Okay, you've taken some time to re-read the story of Adam, Eve and the Snake. Hopefully, you've read it with fresh eyes, and asked yourself that very basic of questions: "What is strange about this picture?" Before getting to your conclusions, let's take a moment to revisit the basic storyline together. In a nutshell, here it is:
After creating a world, God fashions two human beings and places them in paradise, the Garden of Eden. He gives them virtually free reign over the territory. There's only one restriction: A certain tree is off-limits -- it's the tree labeled "the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". The fruit of this tree must not be eaten under any circumstances.
In short order, the human beings manage to transgress the only prohibition given to them. At the behest of a mysterious snake, Eve eats from the tree and shares the fruit with Adam. The Almighty becomes angry, and hands out various punishments: The snake? No more walking upright for him; he must crawl on his belly and eat dust. The woman? Generations of her kind will endure pain in conception and childbirth. And the man? He and his progeny will have to work by the sweat of their brow to make bread. And just to round things out, death gets handed out to all the parties; nobody gets to live forever anymore.
Eden is placed off-limits; everyone has got to find somewhere else to live now. The great Lifeguard in the sky has blown His whistle and it's time for everybody to get out of the pool. Why? Because there's another mysterious tree in the Garden -- the Tree of Life -- and the last thing God wants is anyone taking anything from that tree...
Well, what are the problems here? Does the story sit well with you, or do you find yourself uneasy with it? If you are uneasy, can you identify exactly why you are uneasy?
As I mentioned earlier, many Biblical stories have their "elephant in the room": An obvious, slap-in-the-face question that is so basic and so deeply troubling that until you find a way to deal with it, you really can't claim to have any understanding at all f the story you are reading. Is there a question of this sort -- a question of this magnitude -- that we need to deal with when reading the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?
I think there is.
Let's talk a little bit about this mysterious tree in the Garden, the one that God places off-limits. It has a name. It is known as "the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". By any measure, that's a pretty strange name for a tree -- but if that's what the Bible calls it, then that's presumably what it is: It somehow conveys a "knowledge of Good and Evil," an ability to distinguish right from wrong to those who partake of its fruits.
Are human beings better or worse off, for their knowledge of "good and evil"?
But there's a big problem with this. In a sentence, it is this:
"Why would God want to deny this knowledge to people?"
Think about it. Are human beings better or worse off, for their knowledge of "good and evil"? Is knowing right from wrong an asset or a liability for humanity?
Imagine a world in which people were pretty much the same as they are now -- they were smart, they could walk, they could talk, they could drive cars and become investment bankers. They were missing only one thing. They didn't know right from wrong.
We have a word for people like that. We call them sociopaths.
A person with all the faculties we associate with humanity except for the capacity to understand right and wrong is someone who could slaughter people with an axe the way you and I mow the lawn. Did God really want to create a society filled with such people? Clearly, people are better off when they know the difference between right and wrong. So why would God pretend that having such knowledge is undesirable?
A tempting way out of the problem would be to suggest that somehow, it was all a set-up: God really did want people to have the knowledge the tree would give them, and was in fact "glad" when they ate from it. But this approach is deeply problematic. For the way the Torah tells the story, the Almighty seems pretty disappointed with Adam and Eve after they ate from the tree; he in fact punishes them severely. How are we to understand this disappointment? It seems a little perverse to imagine the Almighty secretly chuckling with pleasure that Adam and Eve finally ate the fruit he put off limits - but hiding His joy behind a mask of displeasure and anger.
Clearly, God really did want Adam and Eve to avoid the Tree of Knowledge. But that brings us back to our question: Why would the Lord want to deny humanity an understanding of good and evil?
CATCH-22 IN THE GARDEN
The truth is, the question is really even a little deeper than this. It's not simply that it seems strange for God to have put a "tree of knowledge" off-limits to Adam and Eve. Rather, the very existence of such a tree seems to create a basic contradiction in the story as a whole. Here's why:
What happens immediately after Adam and Eve eat from the tree whose mysterious fruits confer knowledge of "good and evil"? The Almighty becomes angry with them and punishes them. But if Adam and Eve were punished for what they did, this presupposes that they knew they did something wrong. You don't punish people who are unaware that they did something bad. So Adam and Eve evidently had some knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree. At the very least, they knew it was right to obey God when He told them not to eat, and it was wrong to disobey Him.
But now we're really stuck. For if Adam and Eve already understood good and evil before reaching for the fruit, well then, they already possessed what the tree was supposed to give them. And that would mean that the tree was useless, nothing but an empty farce.
It's a catch-22.
This is a very serious, fundamental problem. Didn't Adam and Eve already have the knowledge the tree was supposed to give them? It's the kind of question that you should lose sleep over. For as long as you are stuck with this question, the story of Adam and Eve simply fails to make any sense at all.
