Genesis 3 is one of key stories in all of Scripture that virtually everyone knows at least a little bit about: the story commonly called “The Fall,” where Adam and Eve are tempted by the serpent and eat the forbidden fruit. Then, after they realize they are naked, they try to hide from God. Yet when God shows up and finds out what happens, He banishes them from the garden…and that is why everything in the world is screwed up.
Now, on the surface, the basic story of Genesis 3 is fairly easy to understand. Yes, it is easy to get the basic plot line, but the problem that arises with Genesis 3, is how do we interpret it? What does it mean? If you are like me, chances are, you have understood Genesis 3 along these lines:
- God created a perfect world, and Adam and Eve were perfect
- The serpent is Satan (or was possessed by Satan)
- When Adam and Eve sinned, they “shook their fist” at God and rebelled by wanting to set themselves up as God
- Because of that, they (and everyone for the rest of time) were ashamed to be naked and had to wear clothes
- That event plunged the world (and human beings) from that original perfect state—hence, it is referred to as “the fall” because it was a fall from perfection
- Because of what Adam and Eve did, everything dies, and we have things like natural disasters
- And ultimately, the reason why you and I are sinners is because we are born sinful; and we are born sinful because Adam and Eve sinned first, and somehow passed their sin nature on to the rest of humanity
Well, if that sounds pretty much like what you’ve grown up believing about “the Fall,” I’ve got news for you: there are some real problems—both biblically and theologically—with that interpretation. Most notably, that was not the way the early Church read and understood Genesis 3. Let me repeat that: the early Church did not read Genesis 3 that way.
The Big Picture
One of the earliest glimpses we have of how the early Church understood Genesis 3 is in the writings of the early Church Father Irenaeus. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of the Apostle John. To the point, Irenaeus stated that Genesis 3 was not claiming that God had created a “perfect” world, because God alone is perfect. In fact, Irenaeus called the teaching that Adam and Eve were originally “perfect” a gnostic heresy. Irenaeus was emphatic: God didn’t create Adam and Eve as “perfect” beings. The very way they are described, as being “naked and not ashamed,” is a metaphorical way of saying they were naïve and child-like. As we discussed in Genesis 1:26-27, Irenaeus said that although they were created in God’s image, they still had to grow into God’s likeness as they continued in obedient relationship with Him. And in this respect, Adam and Eve represent all of humanity.
Therefore, the challenge set out in Genesis 3 is whether or not the man and the woman, created in God’s image, yet still childish and naïve, would be able to continue in a faithful and obedient relationship with God and continue to grow into God’s likeness. And the answer soon becomes obvious: they aren’t. They sin. It’s inevitable. What is true for Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 is true for all of us, because the story of Adam of Eve describes the state of humanity.
Simply put, instead of seeing Genesis 3 as the story of Adam and Eve’s “fall from perfection” that screws things up for the rest of us throughout history, we need to see Genesis 3 as the story of human beings’ inevitable choice to sin. The story of Adam and Eve is each one of our stories: we are created in God’s image; we are challenged with obedience and faithfulness to God; and yet we inevitably disobey and sin. And therefore, we find ourselves estranged from God because of our unfaithfulness and disobedience. Genesis 3 is not telling us why we are sinful (i.e. it’s Adam and Eve’s fault); it is telling us that we are sinful. It is giving us a vivid portrait of the human condition: we are created in God’s image, yet we all have chosen to sin, and therefore we all are in need of salvation.
There is obviously a lot more that can be said about this, but for our purposes here, it is enough to realize that that is generally the way that early Church Fathers like Irenaeus claimed the Church had always interpreted Genesis 3. The fact he was essentially only one generation removed from the Apostle John himself tells me that we need to take what Irenaeus seriously.
