THE Story
When I was a child, I thought the story of the Garden of Eden was kind of silly. A snake, two fruit trees, and a big father figure. It seemed arbitrary. I think today I’ve started to understand now how that story is incredibly profound and applicable today, thousands of years after it was written. I was reading on Slashdot about how it was a story meant to inhibit our natural scientific impulse, our desire to gain knowledge. After all, God told Adam and Eve that they could have their run of the garden, enjoy it, eat from all the trees - except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This tree, along with the tree of life, were situated right in the center of the garden. God tells them that if they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they will surely die. Well, the crafty serpent comes along and contradicts God. “You will not die. God knows that the moment you eat from that tree, you’ll see what’s really going on. You’ll be just like God, knowing everything, ranging all the way from good to evil.” Eve thinks this is a good deal and she eats, and gives some to Adam, who also eats. Suddenly, they see that they are naked, so they make some lame fig leaf clothes. Then, they hear their loving creator coming, so they hide in the bushes from him (as if that’ll work).
So, of course, this Slashdot reader saw what he thought was a calculated attempt of independent thinking suppression by Religion. The moral of the story: don’t look for knowledge, just believe and the Pope/preacher/Bible will tell you what to do (or something along those lines). This was the level I probably read it at as a child, but it is a very shallow reading. An intentionally shallow reading, for it doesn’t even seek to understand the difference between “knowledge” and “knowledge of good and evil.”
It is important that the tree from which God forbid them to eat fruit was not the “tree of knowledge.” After all, throughout the Bible wisdom is regarded highly: “Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.” (Proverbs 4:7). The shallow reading of the Eden story would contradict this. (”That’s ok,” dear Slashdot might say, “the Bible is full of contradictions. Run along, I have a bush to… er, a Steven Jay Gould article to read.”)
I realized this morning that this story is an archetype for sin - a fleshing out in literal terms abstract concepts. More importantly, it is the final reduction of evil in the world. Massaging the equations of suffering and evil and all that is bad in the world, deriving the source, this is the simplest expression of What’s Wrong, and we all agree that something is.
There is a spiritual reality that is more important and indeed, more real, than the mere physical reality we can see and touch. What makes up this meaningful story behind the arbitrary story? Redemption, prayer, hope, faith, the will, mystery, adventure, love… Concepts that are difficult to nail down to A causes B, but which we “hope” are real, lest nihilism and meaninglessness rule our lives (or self-delusion and an unwillingness to think hard about such unpleasant unrealities). These are eternal themes. These are what inspire us in movies. These make up Life, not even the most complicated of chain reactions. And these are what Satan, also known as the accuser, the fallen star, the father of lies… these are what he wants to destroy. He wanted to be God and thought he could, and this ugly jealousy and bitterness and false pride could not be tolerated in God’s presence, and he was thrown out.
And this brings us to our story once again. God had created a wonderful world for us, and given us the freedom to enjoy it. He was the source of our Life. He made us partners not only in enjoying creation, but in creation itself, allowing Adam to name all the animals. (That’s a whole nother symbolic journey). There was no sin.
God is Love. This is repeated throughout the Bible, and the Bible, if taken as a whole, reads as a love letter from God to his people. The spiritual reality includes real love. Materialism/atheism states that this is all there is, and, since your consciousness is the only reality, you are the center of the universe. This is implicit, not explicit. And this was the lie of the serpent, the most crafty. (This is Satan in disguise, if you weren’t sure). This is the alternative view: “You don’t need God. Once you eat from that tree God told you not to eat from, you’ll know everything, including good and evil.” That was a lie. It was disguised, as Satan always is (another verse, much later, describes him as masquerading as an angel of light). There was some element of truth to it, but ultimately it was truth compromised. For God did not lie. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Only they already knew Good. They had a relationship with Good. God is good. Eating from that tree gave them the knowledge of Evil. And with that, an alternate way at looking at creation. Where before they saw Life, Love, and God’s creation, now they could see what that would look like without Good, without God. And it looked like a very complicated, but explainable chain reaction. And they saw the Second Law of Thermodynamics. They saw death. If God is Good, and the source of all Life and Truth, Satan is Evil, and the source of all Death and Untruth. God creates. Satan destroys.