So how are we to deal with this problem? I'd like to sketch the outline of an approach we may ultimately find useful.
A WORLD BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL
Perhaps we've been the victim of faulty premises. We've casually assumed that we knew what kind of knowledge the Tree gave to Adam and Eve: A knowledge of "good and evil," of "right and wrong." But on second thought, just because it's called a "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" doesn't mean that Adam and Eve were ignorant of morality, of right and wrong, beforehand. It just means that they didn't call morality "good and evil." They called it something else.
The approach I am suggesting here is not my own. It in fact is the approach taken by Maimonides, the Rambam. Indeed, in his Guide to the Perplexed, Rambam considers the very same question we have advanced here: Why would God want to withhold a knowledge of good and evil from us? And the answer he gives is this: The tree didn't give us an understanding of right and wrong when we had none before; rather it transformed this understanding from one thing into another. It transformed it into something called a "knowledge of Good and Evil".
What would it mean to think about right and wrong in the world of Eden, in the "pre-tree" world? That, indeed, is the $64,000 question.
If this seems a little obscure, try thinking about it this way: Nowadays, when we do something right, we think of it as "good". And when we do something wrong, we think of it as "evil". But, Rambam contends, those are not the most natural terms one could possibly use. Those terms became relevant to us -- they became part of our vocabulary, as it were - only after we ate from the tree and assimilated "knowledge of good and evil". In the world of Eden, in the world before the Tree, the words "good" and "evil" would have seemed strange and inappropriate. Yes, we would have been aware of right and wrong, but we would not have called this "good and evil". We would have thought about it differently. We would have called it something else.
What, exactly, was that "something else"? What would it mean to think about right and wrong in the world of Eden, in the "pre-tree" world? That, indeed, is the $64,000 question. To some extent, we are reaching beyond ourselves to even ask the question. To ask is to try and understand a world we no longer know; a world in which right and wrong looked, felt and seemed vastly different than they do now. But try we must. For the Torah suggests that it was that world which was the more genuine one. And it is to that world that we strive to return.
Uncovering the nature of right and wrong in the pristine world of Eden will be one of the central tasks before us in the chapters ahead. But before we tackle that, we need to assemble some more data. So for now, it's back to the drawing board: It's time to ask ourselves, once again: What are some of the other problems the story of Adam and Eve holds out to us?
Re-read the text one more time. I'll see you again next week and we'll compare notes once more.
Rabbi Fohrman invites comments or questions from readers. Please use the comment section below.
(43) Andy, May 24, 2020 11:04 AM
Hashem and Torah
Hashem was in the garden and He is the source of all life, and of all creation. He spoke creation into being, and breathed life into man. He is a tree of life. The Torah, G-d’s instruction to man, assists man in being able to distinguish good from evil. The Torah in revealing to us what is good, shows us, when we disobey, that we are not good. Disobedience is sin. Sin kills us, and separates us from Hashem. In eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree, they disobeyed G-d’s instruction, His Torah, committed sin, and consequently they would now be mortal, and could no longer dwell in His presence.
(42) Gloria Katz, December 2, 2019 4:03 AM
Re Chava
In your amazing classes on חטא אדם וחוה, I didn't understand how the punishment of Eve was a consequence, not a punishment. Can you explain?
(41) susan massey, February 24, 2019 12:01 AM
Adam and Eve
I have so struggled with the Adam and Eve story for at least 50 years or more. Thank you so much for your article. At long last I can understand the concept, It makes so much sense. I went to a meeting some weeks ago and listened to a man who teaches that the Bible is just a Law book, he changed so many concepts of the Genesis chapter that I walked out in the end. So thank you so much for helping me,
(40) Anonymous, February 12, 2019 5:12 PM
The tree of Knowledge
The Torah does say that the creation of a human was to be like Hashem, Tselem and D'mut. This implies a special kind of "divine" being, one possessing insights and understanding. The tree of knowledge cannot mean Adam was a naive being, rather, eating from that tree caused "death"
We see that Adam KNEW his wife, this kind of knowledge is more than physical, it one of great intimacy, just as it says "you shall know Hashem" meaning being deeply connected and intimate.
So what kind of knowledge did the tree provide that Adam did not possess?
It seems before the tree good and evil were 2 distinct attributes, the fact that it says a tree of Good AND evil, shows us the tree was a mixture of both good and evil, which causes confusion. Some acts can be called "good" yet be bad in the end and vice versa.
It is a tree of"subjectivity" whereas the tree of life is complete objectivity and the antidote for eating the tree of knowledge (thus why it was protected with the Keruvim)
Amazing shiur- I read the Torah yet I am blind to its hidden meaning (tree of knowlege issue???