The Serpent and Adam and Eve’s Sin
That’s the big picture of Genesis 3. Now let’s look at a few specifics. First of all, what is up with the serpent? Well, it might come as bit of a surprise, but nowhere in Genesis 3 does it suggest that the serpent was Satan. At the same time, the serpent is obviously depicted as a sinister and crafty entity. Furthermore, in the New Testament (particularly Revelation 12-13), there is an allusion to Genesis 3 in its depiction of Satan as the great dragon. The way I like to say it is this: in the ancient Near East, people viewed the primordial Sea of Chaos as the abode of evil, and therefore the great “evil one” was often viewed as a giant sea serpent. Genesis 1, though, makes it clear, that the true Creator God is in control, and He, in fact created all the sea creatures—simply put, the creatures of the sea don’t even compare with God. Therefore, Genesis 3 depicts the great “evil one,” not as some foreboding sea serpent, but as a crafty garden snake. He doesn’t bring about chaos and death through brute power; he brings it about through deception and trickery.
One interesting thing about the serpent, though, is how he is described in 3:1: craftier than all other beasts. The Hebrew word here is pronounced arom. And in just the previous verse, in Genesis 2:25, the word used to describe the man and the woman’s nakedness (and hence their naivete) is pronounced aromim. There is a wordplay going on here: because the man and the woman are aromim, they are going to be deceived by the serpent, who is arom.
Another interesting thing to note is how the serpent tempts the woman: if you eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, your eyes will be open, and you will be like God. Does that sound familiar? It should, for when God creates man in Genesis 1:26-27, we are told he is created in God’s image, and according to God’s likeness. And as we mentioned before, the “plan,” if you will, was for human beings to become more like God as they continued in faithful obedience within their relationship with Him.
Therefore, we need to see that what the serpent was offering was a short-cut to being like God. But the short-cut undercut the ability for them to become truly like God, because by listening to the serpent, they were disobeying God, and obedience is the means by which they were to become like God.
In a sense, what we see is the equivalent of what most people experienced in some form or another in high school. Think of when you were 16 years old, and you just got your driver’s license. All of a sudden, you thought you were mature enough to make your own decisions. So on a certain Friday night, after your parents remind you to be back home by curfew, you decide you’re having too much fun. Why should they treat you like a child? You have a driver’s license; you’re old enough to do what you want—you’ll show them that you’re mature enough! And so you skip your curfew by two hours, and in the process get into a car wreck because you and your friends were just having too much fun, and you weren’t paying attention to the road.
So who’s so mature now? Ironically, your attempt to prove how mature and wise you are actually proved just the opposite: you weren’t mature or wise at all. And assuming you were a sophomore, and sophomore means “wise fool,” you lived up to your name. By disobeying your parents, you not only lost their trust and did harm to your relationship with them, you also got in big trouble and you wrecked their car. It’s going to take a lot of work to pay that wreck off. Now obviously, the situation in Genesis 3 isn’t just some inconvenient fender-bender. It is describing the reality of death and sin in the world, and how human beings are slaves to sin and death. But nevertheless, the way in which it depicts human beings is very much like that “wise fool” of a sophomore in my example. We are naïve and inexperienced, and thus we sin. And yet, it is through suffering the consequences that we (hopefully) mature and learn to obey God more.
The Two Trees
This brings us to the third thing to note: the significance of the two trees—the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The names pretty much explain their significance, but I think we need to see these trees metaphorically. We should agree with the early Church Father Origen, when he says the following:
“Who is so foolish as to think that God, just like a farmer, literally planted a paradise in Eden, somewhere in the east, and placed a tree of life in it that was both visible and tangible, and that if one actually sank their teeth in and ate its fruit, that they would obtain life? Again, who would think that one was a partaker of good and evil by munching on what was taken from the other tree? And as far as God walking in the paradise in the evening, and Adam hiding himself under a tree, I do not think that anyone doubts that these things are to be taken figuratively, and that they indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally” (De Principiis, 4, 16).
The significance of both trees should be rather obvious when we think about it: life and the knowledge of good and evil are found only in God, and He bestows them upon those who live in obedient relationship with Him. When we reach out and try to grasp something that we are not ready or mature enough to take, and something that God has not chosen to grant to us yet, that is when we sin and become slaves to sin and subject to death.
