for creating animals is also different.  Instead of being made for their own sake and later being given to man, they are created specifically to be potential helpers to man.  Adam names them in verse 20 and because he did not find a suitable helper among them, the Lord God creates a woman.  If there were no Genesis 3, one might be tempted to think that Adam and the woman walked into the sunset together and lived happily ever after.   It sounds like a good story to me.  After all, if man is created systematically, along with the rest of creation, and is simply mentioned, it is not so much a story as a stated fact.  Eden and the garden are not even mentioned in chapter 1.  This is another quality that make chapter 1 seem more like a poem about how creation happened and chapter 2 seem more like a narrative centered around humans.

Popular belief is that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible and that Genesis 1 and 2 are both telling the same story with different aspects of it elaborated at different times.  This could be argued but another case could be made.  These two stories could be considered competing, even contradicting, creation stories within the same religious tradition.  When one looks at these stories as they are, without influence from the rest of the Bible, this is what they appear to be.  

The Real Story v. The Story We Think We Know Revisited

Wow, it is hard to keep an open mind while reading Genesis chapter 3. Every time it try to approach the chapter I can feel my mind being influenced by everything I have been taught.  My professor was right that I was making assumptions about the text about the characters and their situation.  For example, the text never said that Adam, Eve or God were perfect.  These are things mentioned in later passages in the Bible and from sources outside the Bible.  I also made assumptions about the two trees at the center of the garden.  Although I am still having difficulty reading this text without letting myself be influenced by the rest of the Bible or what I have been taught, I am left with more questions about the text.
Why did Adam and the woman disobey?
What is the tree of life?
Why were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil created?
Why were Adam and the woman ashamed of their nakedness?  To what were their eyes opened to and how did they view the world before they ate the fruit?
Who is the "us" in verse 22?
Why did eating the forbidden fruit carry such a huge penalty?