(39) Alex, July 14, 2015 8:34 PM
Our own understanding
It would seem to me that to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to eat from the tree of man's understanding of what is right and what is wrong ie; to live according to our own understanding; while, eating from the tree of life was to eat from the knowledge of right and wrong ACCORDING TO GOD'S UNDERSTANDING. To eat from the former ultimately leads to error, a lack of perfection and a guilty conscience (death). To eat from the latter is to have a child-like faith to trust that your Father knows best; it is to walk with God and to walk as God walks. it is eternal life.
(38) shlomo, October 24, 2014 3:47 AM
nature of evil
perhaps we can say that prior to Gd's command- there was no such thing as evil. For if Gd didn't forbid anything, nothing was forbidden. So perhaps this story simply illustrates the concept of Gd-mandated morality, since humans tend to rationalize ethix for our own needs.
(37) Andy Bradbury, August 31, 2011 5:12 PM
Are you for real?
It is my belief that the answers to the questions you have posed in Parts 1 & 2 are pretty straightforward. Are you genuinely prepared to discuss alternative views, or is this in reality a closed site?
(36) Tom Cooke, February 14, 2009 6:55 PM
Choice was life or death
God put 2 trees, one represented life the other death. God wanted them to partake of the tree of life, which is God. Man was made to partake of and have a relationship with God. On the other hand man could choose to partake of and have a relationship with the world, with knowing good from bad. Do we live by knowledge of good and bad? Even Satan has this knowledge. or, do we live by partaking of life, the very essence of God comming into our spirit. Gen. 1:27 say we are created in God's image, Job 32:8 says we have a spirit, and even Pharoh reconized in Gen. 41:38 that the Spirit of God dwells in man. Therefore, the real choice was between partaking of God or partaking of the world (where good and evil exist). God, throughout the Bible, blesses the choice of life, I.e., as He did with Abramham when Abraham by faith believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. Did Adam & Eve know good and evil before eating from the tree? They definitly knew God's command, and they definitly knew life, for God walked in the Garden among them and they surely tasted of the tree of life. But God gave them a choice and like we do so often, they chose to partake of something other than God. Only God can fill our spirit. Good and bad appeals to so many other parts of our being. "But, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
(35) Anonymous, October 1, 2008 2:14 PM
You miss the point of the whole story. It is simply whether Adam and Eve could, or would, obey God. Sort of like the jews after they entered the land of Israel: when they obeyed God all went well, when they didn't things did not go so well. Any lessons for today? Be honest now!
(34) Leonard Nash, July 30, 2008 3:16 PM
Redefining the Terms
The only problem I have with the answer is that it is a mere redefining of the terms. The conundrum still exists: either they had knowledge of good and evil beforehand, or they did not. Very little children who are told not to touch a hot stove may very well go ahead and touch the hot stove, not out of spite, but out of curiosity. It is after the painful experience that they learn right from wrong. But they aren't "punished" for touching the stove, the heat of said stove is indifferent to their nerve endings, which sense said heat as "pain." This then allows them to understand that their parents try to have their children's best interests in mind when they offer pro- and pre-scriptive warnings.
All that said, it seems that God shouldn't need to resort to human measures to cause the effect he intended.
In other words, the question still stands: "Why create the tree of knowledge of good and evil?", if God already could just as easily imbued them with knowledge in the first place. After all, we see he can command them NOT to do something, and then gets angry at them for doing so. In addition, because they have no knowledge of good or evil before they eat from the tree, they cannot or at least should not be held responsible for what they cannot understand.
Redefining the terms doesn't help here, if you say that they merely weren't "called good and evil," that implies that only the nomenclature changes after they eat from the tree. The concepts are obviously there within them, meaning God must have imbued them from the beginning. Human beings do not "intrinsically" have morals, as is stated above. They are learned from societal experiences, which Adam and Eve have none of.
(33) Mikaail, July 1, 2008 10:19 AM
The fuit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? I would rather called it it the Tree of Death! And did the Great God foreknew that Adam and Eve would, ultimately, partake of the Forbidden Fruit? Let us pause for a second and think for a moment. How untainted and pure would their minds be if they had not known good and evil, just the way God had created them in the beginning of time. Remember, God is ALL-knowing.
(32) AL PERETZ, May 30, 2008 2:56 PM
TO ANONIMOUS
THEY HAD THE KNOWLEDGE AND THEY EXPLORED IT. EXPLORED DESIRES AND THEIR ____POSSIBLE OUTCOMES_____.THEY VISUALIZED THE EVIL POSSIBILITIES AND MEDITATED HOW TO BRING INTO ACTION. THUS THE PUNISHMENT...
(31) Anonymous, February 19, 2008 10:39 PM
Clarification
First, does one need knowledge of good and bad to know they shouldn't eat from the tree. What really is this knowledge. It is the inherent intrinsic knowledge that something is right or wrong to do. However, as everyone agrees, adam and chava had rational minds capable of thought at todays human levels. When Hashem directly commanded them not to eat from the tree, it required no intrinsic knowledge of good or evil. Using their rationality they know that it is true one should obey G-d and thereofre not eat from the tree. No knowledge of good and bad was necessary.
This is how I have always interpreted it (and as I will mention in a second how I interpreted the Rambam).
Second, there clearly must be a change more than just what good and evil are called. After they eat from the tree "their eyes are opened" and they realize they are naked. There is a huge change in the nature of humans.
I read the Rambam on this many times and I interpret it differently, which seems to be more consistent with what I just mentioned.
Rambam is addressing the question, why would god withold from humans the one thing which distinguish them from animals. To this he answers that Hashem withheld knowledge of "good and bad". But what makes humans different is the ability to use reasoning and logic, to think at a higher level, to use language, etc. Humans had this even prior to the tree. However, they didn't have knowledge of good and bad. Rambam clarifies between this. Humans were always able to say based on logic 1+1=2 is true. But no one would say 1+1=2 is good. Pre-tree humans were aware of truth, after the tree humans became aware of morals (apparent truths).
This seems to be more than a change of language but an entirely new element of understanding (an element which rambam points out was not essential to make humans higher than animals).
By reading the rambam i seem to have come out with a completely different answer. I am no scholar and therefore am not going to say your wrong. What I need is clarification? Is my interpretation wrong?
(30) Rebecca B Miller, February 14, 2008 7:32 AM
Way of Life and Death, but we chose good and evil.
Could it be that before ingesting the knowledge of good and evil, which brought in additional consequences, there was only one consequence - death. I find that when in a restaurant with many options on the menu, I have a much harder time choosing than one with the few simple choices.
In addition, I conclude that the whole of the garden story juxtaposed with the creation story is about connections versus separations. God clearly created the universe by a series of separations, but the power of God allows opposites to work together for the good. We, on the other hand, must not have the power to maintain good in the presence of "brokenness-evil." Is this not the first seed-kind that brings in the its likeness of brokenness? And if connections between heaven and earth, God and man, man and woman, etc. are the purpose of the garden, then the evil (that breaks) is the obvious opposite. And the consequences of eating all imply not only a broken relationship, but the continuance of it unto death.
No more simple choices for man, and time now takes us farther away rather than closer to, the connection with God.
(29) Anonymous, March 7, 2007 6:40 AM
Adam and Eve did NOT know right from wrong
"What happens immediately after Adam and Eve eat from the tree whose mysterious fruits confer knowledge of "good and evil"? The Almighty becomes angry with them and punishes them. But if Adam and Eve were punished for what they did, this presupposes that they knew they did something wrong. You don't punish people who are unaware that they did something bad. So Adam and Eve evidently had some knowledge of good and evil before eating from the tree. At the very least, they knew it was right to obey God when He told them not to eat, and it was wrong to disobey Him."
I disagree - God only punishes them after they eat from the tree, once they have obtained a knowledge of Good and Evil. They only realise they have done something wrong after they had eaten from the tree, and they are only punished after they eat from the tree, thus (in my opinion) they had no knowledge of good and evil (right / wrong) prior to eating from the tree.
(28) paul, October 11, 2006 9:50 AM
they then knew they were naked!
thanks so much for the fascinating article. i never looked at the story as you do. there are fundamental truths in the arguments you advance. the whole article has got me thinking in fresh new ways and an immediate desire to reread the passage in genesis.
(27) Anonymous, May 25, 2006 12:00 AM
Interesting Elephants
Well this was a wonderful approach to the topic. However it opens, of course, more questions. Since truely the only way we know or have true knowledge of good and evil is to experience it, could it be? The tree was to experience good and evil?
Remember the discourse with the serpant opens with what? A question. It seems interesting that a question hang there and present itself. Pasuk 6 even states,"And the women perceived that the tree was good for eating and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a means of.... wisdom..." As Jews we all know how we attain wisdom, asking questions.
Perhaps the basis, true basis, of good and evil is only percieved after we ask a question and here the answer from our won soul?
(26) Anonymous, May 5, 2006 12:00 AM
Here is another way of looking at the event of Adam and Eve. I surmise that God knew that Eve would eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, obviously since he knows all things, if not her, then eventually someone else, from the story its obvious that God or angels taught them everything he wanted them to know. I say angels because it does not appear that the serpent startled Eve by his appearing, actually you could derive that she seems somewhat at ease with him, at least there doesn't appear to be any fear of him, which leads me to believe that this might not have been the first time she had seen the serpent,
or even conversated with it. The story just comes in at a particular time frame. Where the serpent asks eve a question, it's obvious that eve knows she is not suppose to eat from the tree nor touch it, she says so, what is not as obvious, is that there is no previous
experience to link eve to the percussions of her decision, although God tells her they will die, there is no experience of death, there is no one who has died before them, so how would she relate to death, we on the other hand look at life through our experience through our pain and suffering, we decide our actions based on previous experience. Adam and Eve had no previous experience, I believe that God brought Adam and Eve to the point where in order for them to act as free moral agents with a choice they would have to have choices to make, that furthered not only the basics of life, but entered into the realm of the spiritual, which they were not. The tree of Life was also in the garden why didn't they partake of that before their meeting with the serpent?
I believe that God allowed the serpent to entice Eve, how he did it was not the point, nor what the serpents reasoning was, was not the point, although we know that it was not for good. I don't believe God was angry, with either of them, perhaps saddened by the thought of what the future held for them, but a necessary one if they were to reach their full potential. As a parent knows we can teach our children everything we think they will need to know to get through life, but we can not give them what only experience will bring. A deeping appreciation for all that is good, an ever increasing awareness of our need for God. through the lens of suffering and pain.
(25) Peter Gaffney, April 23, 2006 12:00 AM
What did God want/expect?
I think it must remain an open question whether or not God intended Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. What I really don't understand is why Adam and Eve didn't try the fruit of the Tree of Life BEFORE the forbidden fruit. Is it possible that free will actually gives man the ability to SURPRISE God -- that omniscience does not include the ability to predict the outcome of free choice? God's wrath sometimes does not seem like the emotion of somebody who knew ahead of time what was coming.
(24) sandi stuive, March 18, 2006 12:00 AM
how do we know it was a apple that eve and adam eat???
(23) Pär Andréasson, February 20, 2006 12:00 AM
Disobedience!
You have missed the whole point in your essay as you haven’t with one word mentioned the big fault Adam and Eve made when the let them selves be led by the serpent.
The Almighty had clearly told them NOT to eat the fruit. He expected Adam to obey and to convey the commandment to Eve.
OK Adam conveys the commandment but did not convey much more as Eve could easily be talked out of the commandment an start looking at the fruit with new eyes and under the evil influence by the serpent the old Devil the fallen angel who opposed the almighty and was cast out of the presence of the almighty on to the earth, she let go and tasted the fruit. Then she gave Adam who should have known better as he had the first information, The Almighty had told him. Adam should have rebuked Eve and tried to set everything right but he ate and hid. He was the disobedient one. Adam brought death to earth on himself and his descendants.
Probably The Almighty had in plan to let mankind eat of the fruit but al in good time and when mankind was ready for it. But we wont know anything about that now, will we, we can only speculate.
(22) Foppe de Jong, February 19, 2006 12:00 AM
Do we think?
The time when the Tree of Knowing was created by the Creator, he already did
know that Adam and his wife would eat (I think)
So we could think that te Creation was completed by this eating Now to us to unite the Tree of knowles with the Tree of life in order to become one with the One.
(21) Lori Smith, February 17, 2006 12:00 AM
Is it Sin is the tree of Knowledge of good and evil?
Do you not think Adam and Eve were very intellegent. G-D told them they would die if they ate of it. Were they so intellegent they wanted to taste death. is not death sin? They had immortal bodies that never grew old
Sin takes aging and death. I believe the tree of Knowledge of good and evil
Only brought in Sin They already had the knowledge, without sin. I also believe G-D made them leave the garden of eden because if they would have eaten from the tree of life they would have had to live in a sinful body forever.
(20) Anonymous, February 17, 2006 12:00 AM
deep thoughts
why does it matter what we call right and wrong? im confused
(19) Joe, February 16, 2006 12:00 AM
Hmmm an answer and a question...
It would seem to me that the difference is between knowing of evil as an abstract concept vs. having an actual evil impulse, where the desire for evil arises from something internal within the individual.
Suppose chocolate were forbidden. It is one thing to wonder what chocolate tastes like, and to philosophise about its' chemical properties. It is another to know what chocolate tastes like, and really want a candy-bar.
Clearly in this framework is the whole notion of learning by hard experience vs. trusting in Hashem.
Ok. Fine, I'm happy with the notion that the partaking of the tree transformed human outlook from detached observer of intellectual possibilities to soul wrestling with urges.
My problem then is what is with the tree of life? It is, after all, a metaphor for Torah. Hashem wants us to study Torah. So what is the difference between the tree of life in the garden, and the study of Torah today, and if we have the Torah, where are the angels with the flashy swords?
Is the argument that once removed from Eden, we can not absorb Torah in the same way?
(18) d. moore, February 16, 2006 12:00 AM
illustrating the "lullaby theory"
Some of these comments are a great example of the "lullaby theory" that R' Fohrman discussed in his first article. We have assumptions about Bible stories that simply don't hold up when the written story is examined. For instance, G-d commanded Adam and Eve to procreate - p'ru u'rvu - so why is it assumed that they could not have children if they stayed in the Garden, or that the natural manner for having children is wrong? If you look at the story with fresh eyes, you will find this is not implied or stated anywhere.
PS. to Johhn Hall - "beguile" and "defile" may sound similar in English, but they are not related etymologically, and the Hebrew of the two words are completely different.
(17) Gregory, February 16, 2006 12:00 AM
An amazing archetype
Having studied evolution, I see the first part of Bereishis is a code: Allegory, to be precise.
Our forefathers had no concept of evolution in the Sinai Desert.
I believe that the story of Adam and Chava is the way HaShem chose to teach Moshe and Humanity about what separates us from the beasts.........CONSCIENCE and the ability to separate good from evil.
(16) Dr.Eli E. Lasch, February 15, 2006 12:00 AM
Good and evil-wrong interpretation
We interpret tov and ra according to our value system as good and evil. But is that really what the Thora meant? I believe the key is in Rashi's interpretation of what the serpent told Eve: You will be like G-D...you will know how to create worlds. Tov according to Onkelos means Order. and that fits in very very with the last words of each day of creation: "and G-D saw that it was tov."
To summarize: Tov means creation and "putting things in order" and ra means destruction or chaos. That is why the Thora says: They have become like one of us, to know tov vera. (Gen.3.22) To differntiate between good and evil does not make us "like G-D", but to know the differnce between order and chaos, to know how to create
and destroy worlds, that is already another problem. This puts everything in a different light.
El Lasch
(15) Lorraine, February 15, 2006 12:00 AM
The tree of Life off limits
This is very thought provoking, I come to the conclusion that God sent Adam and Eve from the Garden because they now had sin inside them, and if they ate of the Tree of Life they would never die and sin would remain inside of them forever. They knew right from
wrong and were probably very intellegent, but they had no sin in them. To eat from the Tree of Good and Evil God told them they would die. So think about this: Adam and Eve have brought sin into the garden of Eden
If they would have eaten from the Tree of Life, No one would never die, we would all would grow old and live in pain and suffering from our old age and that would be more cruel than to kick them out of the garden and let us die. One more thing to think about our creator Loves us so much, that maybe he was testing Adam and Eve to see how much they would be faithful and true to the creator, As is the same today our we being faithful and true to our creator, and show how much we love him,
and when we die because we were faithful and true to our creator, does he not have a wonderful heaven to share with us where there will be no more pain or suffering.
(14) Daniel Yocum, February 14, 2006 12:00 AM
Gnosis, Ser
The key to the story is the act itself. The truth was revealed by the creator Himself but Adam and Eve acted contrary to His knowledge and chose another source of knowledge, essentially themselves. They became the arbiters of good and evil by taking the fruit of the tree and eating. The act itself imparted knowledge; the turning away from their designer choosing a path contrary to The Master becoming their own Masters estranging themselves from the Master of Reality. They made their self (internal)their source of knowledge and rejected an external (stable) source, and the mouth of sheol opened wide.
(13) Anonymous, February 14, 2006 12:00 AM
Good/Evil , Love and Understanding
Without knowledge of the concepts of Good and Evil, we could all be more open to understanding others' motivations for their actions without the cop-out of attributing things we don't understand to "evil". Also, without these concepts we might not have the need to see ourselves as "good" and be better able to accept all G-d's creatures and their actions without judgement. Without judge-mentalism, it's easier to let our guard down, allow others to love us and for us to love them.
(12) John Hubbard, February 13, 2006 12:00 AM
The test
When we ask to many questions, do we not tend to confuse ourselves?
Adam and Eve were given one simple test of obedience. Do not touch that tree. So why did she? She strayed from her husband.
If an animal strays, from the pack the lion will get him. The lion is the Devil.
(11) Gregory, February 13, 2006 12:00 AM
ultimately do we only believe first hand knowledge ?
What sticks out to me in this story was that in Genesis Chapter 2, vs 17 God commands Adam to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil before God had even created Eve. In vs. 2 and 3 of Chapter 3 Eve then states that we( speaking for her husband also) could eat all the fruits in the garden except that one tree and further more neither could they touch it for surely they would die.
The not touching was contrary to God's command for I could not find evidence that God commanded not to touch the tree. One can almost imagine Adam telling Eve not to touch the tree as an added caution not to go near the tree, and later when she did touch the tree feeling no consequence, because that was never a command of God, proceeding to eat of the fruit and breaking the command.
I see a common thread here. Eve told Adam that the fruit of the tree was good and so he ate, but only after she had first hand knowledge of the fruit. Likewise Eve did not have first hand knowledge of the command that God had given to Adam alone before she existed, so she basically did not believe her husband.
What I see here is that mankind will believe first hand knowledge from mankind or satan or for that matter a spouse, while rejecting second hand knowledge from God and in Adams case even first hand knowledge from God.Or.
Ultimately the only knowledge we will receive is God speaking to us individually and directly. Gods punishment in Adam and Eve's case ultimately gives God that opportunity to begin the dialogue.
(10) Henry, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
Thank you and question about Tree of Life
Thank you very much, I thoroughly enjoyed your article.
I have a question regarding the tree of life. Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of "Good and Evil" it is assumed that there is no such thing as death in the world, thus Adam and Eve are immortal and should live forever. Furthermore, if Adam and Eve simply ate FIRST from the "Tree of Life" and THEN ate from the "Tree of Good & Evil", in this case, wouldn't Adam and Eve have been immortal and live forever as well. Because if they first eat from the "Tree of Life", then they are guaranteed in a way to be immortal, irregardless of any actions after-the-fact. Any thoughts/comments would be greatly appreciated. All the best and may you go from strength-to-strength.
Best wishes,
Henry
(9) Joey, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
AGH! You are an evil man!
I don't care pre-Tree Adam would have called you, to me you're evil! Making us wait another week for spiritual enlightenment...dang it, I'm impatient!
Seriously, though, I think that (and maybe this is what you plan to write next week) perhaps what the fruit did was transform want at first seemed so obvious into something not so much. Like, before the Fruit, Good and Evil didn't seem so much like a choice---good was just kind of natural, like an instinctive knowledge of what God wanted or something. Like a super-superego. Just an idea. God bless!
(8) Justin, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
When Two Trees Are One
It has been assumed through generations that the Lord told Eve (both Adam and Eve) not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge.The Lord spoke to Adam. No where does it say He told Eve. Eve was given the instruction not to eat from the Tree of Knoweldge from Adam. Eve's sin was to disobey her husband, while Adam's was to disobey G-d.
EVIL IS CREATED AND EXISTS SOLELY IN THE MINDS OF MEN. the Book of Job is a lesson in this. Carefully examining who said what shows Job was a victim of gossip and made himself fatally ill with his own mind, while allowing himself to be influenced by the evil in the mind's of others.
The effect of eating of the Tree of Knowledge was that man became self-conscious--noticed he/she was naked and felt embarassed. Pride, knowledge of self, and the beginning of invention for self, by self. A far cry from our purpose of gardener and talker (ie.animal namer).
Creation by self, for self, first evidenced in clothing leads to the ultimate attempt to be a "god", the creation of man by man. The Tree of Life is a genetics tree, a blueprint tree, a creation tree...the cloning tree.
("...lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat,
and live forever")
The two trees, Knowledge and Life are inextricably linked. Eating from one will ultimately lead you to the foot of the other--there's no way out once the first step is taken.
Taking from the Tree of Knowledge was like boarding an express bus. Once you have boarded, you ultimately, eventually, end up at the Tree of Life.
Being expelled from the Garden extended the trip, giving people an opportunity to learn, through generations, what it takes to jump off a speeding bus.
What is at the tree of Life? Now there is a "flaming sword which turned every which way to keep the tree of life". Mankind will not cease and desist on his journey to be a g-d and humanity will end up impaled upon the fiery sword. The sword, among other things, is disease. Cloning the sheep first in the UK put systems into disarray (systems the Lord designed to operate independently without direct intervention every second of the day)and...soon after sheep were piled into mass graves. Man caused this by not understanding what he does. They all died from hoof and mouth disease as the system tried to right itself. The cloned sheep like a germ being attacked by the body's immune system. Other systems work the same way. The special protected cloned sheep that is so important to man survived, kept from the other, less important, sick, natural sheep. Medicine will continue to see germs, disease, and systems out of balance as enemies to be conquered, always thinking they know more than G-d, always driving the sword further. Man who has forgotten G-d, yerns more to become like a god to fill the void made from his own distance from g-d. Humanity has brought this upon itself. The answer is to call out to him and that is all.
Using stem cells to cure disease...to correct g-d's mistakes...is that knowledge of good? Sounds good...feels good...is it good? It's a piece of fruit that is pleasing to the eyes, and looks good, and tastes good...now see how it sits in your wretched belly.
That's my happy thought for the day.
(7) Anonymous, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
But, if G-d created man and gave him desires and He knows how man thinks and knows he is curious then why did he give them a tree? And if He knows the future why didn't He just forget Gan Eden and cut to the chase, us? And what would be the point of the Torah if we were in Gan Eden we couldn't keep most of the mitzvos, starting with P'ru U'rivu?
(6) Helen Stanbro, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
tov
I think part of the answer may be the old theory of evil as "privatio boni"--lack of the good. Evil is an emptiness, a zero, a vacuum, a hole where some appropriate good should be. When G_d created the world, He proclaimed everything He had made "Tov"--all of it was good. Nothing evil existed. To "know" evil, evil would have to be real. And maybe that word for "know" had an experiential component too--not just to have intellectual knowledge but practical first-hand experience. Naturally He did not want his creatures to experience that horrible void. He warned them that if they should ever eat of the fruit of that tree, they would know evil--not a new experience but the end of all experience, the annihilation, the ultimate emptiness, the not-life that we name "death." By making evil seem like something real to Eve, the serpent deceived her into thinking G_d was withholding something from her. But evil is not "real" in the same sense that good is real, life is real, the world is real. It only seems to exist in the way a hole "exists"--a negative space where something real could have been. That is what she chose, and that is what we are left with, until G_d fills it up for us with His mercy in l'olam habah.
