2:16-17 - 16And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
[T - OL ]
In contrast to Gen 1 where we hear repeatedly God speaking and commanding things into being, God—though very busy—has so far been silent in this account. Now we hear Him speak and his instruction is a mix of the largess of freedom ("you are free to eat from any tree in the garden") and the greatest depth of severity ("but you must not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die"). We have already seen that man, when he was created he was also made an agent with authority; he was to "rule over the fish . . . and every living creature that moves on the ground" (1:18). Here the author of Genesis presses emphatically the point that man is also an agent under authority. As the praise Jesus heaped on the centurion who had appealed to Him to heal his servant shows, only a person who has mastered being under authority can be an effective person of authority (Mt 8:5-13). As this story unfolds we see the terrible consequences to the First Couple when failing, most of all, to behave as agents "under" authority to God they failed to exercise authority "over" the serpent and their own appetite and so lost control of all that they had originally been commanded to exercise authority.
Failing to act as
agents under authority to God
the First Couple failed to act with authority over the serpent and their own appetite, and so lost control of all that they had originally been commanded to exercise authority.
This commandment is emphatic in its demand, not only is this evident in the form of the commandment in Hebrew, but also the contextual chiastic framework in which it is set. Set amidst the over-whelming largess of God's good provisions, there was no cause for disobedience:
A. "God made all kinds of trees to grow . . . trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food," 2:9a
B. "In the middle of the garden were the tree . . .of the knowledge of good and evil," 2:9b.
C. "The gold of the land was good . . ." 2:12.
D. "Yahweh God said to the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil . . ." 2:16-17.
C'. "God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him," 2:18
B'. "The serpent said to the woman, 'For God know that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil," 3:5.
A'. "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes . . . she took some and ate it," 3:6.
Much has been written about how we are to understand the command. Let us look at two of the issues often associated with this command.
First, how are we to understand the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Traditionally and popularly the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is understood as "the forbidden fruit." There is, of course, nothing wrong with such an understanding; Yahweh being Yahweh He could forbid as much as He could give. Unfortunately, such an understanding is often stained by insinuations of denial, restriction of what should perhaps be ours and what may be good for us, a rejection of what we want, a curtailment of our freedom. It was this reading of Yahweh's command that the serpent used to lure the woman in 3:1-5 into the idea that Yahweh was selfishly denying her a good gift in issuing the prohibition.
Another view is to understand the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not so much as the "forbidden fruit" as it was a "poisonous fruit." Suppose I take you into my garden and I say to you, "You may eat of the fruit of any tree in this garden, but of this tree—this Pompom tree—you must not eat, for the day you eat of it you shall surely die." Now if you know what is a Pompom tree, or you know me well, you will not say that I "forbid" you to eat of its fruit. Instead, you will thank me and you will say that I have kindly "warned" you about it. You see, the Pompom tree—Cerbara odullum, to give its scientific name—secretes a deadly poison. It is native to India, where it is called the suicide tree.9 Once you have understood that, the fruit of the Pompom tree may be called "the dangerous fruit" or "the poisonous fruit." If you call it "the forbidden fruit" (implying I have forbidden you to eat it) you have misunderstood completely my intention in issuing you the instruction, which is a warning of love, an expression of care, a gift of friendship. Applied to v16, this suggestion views God not so much as restricting us as He was warning us.
G. W. Wenham, however, argues that the form of the prohibition used here "is the form of divine or royal threats in narrative and prophetic texts . . . These parallels show that the fruit of the tree was not poisonous, as occasionally suggested."10 But this argument is fundamentally flawed. No forms of the prohibition can decide that the fruit was or was not poisonous. There are only two ways to tell if a fruit is poisonous. The first is what the text tells us, and here the text is silent. That leaves us with the only other way: to eat the fruit—or to get someone else to—and see what happens. Fortunately for us, the First Couple had already done that, and the most malignant and irreversible harm immediately fell upon them. They became ashamed, vulnerable, and started playing the blame-game. And this was even before Yahweh pronounced on their transgression of His instruction. We don't have to be dogmatic: whatever additional significance the form of the prohibition may imply for our understanding, the fruit was poisonous.11
The nature of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has remained an enigma for commentators, and no amount of explanation will take us anywhere near being certain about what it means. The tree is mentioned only here in the Bible, and the raw data given us is not much. One approach is to begin with its name, and notice that "good and evil" is a merism. It has been suggested that this refers to omniscience, "all-knowing." This clearly was not evident in Adam and Eve after they ate the fruit.12 We suggest that at least part of what it means to possess the knowledge of good and evil is moral understanding, the appreciation of the possibility of possibilities and, therefore, of autonomy, the option of choices. The First Couple discovered nakedness, shame and fear as categories of human existence they did not have before. The problem with managing choices perfectly is that it requires one also to be all-knowing since only such knowledge will enable one to know what the consequences are of deciding for the one or the other. But lacking the wisdom of omniscience all the First Couple could do was the totally inadequate resort to hiding. "Knowledge of good and evil," therefore, requires the corollary gift of omniscience to shoulder its heavy responsibility. It is an ability that belongs alone to God, and only He can handle its burden and demands. It is not something humans were made to do. We discovered the option of plastic but lacking the wisdom of omniscience, see what we have done to our world!13 And how many of us can go through the ugliness of a betrayal by someone we trust deeply and come out still whole? How many of us can look at the mangled body and the brain splattered on the road of a bad accident victim without feeling nauseous afterwards? We cannot see many of these ugliness's without soon becoming traumatized or jaded, "inside-dead." Tragic stories have been told and retold, especially since the First World War, of how men would go off to war only to return so totally shocked by what they had experienced they could never be 'normal' again. We are just not meant, or made, for such things. God understood and warned the First Man about it. (For more on this, see "Knowing God & Evil" below.)
This raises immediately the question, "If the tree was so dangerous to the man, why did God put the tree in the Garden?" — a question that has often been asked, and not always without the unvoiced echo—one to which the serpent would have nodded its head in gleeful affirmation—"God should not have done such an irresponsible thing! God should have 'house-proved' the Garden."
The question why God planted what He did cannot be answered, but the question is itself presumptuous and arrogant. It presumes, first, that if an answer were to be proffered, we would be able to understand it. It also presumes that we have a right to the answer; it assumes we are entitled to an answer. The question forgets who God is and who we are. It forgets that the Garden belonged to God and He could, therefore, do with it, plant what trees He wished, as He wished and thought wise. It is enough that, having planted the trees He wished, He warned the First Man of the danger of that one—and only one—tree. In doing so God treated him with deep grace, trusting him enough with the responsibility and maturity to obey. In surrendering to the serpent's lure, the First Couple forgot God's deep grace. They chose to trust the words of one that could not be trusted and distrusted Him who is always trustworthy. God trusted the First Couple enough not to have to "house-prove" the Garden; He did not treat them like foolish children. To "house-prove" the Garden, God would have to "house-prove" it against them! But God's deep grace did not view the First Couple as persons towards whom He had to do anything against. That is the glory of God's grace in making humans what they were!
God's deep grace did not view
the First Couple
as persons towards whom
He had to do anything against.
A second question has to do with the meaning of the verb "die" in the instruction.
It is assumed by many Christians that death came with the Fall; therefore, there was no death in the Garden of Eden. Such a conception does not appear to accord with what Genesis (or the rest of Scriptures) actually says. The warning is, as have been noted, emphatic, "you will surely die." This warning, however, cannot be taken—for a number of reasons—to imply that death was not a possibility or even a reality in the Garden. 1) If death came only with the Fall, the man would not have understood the import of the injunction; how would the abstract idea of non-existence be weighty and dire enough to serve as a warning? 2) To say that there was no death before the Fall is to imply that all living things then, including Adam and Eve, were created immortal. For this there is no evidence; it is always the clear teachings of the Bible that God alone is immortal (1 Tim 6:16). 3) The fact that the man was given the fruit of any of the trees for food meant that life was lost. Something dies everytime we eat something, whether vegetative or meat. The idea, most clearly evident in Buddhist teaching, that vegetarianism avoids the taking of life is—though psychologically comforting—patently false. 4) Life was lost when Yahweh made "garments of skin" for Adam and Even after their disobedience but while still in the Garden (3:21). Though the first human life was not lost until after their expulsion from the Garden, it is un-biblical to assert that there was no death in Eden. As we continue in our exploration of Genesis, we will find some very surprising things to kick us in our theological knees over the subject of death.
You may wish to read the following commentaries-expositions:
Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2016