The time of innocence

There was once a time of innocence. This is the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, before they ate of the forbidden fruit. We read about this in the first chapters of the first book of Moses. Chapter two in particular shows us the beginning of humanity as the story of Adam and Eve living carefree in the Garden of Eden. This could be called the time of innocence.

Entry of sin

In the third chapter of Genesis we read about God, who is called by name (Gen 3:1, יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים JHWH Elohim, compare Ex 3:13-14). He says to the people that they can eat from all the trees in the garden except from this one tree, “the knowledge of good and evil”.

Then a snake appeared and Eve was seduced. Adam joined in. This double transgression was the beginning of disaster for mankind. Today, it is usually associated with Adam alone. Of course, this is not the whole story. Many other thoughts can be taken from this passage.

No fall from grace

This entrance of sin was not called the fall of man. Nor do we read anything here about a Satan who was up to mischief in the form of a serpent. We read neither of a fall into sin nor of a Satan. Isn’t that strange? Perhaps we think so, but it is a later tradition that is not contained in the text. Projections onto the text can cloud the view here.

This realization does not detract from the text, but questions a tradition in order to examine the text more closely.

Incredible stories

There are various stories in the Bible in which plants or animals speak. Let us think, for example:

Jotham’s parable
“And it was told to Jotham. So he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and he lifted up his voice and called and said to them: ‘Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, and God will listen to you! Once the trees went to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, “Be king over us! And the olive tree said to them, “Should I give up my fatness, which gods and men praise in me, and should I go to hover over the trees? Then the trees said to the fig tree, “Come, be king over us! And the fig tree said to them, “Should I give up my sweetness and my good fruit and go to hover over the trees? Then the trees said to the vine, “Come, be king over us! And the vine said to them, “Should I give up my must, which delights gods and men, and go to hover over the trees? Then all the trees said to the briar, “Come, be king over us! And the briar said to the trees, “If you will anoint me king over you in truth, come, entrust yourselves to my shadow; but if not, let fire come out of the briar and consume the cedars of Lebanon.”
Jdg 9:7-15

The question is, of course, whether these trees actually spoke or whether this is a visual language?

Balaam’s donkey
“And when the donkey saw the angel of Yahweh, she lay down under Balaam; and the anger of Balaam was kindled, and he struck the donkey with the staff. Then Yahweh opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you that you have struck me three times? And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have mocked me; if a sword had been in my hand, I would have struck you dead now! And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have always ridden until this day? Was I ever accustomed to do this to you? And he said, No. Then Yahweh uncovered the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of Yahweh standing in the way with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed down and fell on his face.”
Num 22:27-31

This is a donkey speaking. Figurative language or reality? That depends on the assumptions with which you read the Bible. Anyone who says that Jotham’s parable is figurative language, for example, may have doubts about this story. Now let’s look at the story of the talking snake:

The talking snake
“And the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field that Yahweh God had made; and he said to the woman: Did God really say, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we will eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. But God knows that on whatever day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to give understanding; and she took of its fruit and ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”
Gen 3:1-6

It is an important and significant story. But what about the snake? It seems that all snakes spoke at that time. Does the serpent speak like the donkey and like the trees? Is this a typological story in which something is explained with figurative language? Those who stand firmly in the tradition of verbal inspiration, according to which the Bible is dictated by God down to the letters, may think that miracles happened in all these occurrences. The idea that this is perhaps figurative language is vehemently rejected because it calls into question their own assumptions. Tacitly, many assume that you have to read the Bible “literally”, otherwise you doubt it. They are looking deep into a Christian ideology.

It is proven that not everything in the Bible is to be understood literally, as explained in this article:

Cultural references and figurative language are not evidence of unbelief, because the Bible is then no longer “literal”, but both speak of the power of language, which is as important in the Bible as it is in everyday life. This does not detract from Paul’s much later statement that all Scripture is “God-breathed” and therefore useful (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Supposed literalism has never been a sign of spirituality (2 Cor 3:6). When Jesus tells parables, for example (Luke 15:3 ff), these are not “literal” interpretations, but stories are used to illustrate something else.

Could this also be the case in the first chapters of the first book of Moses?

Moses was not standing next to it

Whatever was handed down in the first chapters of the first book of Moses: Moses did not stand by and write it down in a notebook as an eyewitness. At best, he summarized stories that had been around for a long time. For example, stories about the creation of the world (“I explain to you how God has something to do with this world that you know”) and also about the beginning of sin.

This is not unbelief, but faith, if I trust that this story has meaning. However, the meaning never lies in the literalness. The story was told in such a way that the message became clear. So an honest question is what is being told here. The narrative does not preclude historicity, but since Moses did not stand beside it, historicity is in a small place and no one can say what exactly was historical and what was not. We should therefore not be seduced by an alleged historicity (for or against) because the core of the story does not speak of that historicity. It cannot make a statement about it.