And where does that leave us today, thousands of years after this (literal, symbolic, take your pick, I don’t claim to know for sure) story took place? I am not advocating renouncing science and praying for bread. God encourages us to seek knowledge, but knowledge without life is, well, dead. Knowledge with life is what we were meant for. We chose to go our own way, but God didn’t abandon us to entropy. We chose to believe that we could understand the universe on our own. We chose (and choose, myself included) every day to believe that lie. What is the logical consequence of the lie that the universe just is, and we can do without God? Death, just like God said. The second law of thermodynamics. And we can continue to believe it, with the implication that we can never reach the infinity we strive for, we can only try our best. But God didn’t abandon us. Though we decided to head out into exploration of Death, he followed us, spoke to us, loved us. And in Jesus, he entered this entropic world in physical form, God in Man, lived the perfection that all politics and philosophy try to capture, and we killed him. We killed God because he exposed our finiteness. He exposed the great lie that we can be self-sufficient and we killed him for it. Death is the inevitable consequence of sin. Separation from God is, of course, the consequence of choosing to separate from him! And without God, the only source of Life, the universe is mere matter subject to the second law of thermodynamics. We can believe that lie and God will allow us to. This is why I believe that “hell” is death, the end result of entropy. If you read “The Great Divorce,” by C.S. Lewis, he captures this beautifully in a story, where people who have rejected God, over the course of infinite time, become more and more isolated, and wish for more and more isolation.
But God is Good, God is Love. And in Jesus, he defeated death when he rose again to Life! You hear a lot about the cross in Christianity, a lot about Jesus dying in our place, and that is true. But it was his resurrection that is the real one ray of perfect hope in this universe. He defeated Death, and when we believe and surrender to Him, though we are tainted by the choice to know Death, he lives through us and creates real Life, the kind that we hope is true, but fear (thanks to the accuser) is just an illusion. Real Love, real Hope, real Faith, real Redemption, real Adventure. This is the miracle of the resurrection, and the fullness of true Christianity. Following the Christ to life.
One final note. Even in this, I see my attempt to wrap everything up in a manageable essay. I’ve tried to do this for years. If my goal in distilling my faith into an essay is to create something I can rely on, I am believing the original lie, that I can be self-sufficient. I can never capture infinity in an essay. The life of God will always elude definition, for it is not finite. There will always be a way to look at any explanation or story through eyes of faith or through the eyes of the serpent. Satan doesn’t believe in this great story; he has chosen not to. If this story were told to him, he would say “Well, God rigged it from the beginning! It really is just a big chain reaction, like I said, you’ve just added a layer of indirection! God caused me to reject him, and I inevitably went to destroy his creation, and Eve inevitably was weak enough to believe me… With or without God, I win.” The choice is always there. Do you want to “win,” or do you want Life? In order to choose the latter, you must believe he exists. And once you do, you begin to wake up to the battle going on around us: the lie of the self-centered universe vs. the life of the Christ centered one. Mormonism will promise life, but you have to work for it. Islam as well (with different rules). Buddhism will tell you that life and death are an illusion. Only Christ offers life, and the only requirement is implicit: to believe him.
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
John 10:10
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.

I enjoyed your entry. In fact, I enjoyed it enough that I cited a few sentences from it in Wisdom: Socrates, the Psalmist, and the Serpent, this week’s issue of the bi-weekly Le Penseur Réfléchit.
Just thought I’d drop by and let you know.
God bless,
Eric
Comment by Eric — 10.5.04 @ 11:28 pm
Thanks Eric!
Check out Eric’s site: Mr. Renaissance … it’s FULL of good writing. I’m bookmarking it
Comment by Bradley — 10.6.04 @ 10:29 am
Smashing!
Comment by Dawn — 10.6.04 @ 4:44 pm
If this is the same Brad I know from Stanford–Long time no see, and long time no late night discussion. I enjoyed reading this entry and the others on this page, but I wanted to bring up one aspect of the Eden story that has always puzzled me. Everything you have already said makes sense, but how do you reconcile the idea that Adam and Eve were created with an innocent nature, without knowledge of good and evil, with the fact that they are expected by their creator to make the most important decision for humankind until the coming of the Christ? To me, that has always seemed on some level to be unfair. Let me know what you think.
Comment by James H. — 10.6.04 @ 7:09 pm
Thanks for posting the link, Bradley. And I think I may have some more ideas for you, James. In All Praise and Honor Be: Fealty to our Lord and King, I write (among other things):
We can see then, that there was a total shift in the psyche of Adam and Eve: one that is hereditary. There was something within that was broken and fragmented. While reading Milton, questions arose in Dr. Smith’s class about what this might mean. Remember that we are talking about a secular state university (though admittedly one in the middle of the so-called Bible Belt), so Milton’s words were treated on their own merit and not necessarily as historical truth. Undoubtedly there were those in the class who saw his poem and its corresponding Biblical account as mythical truth that nonetheless provided insight into human nature. So then, if Adam and Eve were truly innocent before they sinned, not knowing good from evil, how did they know that they would be doing wrong? If no evil had entered their hearts—no perversion of the good—how then can they be blamed for their choice? There is, of course, no easy answer to be given to such questions, but it seems to me that their breach was one of trust. Very often we do not know how a situation will turn out whether we be innocent or not. Yet we too are presented with a choice: will we trust God who sees all outcomes or will we instead rely solely on ourselves who see in a glass but darkly? God had clearly told them that if they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they would die. Did they know what death was? How could they? But they did know the goodness of God and their disobedience was a breach of this trust: it is on that merit alone that they were judged.
Considering that we often learn best by contrasts—like our earlier example of the wicked man ashamed to look in the face of an innocent child, for the child contrasts so vividly with his usual conniving ways—another question presented in class was whether it was even possible to have good without evil, love without hate, and so forth. The inescapable conclusion was that it is indeed possible to have good without evil, love without hate, and so forth. However, the question then becomes: is it possible to truly have knowledge of the nature of good without evil, to truly know and understand the nature of love without hate? If we often learn best by the interplay of polar opposites—or more precisely virtues and their negations—then it would seem that the naming of the tree in the center of the garden is not without merit. Do you notice that it is not “the tree of the fruit of good and evil,” but rather “the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil”? Evil (the negation of goodness) was already in the world in the form of the serpent, though Adam and Eve were not aware of such matters. Goodness was also obviously present, for not only is evil wholly dependent on goodness, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God Himself, the epitome of goodness. Yet the knowledge of the two—goodness and its negation—was brought about by a loss of innocence. Is knowledge possible any other way? I would like to believe that in God’s infinite wisdom and goodness there could have been an ever more superior way to learn without all the pain and fragmentation caused by disobedience. Such things are only speculations, however: we are where we are and there is no going back—the only true direction in life is forward: the alternative is stagnation and death.
Comment by Eric — 10.6.04 @ 11:09 pm
I like that… I pondered and chatted with Sarah this evening, and posted my rather long response to James as a new entry. It shares some of the same concepts, especially the notion of a breach of trust.
Comment by Bradley — 10.7.04 @ 12:03 am
I like your reply very much. It was all very well stated, but for me personally, this excerpt was the most poignant:
God knew it would appear good to Eve’s eyes - that is why he prepared her with the command. Her choice was therefore not as abstract as it might at first seem, thinking about her as a blank slate. She decided to define good as what “looked right in her own eyes,” rather than believe God’s word to her.
I would argue that Adam and Eve were not in a unique position - they had the same opportunity we have. They did “know” (though they had not yet experienced) good from evil. Another way to label those concepts is life and death. God told them that eating from just that one tree would lead to their death. Thus, he set up the easiest to understand world with true choice imaginable, giving them his Word that (A) was good (From any tree of the garden you may eat freely) and (B) was evil (from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die).
As you have so well pointed out, Adam and Eve did know the difference between good and evil–they had been forwarned. What they did not have was the experience–again, a point very well taken. You and Sarah need to put your heads together more often.
Comment by Eric — 10.7.04 @ 10:01 pm
I came to the office knowing here I would have quite and could read. Two hours have gone by really fast!! I looked up qustions as I read and came upon this site , thanks for the help.. I was stuck on “their eyes were opened” if evil is sin and sin is death then why does it say their eyes were opened??? The comments really helped..they already knew good, and Self reliant Eve chose to know the flip side-death!!!
Thanks!!
c.
Comment by Celia — 2.4.08 @ 7:44 am