Adam and Eve:
Revisiting the Biblical Story
by Larry Mason
FOREWORD
"...to be biblical may well mean to move beyond the Bible itself to the larger principles that can be derived from the Christian faith of which the Bible is a part, but for which the Bible cannot possibly be a substitute." Peter J. Gomes, The Good Book, Morrow, 1996, p 82.
We believe the Bible has provided the traditional moral, ethical and religious foundations of Western Civilization and that there is much, very much, truth, beauty and goodness to be found in it. We believe it contains inspired, even revealed, truth.
We also recognize the hand that man has had in writing, re-writing, translating, and editorializing Biblical content over the ages and that this has lead by design or accident to inconsistencies, contradictions, and inaccuracies. Because of this we often feel the need to look beyond literal interpretation for spiritual values and the compassionate father/God of Jesus: the father/God who exemplifies our grandest hopes and visions of an eternal deity. We need to remember that the Bible is a spiritual and not a scientific work.
Nowhere is this more appropriate than in studying the creation story, of which there are two differing accounts. We can neither reconcile these nor find in them the basis for what the Christian world calls the "fall" and "atonement".
If the reader is curious let him or her consider this with us in the discussion that follows.
INTRODUCTION
The Bible tells us Adam and Eve were the:
Parents, Progenitors, Forefathers, Ancestors, Of mankind;
All races, All creeds, All colors.
The story of creation as told in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, tells us Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, that God made the earth and everything in it in seven days (including Adam and Eve and their home in the Garden of Eden) and pronounced his creation good.
Also, according to the story, God planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. Adam was commanded never to eat any of its fruit or, according to Eve, even to touch it. But, intrigued by the words of the wily serpent, Eve was beguiled into eating. Adam ate soon afterward and was expelled from his home in the Garden of Eden, that perfect place of places where he and Eve had been created.
Later Biblical writers claim that this "fall", this "original sin", plunged mankind into an abyss from which there was to be no relief until the advent of a Savior who would redeem mankind with the shedding of His innocent blood.
According to Paul this redemption (atonement) was accomplished by Jesus of Nazareth two thousand years ago. Men and women may now be reconciled with, and return to, God if they believe in Jesus Christ and are baptized for the forgiveness of sin.
However, there is no return to the blessed condition of the Garden of Eden. Man continues to be born in (original) sin. Children are also born in sin even if their parents have been baptized (saved).
What a story this is. It is has held millions in its grasp for thousands of years and still presses a massive weight upon believers, holding them captive to the sin of Adam and Eve.
This is not an appealing story for twentieth century mankind. It must have been even less attractive for Adam and Eve who were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth but (if we believe the biblical story) probably did not know how to do so until after they broke the second command and ate of the forbidden fruit.
Did Adam and Eve plunge mankind into a world of sin? Is the story of creation, there are actually two different ones, true? Are there inconsistencies? Could the account(s) be an attempt on the part of ancient wise men to simplify such a complex happening as the creation so the average person could understand? Might it be a metaphor? A myth?
Did God, indeed, place an innocent Adam and Eve in the garden with two (conflicting?) commands: replenish the earth but don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Has a God of love decreed that we his children, born as a result of a direct command to Adam and Eve, should suffer because they ate fruit from a forbidden tree? Would a God of justice punish us for someone else's mistakes? Is Jesus' crucifixion necessary, or was it simply the unfortunate natural outcome of circumstances?
The story of creation, the "fall" of Adam and Eve and the need for an atonement is widely believed as being literally true. There are also those who question whether it is true at all, whether there was a creation as related in Genesis, whether there were an Adam and Eve, whether there was a fall and therefore a need for an atonement. Others feel there is some truth in the story but that much of it is metaphor or myth.
Those who do not believe the creation story may be interested in what is said here. The discussion that follows can be thought provoking for those who believe there is some truth in it. For those who do believe the Genesis account is literally true what follows will certainly be challenging.
It may even be enlightening.
In the Beginning: The First Story of Creation
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
So reads the first chapter in Genesis, King James version of the Bible. The account continues with the creation of land, water, sky, vegetation, animals, and man. The story is an enchanting one in which a Creator spends a week of his time making our earth and everything in it. The finished product is "good". Man is alive in a perfect setting, the Garden of Eden. There is plenty of food and leisure time. There are no restrictions except, of course, the command never to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Man is given a companion, Eve. Together they tend and keep their idyllic home. All is well and we can presume they truly enjoyed their perfect life. Perhaps there were periodic visits from their Creator. We read in Genesis that He spoke to them after they broke His command, so we may assume they knew Him and possibly received visits from Him prior to that time. At any rate, theirs was the ideal life, one some of us have wished we could live.
Let us look at this intriguing account as it unfolds in Genesis, chapter 1.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (verse 1). And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (verse 2).
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light (verse 3). And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness (verse 4). And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (verse 5).
On day one God creates the heavens, the earth and light. Apparently earth means our planet, for land does not appear until verse 9. He divided day (light) from night (darkness).
In His second day's work, God made heaven:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (verse 6). And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so (verse 7). And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day (verse 8).
We are told that in His second day of creation, God made heaven by dividing the waters above it and the waters below it. (Was the mention of God's creating heaven in verse 1 only a hint of what He is to actually do in verses 6-8 when He made the firmament - heaven - to divide the waters?) The New American Standard translation uses the word "expanse" rather than "firmament", but still insists there were waters above and waters below. The Living Bible translates this account: "So God made the sky, dividing the vapor above from the water below" (verses 7,8).
We know there is no water above the sky (firmament). We also know that above the sky there is space and that space is essentially empty. Even if we use words like moisture, fog, haze or mist instead of vapor or water, we would consider these to be in the sky and not above it.
If we view the creation story as a literal account, what God created in the beginning must have been quite different from what we observe today. If we view the creation account as a pleasing story, metaphor, or myth, then we can easily accept the water/vapor idea . If we insist on viewing these episodes literally, we are in a position of either accepting the findings of science and rejecting religion, or accepting religion and rejecting science.
Neither of these options is satisfying: if God knew enough to create the complex physical world we live in, what he created would have to be scientific because science is the study of this very creation.
Let us go on:
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so (verse 9). And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good (verse 10). And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so (verse 11). And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good (verse 12). And the evening and the morning were the third day (verse 13).
The third day of creation was very busy. God created land and called it earth while the waters he called the sea. He made grass, herbs and fruit trees. God approved what he had made. He saw that it was good.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years (verse 14): And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so (verse 15). And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also (verse 16). And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth (verse 17), And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good (verse 18). And the evening and the morning were the fourth day (verse 19).
Day four was also a very busy time in creation. However, one wonders if God was not confused, or perhaps we do not understand the story. Perhaps it is not meant to be taken literally. Here's why: we have already seen in verse three that God created light, and in verse four divided the light from the darkness. Now, in verses 14-16, after creating grass, herbs, and trees God made two great lights (the sun and the moon) to rule the day and night. If the light in verse three were the sun, why would it be recreated later in day four? The moon and stars might well come later, but there was already light from the first day of creation that separated night from day.
It is also interesting that he placed these lights in the firmament of heaven, the same firmament of heaven the winged fowl later flew in. Birds do fly in the sky, but the sun and moon are certainly not in this same sky. The creation account does not distinguish between our sky and space above it. Oversight?
Continuing with our story of the creation:
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven (verse 20). And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good (verse 21). And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth (verse 22). And the evening and the morning were the fifth day (verse 23).
Day five sees the creation of life in the water and in the air. God makes birds, whales, and everything that moves in the air and in the water. He saw that it was, like everything He creates, good. God commands all life to be fruitful and multiply.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so (verse 24). And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good (verse 25).
After creating the cattle, creeping things, and the beasts of the earth, God creates man:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (verse 26). So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (verse 27).
An interesting thing happens here: man is created after our likeness. The Living Bible describes it this way: "Then God said, 'Let us make a man-someone like ourselves... So God made man like his Maker. Like God did God make man." The New American Standard Bible says: "let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness".
Two interesting facts are disclosed here. (1) Plurality of Gods. (2) Man is made like God; "someone like ourselves", "according to Our likeness". If we consider the Trinity aspect of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that might account for the plurality mentioned here: "in our image". But if we accept that man is made like God, according to His likeness, someone like him, then we have a perfect creature, a perfectible creature, or at least one with moral and ethical characteristics like its Creator. No, we have two such creatures, for God created both male and female, in His image and likeness.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (verse 28).
After creating man and woman after his own likeness, like himself, God now tells them to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," in a word, to have children.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (verse 29). And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so (verse 30).
Note that we are told here that man is given everything to eat, all the herbs, trees, and every animal and bird. No mention here of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. There is no mention of this tree until the second account of creation. In this first account of creation, everything, even every tree, God made was good and was for the use of Adam and Eve. There were no prohibitions of any kind. And why should there be if man were made in the image, likeness, of God?
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day (verse 31).
And everything that God created was very good. This includes the command to Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth: that was good too.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them (chapter 2, verse 1). And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made (verse 2). And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made (verse 3).
Here ends the first account of the creation.
The Second Story of Creation
The second story of creation begins with the fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis. We will notice that while this is a complete version, it differs from the first in several interesting points.
These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens (verse 4). And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground (verse 5).
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground (verse 6). And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (verse 7). And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed (verse 8). And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (verse 9).
The first of the differences in the two accounts of creation becomes evident. The plants and herbs were created before their life sustaining rain. In the second account man is created before the Garden and before its trees. Here is also the first mention of the Garden of Eden. It is also the first mention of a special kind of tree. In fact, there are two trees mentioned: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads (verse 10). The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold (verse 11); And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone (verse 12). And the name of the second river [is] Gihon: the same [is] it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia (verse 13). And the name of the third river [is] Hiddekel: that [is] it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river [is] Euphrates (verse 14).
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it (verse 15). And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (verse 16): But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (verse 17).
God must surely know the difference between good and evil. Knowledge of good and evil is good, Godlike. Since the first account of creation tells us man was made like God would not man have had the Godlike knowledge of good and evil from the beginning? Why would Adam and Eve need to eat anything to know the difference between good and evil?
Verse 3 of Chapter 3 tells us even touching the tree would bring death. Only touching it? This would hardly lead to the knowledge of good and evil. That would require eating. Why such a penalty for only touching?
Traditionalists, literalists, and fundamentalists may not agree. But read these verses again, carefully, looking for what they really say, and then determine for yourself whether or not Adam and Eve must have known the difference between good and evil from the beginning.
Also consider this: if man did not know the difference between good and evil before partaking of the tree then he would not have known that disobeying God's command about eating the fruit was wrong. Punishment in the case of innocence would be like spanking a baby for eating the wrong thing: something, for instance, that fell on the floor and got dirty. A baby would not understand when told not to eat food that fell on the floor. A just and understanding parent would not punish this child, but he might protect him from getting to the food that fell. Would a just God be any the less understanding? Instruction, reproving, or rehabilitation perhaps but hardly the harsh penalty promised Adam and Eve.
If man did not already know the difference between good and evil he does not know about disobedience either.
Hasn't God placed Adam in an possible position: if he does not eat the fruit he remains without the knowledge (the "rightness" of following a command) to multiply and replenish the earth; if he eats and becomes "as the gods" (chapter 3, verses 5-7,22) he dies?. It is all the more interesting that Adam and Eve, though created like God, could become as God by eating the fruit and then die. It is also interesting that after eating the fruit, according the story, man does not die but is only cast out of the Garden. Perhaps the penalty of death was long delayed to that natural occurrence that happens to us all in advancing age or before. But that would not be as promised for God said Adam would die "in the day that thou eatest thereof".
On the other hand, man had not yet eaten of the Tree of Life. He would have died even without eating the fruit and being forced out of the Garden
Even being sent out of the Garden would not have been the penalty God promised for that was not death. Life itself was certainly more difficult out of the Garden than it was in it, but that was not the promised punishment.
Interestingly enough, the command here was given just to Adam. Eve was not yet created. We are only told she should not eat the fruit during her conversation with the servant. Did Adam tell her? Perhaps this is why only he is cast out of the Garden.
Was the threat of death was an empty one?
Going on:
And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him (verse 18). And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof (verse 19).
It is not good for man to be alone so God is going to make a help meet for him. Yet the next thing created are the animals and birds. Again the order of creation is different in the second account.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him (verse 20). And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof (verse 21);
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man (verse 22). And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man (verse 23). Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (verse 24).
How could a man leave his father and his mother when there were not yet fathers and mothers. Adam and Eve had not yet had any children. Were there in fact other "people" existing - look at the story when Cain left Adam and Eve after killing his brother Abel, and went elsewhere to find a wife. If Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, there would not have been anyone for Cain to find elsewhere.
The creation story does indeed give us many things to ponder and reconcile.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed (verse 25).
This is one of the more interesting statements in the Old Testament and much has been made of it. It has been claimed that nakedness, when finally revealed to Adam and Eve after eating of the tree, was so distasteful to them they hide from God. The insinuation is that nakedness is not good. Why then did God not clothe Adam and Eve after creating them? He did clothe them later, as we shall see. If His creation was "good", being unclothed, if not "good" at least must not have been "bad".
Remember: Adam and Eve were made in the image of God, in the likeness of God, like God. We do not, any more than leading biblical scholars, believe this is an anthropomorphic likeness: man is not made in the physical image of God. Is he then made in an intellectual, spiritual, moral likeness? Now this likeness would not have to have been a perfect one. It could have been a resemblance, or similarity; but enough of a likeness that Adam and Eve would have known they were naked. We cannot assume Adam and Eve were too innocent to recognize their nakedness. We are told they were not ashamed. At least God must not have been ashamed for he did not clothe them.
Supposing they were not aware of their nakedness. Are we then to believe the real problem was finding out about it and about their sexuality? But how could sexuality be a problem if Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth? How can sexuality, unless ill used, be anything other than the means by which God made it possible to fulfil that command. If everything God created were good, sexuality is good. His commands must also be good. If this is true, how could Adam and Eve's children, and all of us since then, be born in sin? Multiplying is following God's command. This is sinful? This is evil? Are we born in sin by following God's command? Eating from a forbidden tree is far different from parenting. How can the two be related in any way that would place stigma on following God's command to have children, to multiply?
The only other possible cause for the "fall" would be plain disobedience: their disobedience, not ours. Do you believe a just and fair God would blame and punish you for something another person did? Would that be fair?
If Adam were cast out of the Garden we are of course living in a far different world than he did originally. That would be cause and effect. Some might even call it a curse, but it would not be yours or my personal punishment. Sinfulness requires the use of free agency in premeditation. How then are we born in "sin"? We didn't eat the fruit.
Have you looked at a newborn baby lately? Didn't Jesus say: "Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven"?
The two accounts of creation confirm man is made in the likeness of God. They also affirm Adam and Eve were commanded to have children. They disagree in the story of the tree of good and evil and in the order of creation itself.
Which one is correct? Which one should we believe? Or should we believe neither of them implicitly? Is the second story of creation added some time after the writing of the first one? For what purpose?
The Temptation
Creation is complete. The stage is set for the wiley serpent to enter the ideal, incomparable Garden of Eden and disrupt its tranquility forever. We read in the third chapter of Genesis:
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden (Chapter 3, verse 1)?
Everything in the Garden was made by God. The serpent was made by God. All things made by God are good. The wording suggests that the serpent, being "more subtle", may not have been so "good". Does the serpent know good from evil? Why would he tempt Eve? Where is his gain? Is the serpent really Satan? Did God create Satan? Where did Satan come from? Did Satan enter the serpent (if so, why was the serpent cursed?). Did creatures once have the ability to speak? When did the serpent loose this ability?
Is this story literal, metaphor, or myth?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden (verse 2): 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 (verse 3). And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die (verse 4): 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 (verse 5).
"Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil". But Adam and Eve were already made in the image of God, presumably already knowing good from evil. At least enough so that they needed to be persuaded to break the commandment not to eat of the tree.
The attraction of evil is its appeal to ego vested interests of individuals and is often made more plausible by the inclusion of partial truth. This is the case with the serpent as he speaks to Eve. She would not die. That she found out soon enough. But, if she would not die does that mean God was wrong, or lying, by saying death would follow the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil? Did the Serpent have the power to transcend the word of God? Is the threat of death a part of a mythical story of creation - one best suited to be viewed as a metamorphic account of a far more complex happening?
Was death to be a spiritual separation from God, a spiritual death? If so, it would only have been a temporary separation because of the "redemption".
Imagine the picture: we have a creator who put a good deal of effort into making his world and everything in it. He pronounced it good, very good. But at the first (supposed) indication of wrongdoing he withdraws from his children. He will, in effect, have nothing to do with them, or us, until his son is willing to come down here and die a horrible death on the cross in propitiation. Only then will God forgive and allow mankind back into his spiritual presence. Does this sound like a wise, loving and understanding father-god?
As we have already seen, Adam could obey the command of God only if he already knew the difference between good and evil. Without this knowledge Adam and Eve would not have known they were doing wrong. Would a just god punish them? We do not sentence people in our courts if they do not realize the consequences of their actions, if they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. We rehabilitate.
Is it the case that there was no tree of Good and Evil at all? Is this a fabrication designed to place man in a position of servitude, control and direction of the priesthood(s) which "speak" for God?
Or could there have been a special tree in the Garden but with other significance? What about the Tree of Life?
Let us read on:
And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat (verse 6). And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons (verse 7).
Now they knew they were "naked" and in their new found modesty sewed fig leaves to cover their shame.
And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden (verse 8). And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou (verse 9)? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I [was] naked; and I hid myself (verse 10).
And he said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat (verse 11)? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat (verse 12). And the LORD God said unto the woman, What [is] this [that] thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat (verse 13).
Here begins a pattern so often followed today: when found out for doing something wrong we blame someone else. Adam blames Eve; Eve blames the serpent. Is this what we can expect from Adam and Eve, those first beings on earth? Being made in the likeness of the Gods wouldn't they "own up" to what they had done, wouldn't they be honest about it? Or did the eating of the tree somehow so disrupt their godlike natures that they were no longer like him? An unlikely occurrence since the promise was they would become like God.
The serpent is condemned and punished for what he has done:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life (verse 14): And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (verse 15).
Eve is punished for her wrongdoing:
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 (verse 16).
Eve's punishment is severe. Her sorrow and conception will be multiplied. Her childbearing will be in sorrow. (Was her childbearing not in sorrow prior to this time? Was there childbearing before this time?) Why would God punish her in this way? He had commanded the bearing of children. Is sorrow a substitute for not dying (remember God told Adam and Eve they would surely die as soon as they ate of the fruit). There is nothing in the creation account to suggest there was sorrow of any kind in the perfect Garden. How then could it be multiplied? If a commandment had been broken, it does stand to reason there would be an accounting at some point in time. Wouldn't that accounting "fit the crime"? What would be the relationship between childbearing as punishment and eating fruit?
Don't forget that Adam and Eve had not eaten from the Tree of Life. They would have died anyway, even without any punishment following the eating episode.
Furthermore, Eve is made subservient to Adam. Is this the kind of example God would give mankind? It does seem to mark the beginnings of the patriarchal order so strong in some societies, and heralds the generally second class citizenship of woman that continues in many countries even today.
Why wouldn't Adam be made subservient to Eve? He followed her (bad) example. Didn't that show her influence over him? His weakness compared to her strength (she convinced him)?
Adam also has his penalty:
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life (verse 17); Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field (verse 18); In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken (verse 19).
The ground that once gave forth so abundantly will now grown thorns and thistles. He will eat herbs of the field, but then he was already given them to eat in the creation account. The difference seems to be it will just take a lot more work. Perchance that is enough punishment for eating the fruit.
Take a further look at what will happen:
for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return (verse 19).
Maybe this is what the sentence is all about even though it did not happen right away as promised. Note that Eve is not so punished. No mention that she will return to the dust of the earth, only Adam.
And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living (verse 20). Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them (verse 21).
Adam finally has a name for his wife, Eve. Before then she was just called "woman". Most interesting is the fact that God Himself made clothing for Adam and Eve (fig leaves must not have been good enough). In view of the severity of their crime and subsequent punishment, this is an interesting thing for God to do.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever (verse 22):
"Man is become as one of us..." But he was made that way in the beginning, wasn't he?
Plurality of Gods is again apparent. This is not so much a problem for, believing in the trinity, the Christian world accepts more than one God. Or does it? Christianity teaches that these three are one in some magical, not to be understood manner that seems to negate their individual personalities. Does the creation story offer another possibility?
The tree of life is now very important. Lucky thing that Adam and Eve had not eaten of it right after the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: they would then have lived forever. Isn't it curious that God made man like himself but is afraid he might live forever.
Knowing good from evil would seem to be a logical attribute of someone made like God and would be a particularly fine thing for anyone who had the possibility to live forever. Would man be a competitor to God if he lived forever with this knowledge?
If man were made like God, he would wish to do things as God is able to do things; maybe not the same things, but creative things none the less. Would not God want this to happen? Loving parents desire to see their children grow and progress in every way possible. The story of Adam and Eve as it has unfolded in the three first chapters of Genesis seems to show a God who though once pleased with his "children" becomes unbearably angry at the first show of independence.
Don't our own children learn valuable lessons by testing the limits given them? This they will inevitably do through their innocence and immaturity until such time as they become more sagacious. Even then there are mistakes, some of them direct and premeditated. This is not to condone such doings but rather to suggest that no loving parent would give a child such a horrendous penalty as God gives Adam and Eve for doing something he had been told not to do, especially if it were the first infraction. A just parent would offer forgiveness and reconciliation directly and not wait for some hypothetical time in the future..
If God had considered the breaking of the commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to be a capital offense, why place Adam and Eve in such a position. Why even put the tree in the Garden? Adam and Eve had been pronounced "good" at their creation. They were new, innocent, creatures. Commands do not have the meaning to such beings that they do to experienced ones. Furthermore, being made like the gods would negate the necessity to eat anything to know good and evil. Eating of the tree for that reason would have been pointless. Even the cunning serpent would not have been able to show reason for doing so. Why even put the tree in the garden if it posed such a potential danger?
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken (verse 23). So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life (verse 24).
God drove the man out. The words are the man not man, which could be taken to mean Eve also. The Living Bible says: "Now that man has become as we are, knowing good from bad, what if he eats the fruit of the Tree of Life and lives forever (Genesis 3 verse 22)? So the Lord God banished him forever from the Garden of Eden...(verse 23). The New American Standard Bible puts it this way: "Behold the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the Tree of life, and eat, and live forever...(Genesis 3 verse 22). Therefore the Lord God sent him out from the Garden of Eden (verse 23). Eve just isn't mentioned. Did she stay in the Garden? Either the account is not correct or an impossible situation has been created: there is no way for Adam to multiply and replenish the earth without Eve. Eve might not have minded so much because without Adam there would be no sorrow in conception or childbirth.
Obviously Adam and Eve did manage to get together. The birth of Cain and Abel attest to that. And how was Cain able to find other people when he left home following the slaying of his brother Abel? If there were other people in the land then Adam and Eve could not have been the first people on earth. But that is another story.
What Did Jesus Say?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment . And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Matthew 22:37-39).
Of all Jesus' pronouncements this is the one that best describes the Kingdom of Heaven: the Fatherhood of God and the inevitable brotherhood/sisterhood of mankind. This family of creator and creature verifies supreme relationships, an ideal far transcending typical present day family life but one that gives the best possible inspiration for its rejuvenation.
Jesus Came to do the Will of the Father
It is in this same loving relationship that Jesus demonstrates his uncompromising desire to do the Father's will. He said:
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me (John 6:38).
...I honour my Father...(John 8:49).
I am come in my Father's name...(John 5:43).
I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me (John 5:30).
Jesus did the will of the Father, not his own will, readily and cheerfully in compliance with the Father's wishes and through the power given him by his Father:
Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business (Luke 2:49).
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do... (John 5:19)
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I Judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me (John 5:30).
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, which I should say, and what I should speak (John 12:49).
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise (John 5:19).
My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me (John 7:16)
Jesus clearly indicated the supremacy of his, and our, father in all he did:
And he said unto him. Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: (Matthew 19:17)
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God (Mark 10:18).
Jesus and the Father Love Us
The love of the father and Jesus is so great for us that they sent the Comforter following Jesus death:
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever (John 14:16).
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father...(John 15:26)
The father's love for us is freely given, not earned by Jesus' crucifixion on the cross for the sin of Adam. This one statement, in the absence of any other, disclaims the requirement of an ignominious death on the cross.
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God (John 16:27).
Jesus' love for us is also freely given:
As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you (John 15:9):
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him (Matthew 7:11)?
Why Does the Father do This?
The father does this through Jesus for one great purpose:
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40).
"...that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:...". We only need to believe for everlasting life. No mention of baptism, no mention of the crucifixion. Only that we believe.
Do We Owe Anything in Return?
This is what Jesus requires in return for all he gives us:
This is my commandment That ye love one another, as I have loved you (John 15:12).
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you (Matthew 5:44):
Be ye therefore perfect, even as you Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets (Matthew 7:12).
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:15).
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:36).
As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love (John 15:9).
Do We Receive Anything in Return for Our Love?
The great reward given to believers of Jesus, those who will "keep his words", is:
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6).
If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him (John 14:23).
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him (Matthew 7:11)? See also Luke 11:13.
Does the Father Receive anything from us?
We who believe give something very important to the father:
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit, so shall ye be my disciples (John 15:8).
"Herein is my Father glorified..."! What an amazing thing. We can glorify God. All we need to do is bear much fruit. Does this sound like a condition requiring a sacrifice?
Was the great mission of Jesus to free a condemned world or to reveal his, and our, Father? We have just read one pronouncement after another from his own words declaring his and his father's great love for us. These words of love and the hope that we will love him in return carry no hint of the cruel requirement of the sacrificial lamb, no suggestion that he must suffer on a cross so that we might find our way to his father.
Love does not require the shedding of innocent blood, the atonement of Jesus. Only a conditional love would do that, and conditional love is not really love at all but rather a cheap kind of consideration that is "purchased" and not "given". Is that God's love?
How then, with the love and free giving spirit of both the father and Jesus are we to believe Jesus was sent to free us from the sin of Adam and open the way for forgiveness of our individual misdeeds?
The New Testament clearly tells of Jesus forgiving sins long before he was crucified. This incident made such an impression upon the gospel writers that it is included in three of them. How then, if forgiveness comes before Jesus' death, the necessity for his crucifixion?
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house (Matthew 9:5).
When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee (Mark 2:5).
And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee (Luke 5:20). See also Luke 7:47, 50.
There is also another occasion when Jesus forgave sins:
And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head (Luke Chapter 7, verse 44). Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet (verse 45). My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment (verse 46). Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little (verse 47). And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven (verse 49). And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace (verses 50).
Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven was his gift to us, and that we could freely enter it. He likened it to the purity of a child and suggested that we should humble ourselves as a little child. How could this be possible if children were born in sin?
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me (Matthew 18:4,5).
And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: (Luke 9:48)
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:14). Also Luke 18:16.
"Of such is the kingdom of heaven".
This one statement from the lips of Jesus should forever silence those who believe children are born in sin. We may do sinful things during the course of our lives, but Jesus makes it crystal clear we are born with the purity of the kingdom, of his kingdom.
Did Jesus Really Say This?
We have just explored sayings of Jesus and have seen his relationship with his father, the love they both have for each other and mankind, the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the requirements for entering it. Reading this shows a God of great love, mercy, compassion and fairness; a God who freely gives himself to us and who seeks nothing in return other than our love for him. We read of a superlative Father-Son relationship combined to offer us a beautiful, good and true life through service shared by them.
But there are other more harsh sayings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament.
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, But to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).
This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many (Mark 14:24).
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28)
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you (Luke, verse 19,20).
And, in even stronger words:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me (John 6, verses 53-57).
If we believe these purported words of Jesus we believe in a very different kind of God than the one Jesus describes in the previous section of this paper. Was Jesus confused?
What about the eating of his body and drinking of his blood? This would be cannibalistic if viewed from the perspective of transubstantiation, the Catholic teaching of the actual change of bread and water into the very body and blood of Christ. Wouldn't changing the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ, if indeed it did happen, associate us with his physical self and not with his spiritual self? If viewed from the softer Protestant interpretation that this is a metaphor for the saving act of dying on the cross and is to be shared in remembrance by believers, we are still confronted with the awful spectacle of an innocent person dying an appalling death for the wrongs of others.
Why, then, did Jesus say what he did about sharing his body and blood? Or are these his words?
The original manuscripts of the four Gospels of the New Testament have been copied by hand many times. They have been changed, added to, taken away from, and interpreted by men for literally hundreds of years prior to their appearance in the King James version of the Bible: the first version in English.
Could it be that additions to the Gospels were made in order to correspond to the concept of salvation through atonement so eloquently stated by Paul in his writings; that they were not original with Jesus himself? Could they have been made in the attempt to associate Jesus with the sacrificial lamb of the Old Testament?
Pauline theology, the theory of atonement through crucifixion, has shaped the course of Christianity for centuries. It continues to shape the thinking of many loyal and sincere Christians. For all the good the writings of Paul have done for the world, they have also placed a heavy (and unnecessary) weight upon the shoulders of sincere believers.
Could it be that in their sincere effort to spread the story of the risen Christ, Paul and the apostles unwittingly made Jesus the subject of their new religion, that they worshiped him rather than the father as Jesus Himself had done and taught us to do. Jesus never suggested that he should be the object of worship in the new kingdom. His allegiance was always to the father. He taught that ours should be also. He directed his prayers to the father and taught us the prayer that begins: "Our Father which art in heaven...".
Is it the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus and his sacrificial atonement, that carries the seeds for the fulfillment of his hopes for this world and for the blossoming of the Kingdom of Heaven; even perhaps for the revitalization of the (Christian) world?
If we were to worship the Father as Jesus did there would grow in our lives the same kind of personal religious experience he enjoyed throughout his life. This is not to say Jesus is not the Son of God for he surely so stated and we so believe. It is to say that the Son showed us the way by what He did, and that way is one of personal, growing, spiritual relationship with the father, a relationship we call religion. It is a way of personal joy. It is a way free from anxieties about our future. It is a way of great peace and eventual full understanding. It is a way that provides us with the strength to meet the problems of each day with full assurance of spiritual invincibility. It girds us for dealing with disappointment and sometime failure. It absolves us from the hurt of physical pain. It yields success in the spirit even when we fall short of our earthly dreams. It provides the great salve when we blunder against the walls of this world. It continually points us in the direction of eternal progress amidst day to day duties. It is our great hope. It is the Kingdom Jesus promised. It is life in the spirit with the Father even now. It promises more than we can know for the future and does so with great joy.
The Choice of Believers
Was there really a fall from grace? Was it necessary that a sacrificial offering be made to atone for it? Is the God of Adam and Eve, and of Jesus, a loving, merciful, kind and gracious creator or a vengeful one who seeks reconciliation through retribution rather than a free-flowing love/service relationship with His children?
We are free to believe in:
1. Mercy, love, compassion - direct and unhindered from God--or--attenuated mercy, love, compassion requiring the barbarous shedding of sacrificial blood by a perfect Son.
2. Direct contact with God through his indwelling presence--or--a God who requires vicarious payment in full for someone else's wrong before we can approach him.
3. Individual forgiveness for wrongdoing from a loving and compassionate Father--or--Jesus' death on the cross in retribution for sin.
Will we believe in:
The Fatherhood of God and the brother/sisterhood of mankind? This is Jesusonian and scriptural. A merciful, loving God who respects us as individuals, as His children, one who fulfils the deepest longings of the human heart?--or--A God who does not Himself love us enough but who requires the hideous death of his perfect son as intermediary?
Jesus did surely say, and we believe, he is the way, the truth, the life: that all men and women come to the father by and through him. But at what cost? Through the atonement or through the freely forgiving love of a compassionate and understanding Father? What kind of father was this that Jesus wished us to worship along with him? Is he a father who fulfills our hopes, our ideals, our sense of truth for what this very God should be?
We can choose to believe in eternal life through the peace and security given by divine parental compassion or the hope of salvation through fear of a vengeful God who disciplines us if we do wrong. We can live our life with a closeness derived from the consistency of a supportive Father/God or a fear that comes from a vengeful one.
Conclusion
This paper may not provide answers for everyone but it may question enough to encourage us in the search for answers. In the quest for knowledge and spiritual discernment the reader is encouraged to read, study, converse, pray and otherwise search widely with an open mind, all the while letting the sense of truth that indwells us be the arbiter of faith.
A loving God knows the best efforts and understanding of our heart. If there is such a God it is unreasonable to feel that either belief or unbelief in Adam and Eve, or in the fall and redemption, can inhibit the eternal progress of one who loves and serves this same God and His son Jesus to the best of his or her understanding and ability.
We believe in a God who is love and who generously and mercifully guides, and encourages us through the problems of life with compassion, understanding, care and forgiveness - a God who will help us gain self confidence and self esteem as well as eternal life.
We believe in eternal life through freely given faith.
We look forward to being with a kind, merciful, and understanding God who loves us for what we are and encourages us to become more than we think we can be.
Some years ago when the Denver zoo was going through a major renovation, there was a polar bear that had arrived at the zoo before a large naturalistic environment being constructed was ready for it. The cage that the bear was put into temporarily was just big enough so that the polar bear could take three nice swinging steps in one direction, whirl around and take three steps in the other direction, back and forth. The polar bear spent many months in that particular cage that restricted its behavior. Eventually the naturalistic environment was completed and the bear was released from his cage...and guess what? The polar bear still paced back and forth as if the cage was still there." Rev Gregory Young, Spiritual Fellowship Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, Fall, 1997, p22.