Moses was not standing next to it. Nevertheless, we have these stories in the first book of Moses. I try to imagine what this story is supposed to explain. It is about a prohibition and a seduction by a serpent, after which the prohibition was transgressed. This explains how sin entered the world. Sin was as clear as day to every listener. They felt in their own bodies and lives how imperfect and often contradictory they were. They lacked the glory of God, as Paul later described it (Romans 3:23).

So where did this shortage that everyone felt come from? This story answers that. It is imagery that provides a relevant answer to a real question. It is one of the main themes of the Bible, one of the problems of humanity that is causally described here. The first problem is this baked-in missing of the mark in life. The second is mortality, which also has its origins in this story.

The description of the entrance of sin is perhaps more accurately described as “the first transgression”, because there was a clear prohibition against eating this fruit (Gen 2:16-17). The prohibition was transgressed, whereby man contradicted the task. Why this was attractive to man and why there was a talking snake can be investigated further.

However, Moses did not write down an eyewitness account here, but rather retold something that he was not present for. The Bible does not tell us that Adam and Eve, the only people mentioned in this story, wrote it down. Moses was therefore neither an eyewitness nor do we learn that he copied a report from eyewitnesses. That is why it is important not to get stuck on an alleged historicity, but to examine the story for its content and meaning.

Fall of man and original sin

Neither the fall of man nor original sin are mentioned in the Bible. This is not to trivialize sin, but to show that people were not satisfied with the stories mentioned and wanted to explain and interpret them further. Words such as “fall of man” and “original sin” were introduced into the world of faith, even though they have no origin in the Bible. You can safely put these terms aside if you want to understand what the Bible itself says about these topics.

Letting go of the fall and original sin does not mean letting go of sin. Sin is a real problem because it describes man’s imperfection and lack of purpose. This problem is real and the Bible outlines a solution and redemption from this problem. However, we are not there yet. Only the origin is mentioned here. The origin does not lie in an alleged “fall”, neither from Satan nor from man, and what clings to man is not sin, but mortality. This, writes Paul, is the reason why we sin (Romans 5:12. See the article: “Original sin scrutinized”).

A different starting position

If you take the Bible seriously, there is neither the fall of man nor original sin. However, two problems are very real, both of which take their course with this story: The origin of sin (missing the mark) and death (mortality) are localized in this story.

Man is first of all mortal. Paul then writes that this mortality is the cause of sin (Romans 5:12). So when we are born, we are not “sinful” and therefore not inherently bad or “children of perdition”, but we are human. So we have a few problems, but we are not the problem ourselves. This is an important difference.

There is a different starting position if we expose the fall of man as a misconception and do not confuse mortality and death. Because if you read this, then you are alive, even if you are mortal. We lack the glory of God, but are not corrupted by it. Now it is a matter of differentiating in our assessment of ourselves. This would also be a sober starting point for the realization of the solution and redemption that the Bible continues to speak about.

Recognizing the good

Many questions can be asked about this story in Genesis 3. For example: Who planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Was the problem the serpent or the presence of the tree? Why was the tree planted? If the tree had not been planted or had been placed out of reach, there would have been no need for a ban. Or are we missing something?

You could also read the story as a positive story. It goes like this: God plants the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because he wants to abolish innocence. There was no knowledge of good or evil. The tree is first the tree of the knowledge of good. Evil is only mentioned in second place. One could also say that the polarity between good and evil was unknown. With the transgression, however, this polarity became conscious. If God planted the tree, was that perhaps even His intention?

Transgression paves the way for a far more nuanced story with people than was possible in the phase of innocence. Transgression makes it possible to express love and grace. These are the preconditions for God to one day be “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Seen in this light, it cannot have been an unexpected fall into sin, but rather something that was known from the beginning – and with a purpose in mind. The idea of a fall into sin, whether by Satan or man, suggests that God was surprised and taken by surprise by evil. The Bible, on the other hand, simply speaks of the origin and allows us to recognize a differentiated image of God behind everything with a positive goal in mind.

Good and evil were both unknown. By transgressing the commandment

Man became like God

“And Yahweh God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil.”
Gen 3:22

Man became like God in that he was able to distinguish between good and evil. This made it possible for good to be given a place, as Isaiah and Paul spoke about (Is 52:7; Rom 10:15). In the same letter to the Romans, Paul wrote that we should recognize the “good, pleasing and perfect” will of God (Rom 12:2). This would not have been possible without the fall into sin.

Man became like God by recognizing both good and evil. Differentiation was possible. Opposites are now recognized. It is this experience that brought new knowledge. The book of Ecclesiastes is also about this experience and also about the experience of evil. It is given by God (Ecclesiastes 1:13). More on this in the following article:

The human experience

What do we now learn about this fall from grace? It was not a surprise, but at least a possibility from the beginning, because a tree was planted.

The story uses figurative language to tell what knowledge was and how this knowledge increased when the forbidden fruit was eaten. People thus became “like God” in recognizing good and evil. He also became mortal and would one day die. There was to be great hardship in life. Death was to be the end and man would lack the glory of God.

All of this refers to the current experience of man, as it also applies today. To me, the biblical text seems sober and helpful in assessing my life and faith.