Now, that might raise the question: “If Adam and Eve were created naïve and child-like, and if the story of Genesis 3 is ultimately the story of humanity, does that mean that human beings inevitably sin? And if that is the case, does that make God ultimately responsible for sin?” To the point, that question takes things beyond what the Genesis 3 reveals. Genesis 3 reveals that human beings do sin, and we bear the responsibility for it. Still, it also implies that it was (and is) inevitable. But again, we need to be instructed by the early Church Fathers. Irenaeus explains it this way:
“But things which are made by God, in as much as they have received a beginning of their existence at a later time, must fall short of [He] who made them. Things which have come into existence recently cannot said to be unoriginated. To the extent…they are not unoriginated they fall short of being perfect. In as much as they have come into being more recently, they are infants, and, in as much as they are infants, they are unaccustomed to and unpracticed in perfect discipline. A mother can offer adult food to an infant, but the infant cannot yet digest food suitable for someone older. Similarly God, for his part, could have granted perfection to humankind from the beginning, but humankind, being in its infancy, would not have been able to sustain it” (Against Heresies IV. 38.1).
“He learns from experience that disobeying God, which robs him of life, is evil, and so he never attempts it…. But how would he have discerned the good without knowing its opposite? For firsthand experience is more certain and reliable than conjecture… The mind acquires the knowledge of the good through the experience of both, and becomes more firmly committed to preserving it by obeying God. First, by penance, he rejects disobedience, because it is bitter and evil. Then he realizes what it really is – the opposite of goodness and sweetness, and so he is never tempted to taste disobedience to God. But if you repudiate this knowledge of both, this twofold faculty of discernment, unwittingly you destroy your humanity” (Against Heresies IV.39.1).
“How could man ever have known that he was weak and mortal by nature, whereas God was immortal and mighty if he had not had experience of both? To discover his weakness through suffering is not in any sense evil; on the contrary, it is good not to have an erroneous view of one’s own nature… The experience of both [good and evil] has produced in man the true knowledge of God and of man, and increased his love for God” (Against Heresies V.3.1).
As strange as it may sound to modern American ears, Irenaeus said that the early Church taught that yes, in a sense, it was inevitable for Adam and Eve (and by extension us) to sin, and that it was through experiencing the pain and suffering that came as a consequence of that sin, that human beings grow, mature, and truly discern good and evil. As Irenaeus said, ultimately, it is a good thing that human beings discover their weakness through suffering. This really shouldn’t be that surprising, though. In reality, this is the very thing each one of us experiences. And that is why we need to see that the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 is really a story about the nature and state of humanity.
You make a compelling and fascinating argument. It makes good sense, and the fact that the early church fathers demonstrated a similar view makes it all the more convincing. So, how would you respond to the counter-argument some YECs make that because Scripture tells us the genealogy of Adam and Eve’s descendants, it must be regarded as history rather than metaphor?
The answer to that questions lies in understanding how they are used in the overall literary structure of Genesis 1-11. In addition, it helps to look at similar lists in the ancient Near East, like the Sumerian king’s list. I’ll get to that in the later posts. But for now, I’ll say this: I think they are literary devices that drive home the fundamental theme of Genesis 1-11 (which will be laid out in the next post)–I don’t think they are actual, literal, historical genealogies.
Part of the point of the genealogies I feel may be a necessity of developing the identity of the early nation of Israel. If we consider the traditional author of Moses, he had just led Israel out of Egypt and needed to (re)acquire a national identity, since after 400 years I doubt much of them were a whole lot different than their Egyptian overlords (as far as beliefs).
Can I ask a question? I’m not a Bible genius or anything so just asking to know. You talked about the early church view and the church father’s views but in Romans 5 it seems Paul is viewing the story differently, talking about sin entering the world through one man and paralleling that with Jesus as the one man through whom righteousness comes.
This whole series is very intriguing. Thanks for writing it.
What my thinking on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been is that was not a tree available to Adam and Eve, because it was God’s tree, i.e., it was his domain to tell us what is truly good or evil. There is a verse in Jeremiah that says “It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” I take that to mean we have free will but are not morally autonomous. And Paul often called Adam’s sin a trespass. If that is a proper translation, it may indicate further man’s sin was in trespassing upon God’s domain, teaching us what is good.