(5) BW, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
Adam and Eve
First off, both of them did not know good and evil before they ate from the Tree that was off limits. Remember their eyes were opened when Adam ate of this tree and then they knew they were naked. Things were totally different than they were before. They knew something was now wrong.
God did not withhold this knowledge from them, he did put the tree in the Garden, did he not?
To withhold this knowledge, the tree would of not been there in the first place.What he did was give them a choice, to be content with his will, or to seek their own will.
The story of Adam and Eve has many storylines, and here are a few. First off the first lie was told by Eve and not the serpent. In Genesis 3 v 3 she says God said "Do Not Touch" this tree. No where did God say that, in fact he had just told Adam to cultivate the garden in chapter 2, which of course would of meant having to touch this tree.
The serpent in verse 4 actually told the truth to Eve. One must realize that when she ate the fruit, NOTHING happened to her, NOTHING, and there is a big reason. In fact she was able to pretty much shake it off and say here Adam you try it.
Only when he ate it, and only then, did both their eyes open. So we see the serpent did not lie in Verse 4. We must remember we can also be deceived with the actual truth sometimes. Maybe she really liked it when the serpent said God is afraid you shall be like him. I guess that could be coveting.
What actually happens here is God told the man Adam not to eat from the tree in chapter 2, before Eve is even created. Of course after Eve is created Adam must of told Eve his wife what God said about this tree.
There is a big difference in breaking God's command, than say your spouse's. This explains why nothing happened to Eve right when she ate it. She only broke Adam's word.
Now the serpent new the man was made in the image of God. He new that he could not at this time directly attack Adam because he was blessed. As in a hedge around him, like Job. I mean he even gets to name the animals.
So the serpent new that if he could get Eve to eat from this tree she would not die. This is what he did, he got Eve to eat from the tree. She did not die, and her eyes were not opened.
Now this is key. Adam of course would then start DOUBTING God's word because nothing happened to Eve when she ate. Surly God's word was still fresh in Adam's mind about this fruit.
And now this new found doubt of God's word now lead Adam to eat of this fruit too. Then their eye's were opened.
The serpent used Eve knowing full well nothing would happen to her, only to start getting Adam to doubt God's word.
There is much more to the story but I shall wait for next week's addition.
(4) Abigail, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
do your own thing
When I read the story of Adam and Eve I am struck by the desire of the protagonists (the Snake, Eve, Adam) - the desire to do their own thing. "Nobody is going to tell me what to do". "Nobody is going to put any boundary on what I want". "I am free and do what I want. That stuff.
And another thing: there is some kind of testing God's love in the story. Adam and Eve seem to be asking: Is He only going to love us when we are nice and obedient? or also when I behave out of control, out of bounds? The story is full of the very human desire to have their cake and eat it too - and then asking what is wrong with that?
(3) Leslie Greenberg, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
The Tree Imparts the Knowledge of Evil
To me the passage reads, "the Tree of Knowledge of good AND EVIL. Up to that point there is no evil in the Garden of Eden. At the end of each day of creation, God exclaims: It is good. So good already existed in the world. Evil had no expression. Eating from the tree was the biblical Pandora's box. I often wonder when I see the news, how or why God could create and permit such evil to exist. The only answer I can come up with is that God created a binary world. Darkness and light. The front of my hand owes its existence to the back of my hand. So evil must exist so we can know the difference- otherwise we would have no way to recognize or differentiate good. Maybe in Gan Eden, that perfect, innocent world, good existed on its own--like the very air we breathe and never question. Its presence so ubiquitous and essential, we never question its existence. After eating from the tree, the knowledge we acquired is that there are other options.
(2) John Hall, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
Re: "Tree of Knowledge"
One needs to ask the question .Was it possibly sexual what they did?Because what they did made them realize they were naked!! and whatever the Serpent did the scripture says "And Eve said "The Serpent BEGUILED me"[beguile means"to defile" and G-d said" Serpent[who was a beast]becuse you have done this,on your belly you shall crawl[notice, he did'nt become a snake until AFTER he did whatever he did]and dust shall be your meat"and notice how G-d said about Eve having children that pain would be increased.I think that if they had not "falled" they would have[since Adam was a part of G-d] been able just Speak and their children would have been there. What do yuo Think? Read Genesis 3 Chapter again and please let me know what you think. Thank you, John Hall
(1) malcolm stone, February 12, 2006 12:00 AM
family
in the garden every one lives for ever.no new born. eve wanted to have family. to eat the apple was there way out of prison.