The standard interpretation of Genesis 3 as “the fall” seems to be eisegesis. As an example of the standard interpretation, I will use the Catechism of the Catholic Church because it is an easily-obtainable official document. In this telling, the first couple, tempted by the devil in the form of a serpent, disobeyed God and lost the grace of their original holiness. The Catechism (n. 400) sums up other effects of that first sin:
The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay.” Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground,” for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. [emphasis in original]
For this interpretation to make any sense, it requires a literal reading of Gen 3. It depends on the episode in Eden being an historical event, ignoring what we know about human evolution. Not only that, but almost all of the stated consequences are completely unfounded in the text of Genesis 3.
Let’s start with the character of the serpent. In the popular imagination, the serpent is the devil, but Gen 3:1 states that the serpent was the cleverest of “all the animals which YHWH God had made.” The author clearly considers the serpent to be an animal. In the first part of the serpent’s punishment, YHWH God condemns it to crawl on its belly and “eat dust” all the days of its life (3:14). Both crawling on the ground and “eating dust” are behaviors generally associated with snakes, not devils.
The second part of the serpent’s punishment is that there will be enduring enmity between the offspring of the snake and the offspring of the woman: “it [offspring of the woman] will crush your head and you will snap at its heel” (3:15). Following Catholic interpretations of this verse going back to 200 CE, the Catechism (n. 410) explains this as a prophecy of Mary (the “new Eve”) whose offspring, Jesus (the “new Adam”), would crush the serpent (the devil): “This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.” Few contemporary biblical scholars find any basis for this interpretation in the text. And given that the text refers to the offspring of the serpent, it is more evidence that the author is describing an animal and not the devil.
Of the other effects of the first sin cited by the Catechism, domination of women by men is the only one that can be supported in the text of Genesis. If God’s cursing of the ground to bring forth thorns and thistles (3:17) is supposed to be evidence of creation becoming “alien and hostile to man,” the Catechism ignores that the curse was withdrawn in 8:21. We have already discussed that the Hebrew understanding of the human person was a unity, not a duality of body and spirit, so any interpretation of the soul’s loss of control over the body is foreign to the biblical author.
To be fair, the Catechism is not only drawing conclusions from Genesis 3, but is also relying on Paul’s letter to the Romans. For example, the reference to creation becoming subject to decay is from Rom 8:21 and the mention of death entering human history (!) is a reference to Rom 5:12. Considering that the universe was around for 14 billion years prior to humanity’s arrival, it is absurd to say that creation was not subject to decay prior to the arrival of humans. And at what time in human evolution were we not subject to illness and death? The only way the language of the Catechism can make any sense at all is if Genesis 3 is interpreted literally, just as the young earth creationists do.
There’s a better way to interpret the text that respects what the author is trying to say. Adam and Eve are symbols of humanity, not historical individuals. Eating from the forbidden tree was the original sin, and it did have an effect on the first couple, but not the dolefully negative ones described in the Catechism. After eating the forbidden fruit, infused with the full range of life’s wisdom, they recognized that their nudity was inappropriate and fashioned clothing for themselves. As punishment for their disobedience, God expelled them from the garden and blocked their path to the tree of life. Human lives would be one of sin, suffering, toil, and death.
The point of the story is to show that sin has been around as long as humanity and disregard for God’s commandments seems to be a running theme in the Bible. The desire to eat from the tree of knowledge is always there in the human heart. It comes from deep within us, from within the origins of our being. In that sense, we can say that it is original sin.
Let’s start with the character of the serpent. In the popular imagination, the serpent is the devil, but Gen 3:1 states that the serpent was the cleverest of “all the animals which YHWH God had made.” The author clearly considers the serpent to be an animal. In the first part of the serpent’s punishment, YHWH God condemns it to crawl on its belly and “eat dust” all the days of its life (3:14). Both crawling on the ground and “eating dust” are behaviors generally associated with snakes, not devils.
The second part of the serpent’s punishment is that there will be enduring enmity between the offspring of the snake and the offspring of the woman: “it [offspring of the woman] will crush your head and you will snap at its heel” (3:15). Following Catholic interpretations of this verse going back to 200 CE, the Catechism (n. 410) explains this as a prophecy of Mary (the “new Eve”) whose offspring, Jesus (the “new Adam”), would crush the serpent (the devil): “This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.” Few contemporary biblical scholars find any basis for this interpretation in the text. And given that the text refers to the offspring of the serpent, it is more evidence that the author is describing an animal and not the devil.
 |
| "The Immaculate Conception (1767-68)" by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo |
To be fair, the Catechism is not only drawing conclusions from Genesis 3, but is also relying on Paul’s letter to the Romans. For example, the reference to creation becoming subject to decay is from Rom 8:21 and the mention of death entering human history (!) is a reference to Rom 5:12. Considering that the universe was around for 14 billion years prior to humanity’s arrival, it is absurd to say that creation was not subject to decay prior to the arrival of humans. And at what time in human evolution were we not subject to illness and death? The only way the language of the Catechism can make any sense at all is if Genesis 3 is interpreted literally, just as the young earth creationists do.
There’s a better way to interpret the text that respects what the author is trying to say. Adam and Eve are symbols of humanity, not historical individuals. Eating from the forbidden tree was the original sin, and it did have an effect on the first couple, but not the dolefully negative ones described in the Catechism. After eating the forbidden fruit, infused with the full range of life’s wisdom, they recognized that their nudity was inappropriate and fashioned clothing for themselves. As punishment for their disobedience, God expelled them from the garden and blocked their path to the tree of life. Human lives would be one of sin, suffering, toil, and death.
The point of the story is to show that sin has been around as long as humanity and disregard for God’s commandments seems to be a running theme in the Bible. The desire to eat from the tree of knowledge is always there in the human heart. It comes from deep within us, from within the origins of our being. In that sense, we can say that it is original sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment