I posted something similar to this in the Religion Section in the past (some may remember it) looking for a secular approach to interpreting an allegory.
I have refined it a bit, and decided to post it here - where I think it should get the treatment that I had originally intended when I first posted it.
Looking at the Judeo-Christian Creation story in an allegorical sense, I disagree with the common Christian interpretation of it being the "Fall of Man" and "Original Sin".
This is what I interpret the intention of the story as...
What could be the "message" or lesson to be learned of the story of the "Fall of Man"?
Why would God have even placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden (Hell, why would he have even CREATED the trees) if he didn't want them to eat of it?
I have to disagree with the argument that they did what God fully expected them to do and what they were created for.
I whole-heartedly reject the Calvinist notion of human automatons.
That makes it all pointless.
Regardless of whether or not it is "true" or historically accurate, the Bible was written for a purpose.
It had a point.
The only reason I can see for God to have created the trees, placed them in the Garden of Eden then told Adam and Eve not to eat of them would be that it was some sort of a test.
A test of what, however?
Contrary to seemingly popular belief, it could not have been a test of morality because God had not imbued Adam and Eve with a sense of morality. That is the WHOLE POINT of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Morality IS the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
So, what was he testing?
Well, look at his words...
NIV Genesis 2: 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
God was giving man a choice:
Mankind could stay in this blissfully ignorant paradise with God to serve and obey him if he so chose.
His other option was to go it alone. To seek knowledge and wisdom on his own, make up his own mind and make decisions for himself. In short, he could grasp self-determination.
Man chose to reject the guidance of God and forge his own way in the world.
As far as man knew, by rejecting God's guidance, he could be ending his life altogether.
NIV Genesis 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
From God's perspective, man chose to risk death rather than stay under his wing.
Man decided to listen to the serpent rather than God.
Man turned his back on God.
What was it a test of?
It was a test of man's courage, fortitude and drive to be independent.
Man had free will and had proven that he had the impetus to act upon the free will against the advice of God, even at the risk of his own immediate peril.
God knew that if man had access to the Tree of Life, that he would wholly and completely reject God because he did not need him anymore.
NIV Genesis 3:2 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
With eternal life and self-sufficient morality, what purpose would God serve?
Adam and Eve is a story of the coming of age of mankind.
The kids leaving the nest.
Throughout all of the Old Testament if there is one recurring theme it is man's rejection of God's wisdom and guidance time and again.
God accepts this as development and maturation of mankind - with each Patriarchal Covenant, God allows a bit more independence - the rules get a bit more lax (thanks, Liz).
With gained wisdom, comes greater independence.
Adam and Eve was just the beginning.
This, however, was not an act of disobedience.
It WAS what God expected -just as a parent expects his child to move out of the house and forge his own path one day.
People will point to the "punishment" handed down from God to Adam and Eve as evidence for it being a "sin".
First of all, sin presupposes the knowledge of sinning.
Without knowing Good from Evil (remember, they hadn't eaten the fruit yet) there was no sin committed.
(Note that not only "Original Sin" but also "Fall of Man" were Christian inventions. The Tanakh does not have section titles, like the Bible does.)
As for the punishment...
NIV Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
Is this punishment or simply consequence of action?
God essentially gave a choice.
The two of you can live here in the perfect lush paradise of the Garden I created for you for eternity if you so choose.
You will have no worries, no difficulty, I will take care of you in every way.
Or...
You can reject this protection, and leave the garden.
Out there the land is dry desert.
Out there you do not have the Tree of Life, so you will taste death.
Out there life is difficult, and you will have to endure.
It is your choice; live like a pet in my terrarium, or open your eyes and go it alone.
Eve...
NIV Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
This is often viewed as punishment because his words "greatly increase your pains in childbirth", but that only holds true when it is taken out of context.
Look at this verse...
NIV Genesis 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
Before they were cast out of the Garden, they could not produce children at all.
Not only did Eve give mankind self-determination, but she gave mankind procreation.
Childbirth is painful, but is the pain not worth it?
Billions of people would say that it is.
Childbirth is a wonderful gift, and if it weren't for Eve tasting the "Forbidden Fruit" there would still only be two humans living as a pair of pets in God's perfect terrarium.
If it wasn't for Eve, the human race would not exist.
Eve gave us all the gift of life!
As I said earlier, if you look at all the patriarchal covenants made, God progressively grants humans more autonomy and ability to make his own decisions with each new promise.
So back to the question..
Why was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil placed in the Garden of Eden?
Why put it there if they were not supposed to eat from it?
Consider this...
God placed the Tree there so they could eat from it when they were ready to.
It was a "challenge" of sorts (for lack of a better word).
If they were not ready to push the limits and take the risk of dying, they would not eat from it.
If they were so adamant about eating the fruit, then they were ready to become self determinate, and go off to fend for themselves.
They were not, however, fully "mature" yet, and God could not let them fully cut him off.
If he allowed them to remain immortal, they would not need him at all, and they would be cut off from his guidance, wisdom and leadership.
When your child is ready to face the world on his or her own, they will go out into the world, despite all your warnings about the dangers and difficulty out there, because they will have the need to grasp the gauntlet of self-determination and become their own person.
If you are a good parent, you will let them build their own life, but not cut them off entirely - you will not deprive them of your guidance, wisdom and leadership, but you WILL allow them to make their own mistakes if they choose to reject your advice.
Continuing on the theme of the Covenants with God (each allowing for more freedom and self-reliance), eventually, when mankind is fully mature, it will no longer need its father.
Mankind, when it reaches maturity, will have transcended a need for father, therefore will have transcended a need for God.
What do you think?
I have refined it a bit, and decided to post it here - where I think it should get the treatment that I had originally intended when I first posted it.
Looking at the Judeo-Christian Creation story in an allegorical sense, I disagree with the common Christian interpretation of it being the "Fall of Man" and "Original Sin".
This is what I interpret the intention of the story as...
What could be the "message" or lesson to be learned of the story of the "Fall of Man"?
Why would God have even placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden (Hell, why would he have even CREATED the trees) if he didn't want them to eat of it?
I have to disagree with the argument that they did what God fully expected them to do and what they were created for.
I whole-heartedly reject the Calvinist notion of human automatons.
That makes it all pointless.
Regardless of whether or not it is "true" or historically accurate, the Bible was written for a purpose.
It had a point.
The only reason I can see for God to have created the trees, placed them in the Garden of Eden then told Adam and Eve not to eat of them would be that it was some sort of a test.
A test of what, however?
Contrary to seemingly popular belief, it could not have been a test of morality because God had not imbued Adam and Eve with a sense of morality. That is the WHOLE POINT of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Morality IS the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
So, what was he testing?
Well, look at his words...
NIV Genesis 2: 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
God was giving man a choice:
Mankind could stay in this blissfully ignorant paradise with God to serve and obey him if he so chose.
His other option was to go it alone. To seek knowledge and wisdom on his own, make up his own mind and make decisions for himself. In short, he could grasp self-determination.
Man chose to reject the guidance of God and forge his own way in the world.
As far as man knew, by rejecting God's guidance, he could be ending his life altogether.
NIV Genesis 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
From God's perspective, man chose to risk death rather than stay under his wing.
Man decided to listen to the serpent rather than God.
Man turned his back on God.
What was it a test of?
It was a test of man's courage, fortitude and drive to be independent.
Man had free will and had proven that he had the impetus to act upon the free will against the advice of God, even at the risk of his own immediate peril.
God knew that if man had access to the Tree of Life, that he would wholly and completely reject God because he did not need him anymore.
NIV Genesis 3:2 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
With eternal life and self-sufficient morality, what purpose would God serve?
Adam and Eve is a story of the coming of age of mankind.
The kids leaving the nest.
Throughout all of the Old Testament if there is one recurring theme it is man's rejection of God's wisdom and guidance time and again.
God accepts this as development and maturation of mankind - with each Patriarchal Covenant, God allows a bit more independence - the rules get a bit more lax (thanks, Liz).
With gained wisdom, comes greater independence.
Adam and Eve was just the beginning.
This, however, was not an act of disobedience.
It WAS what God expected -just as a parent expects his child to move out of the house and forge his own path one day.
People will point to the "punishment" handed down from God to Adam and Eve as evidence for it being a "sin".
First of all, sin presupposes the knowledge of sinning.
Without knowing Good from Evil (remember, they hadn't eaten the fruit yet) there was no sin committed.
(Note that not only "Original Sin" but also "Fall of Man" were Christian inventions. The Tanakh does not have section titles, like the Bible does.)
As for the punishment...
NIV Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
Is this punishment or simply consequence of action?
God essentially gave a choice.
The two of you can live here in the perfect lush paradise of the Garden I created for you for eternity if you so choose.
You will have no worries, no difficulty, I will take care of you in every way.
Or...
You can reject this protection, and leave the garden.
Out there the land is dry desert.
Out there you do not have the Tree of Life, so you will taste death.
Out there life is difficult, and you will have to endure.
It is your choice; live like a pet in my terrarium, or open your eyes and go it alone.
Eve...
NIV Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
This is often viewed as punishment because his words "greatly increase your pains in childbirth", but that only holds true when it is taken out of context.
Look at this verse...
NIV Genesis 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
Before they were cast out of the Garden, they could not produce children at all.
Not only did Eve give mankind self-determination, but she gave mankind procreation.
Childbirth is painful, but is the pain not worth it?
Billions of people would say that it is.
Childbirth is a wonderful gift, and if it weren't for Eve tasting the "Forbidden Fruit" there would still only be two humans living as a pair of pets in God's perfect terrarium.
If it wasn't for Eve, the human race would not exist.
Eve gave us all the gift of life!
As I said earlier, if you look at all the patriarchal covenants made, God progressively grants humans more autonomy and ability to make his own decisions with each new promise.
So back to the question..
Why was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil placed in the Garden of Eden?
Why put it there if they were not supposed to eat from it?
Consider this...
God placed the Tree there so they could eat from it when they were ready to.
It was a "challenge" of sorts (for lack of a better word).
If they were not ready to push the limits and take the risk of dying, they would not eat from it.
If they were so adamant about eating the fruit, then they were ready to become self determinate, and go off to fend for themselves.
They were not, however, fully "mature" yet, and God could not let them fully cut him off.
If he allowed them to remain immortal, they would not need him at all, and they would be cut off from his guidance, wisdom and leadership.
When your child is ready to face the world on his or her own, they will go out into the world, despite all your warnings about the dangers and difficulty out there, because they will have the need to grasp the gauntlet of self-determination and become their own person.
If you are a good parent, you will let them build their own life, but not cut them off entirely - you will not deprive them of your guidance, wisdom and leadership, but you WILL allow them to make their own mistakes if they choose to reject your advice.
Continuing on the theme of the Covenants with God (each allowing for more freedom and self-reliance), eventually, when mankind is fully mature, it will no longer need its father.
Mankind, when it reaches maturity, will have transcended a need for father, therefore will have transcended a need for God.
What do you think?
Last edited: