Genesis 3…here’s the thing…

Gen 3:4-7a But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked(...)

(vv.22-24)Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. (ESV)

I was in Starbucks yesterday before meeting an old friend for coffee.  At the table next to me were you young men - one of the still quite young, either in middle school or early high school.  The other one was a bit older, maybe college age.  They were reading Scripture and taking notes.  I asked them what they were studying and the older one looked at me, duh.  "the Bible."  Okay...yeah.  What part of the Bible?  They were reading through Genesis and Psalms.  Cool.

That side-note from yesterday over, I've noticed a couple of things from Genesis 3.

- Did sin enter the world through Eve?  She played a part, certainly.  But Scripture does NOT say, "the woman ate, her eyes were opened, she gave it to the man and his eyes were opened.  Either it was a total joint effort (the time involved not being defined) or...their eyes were NOT opened until after Adam ate because (a) Adam was the only one who was given the direct command by God and/or (b) Eve was deceived, but Adam rebelled.

Question:  if sin entered the world after Adam ate (and not after Eve ate), does that mean that Adam truly is the "federal head" of the human race, since when Eve ate it did not effect their "eyes being opened" until after Adam ate?
Were Adam and Eve punished for eating the fruit?  Yes.  What was the punishment?  Read the curse...pain in childbirth, subjugation to the husband...sweat of the brown, weeds (and I'm thinking mosquitoes) and so forth.

Was being sent from the garden of Eden part of the punishment?  A plain reading of the text says...no.  That surprised me.  My answer (before reading verse by verse) would have been, "of course."
Being driven from the garden of Eden was not part of the spoken "curse".  It was not part of the punishment, it was a preventative measure:  "lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever...the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden."

Question:  Why did God not make being driven out of the garden part of the spoken curse?  (from a philosophical standpoint and not reading into Scripture that which is not there)
- Were BOTH Adam and Even driven out, or just Adam?

I have heard egalitarians argue that it was only the man who was driven out of the garden and that the woman followed out of choice, since it is אדם who was driven out.

I have also heard egalitarians argue that we should have gender-neutral language in Scripture because אדם also means "human race".

If אדם means "human-kind" then it is certainly a proper reading to say that "human-kind" (אדם) were driven out of the garden...both of them.

If it was only the male-type-person (אדם) who was driven out of the garden, that argues against gender-neutral language anywhere else in the Old Testament were אדם is used, unless there is a gender-specific name to go along with it.

Question:  Which is it?  Does אדם mean the only male-type-person was driven out of the garden, or that or human-kind was driven out of the garden?

Share Button

16 thoughts on “Genesis 3…here’s the thing…

  1. Sue

    If it was only the male-type-person (???) who was driven out of the garden, that argues against gender-neutral language anywhere else in the Old Testament were ??? is used, unless there is a gender-specific name to go along with it.

    As you said elsewhere, "I hope you are kidding." What do you think of the 32,000 young "adam" in Numbers 31 who had never touched a "male?" Girls or boys?

    The truth is that we don't know. Adam was a person, adam is the human race. This is not the only case of double meaning in the scriptures. As an egalitarian, I believe there are many possible interpretations of scripture. There are some interpretations that are simply impossible, but in most cases, a range of intepretations, have relatively equal status.

  2. Actually Suzane, I agree with you. We don't know and that makes the "only Adam was driven out of the garden" argument rather silly, especially if the very same person is arguing elsewhere that "adam" can also mean the "human race".

    But I don't see you out there pointing that out.

    I believe that (since "adam" can and most often does) mean "human race" that both the first male and the first female were driven out of the garden together.

    Especially since Eve was deceived once into eating a fruit from a forbidden tree. Why suspect that she could not be deceived again?

  3. Sue

    But I don’t see you out there pointing that out.

    Um, unless something is really a translation issue, like Gen. 3:16, it usually flies right past me. As I said, it could be either Adam, the individual person, or adam, the human race. Either one. Interesting, that the NIV and ESV have "the man" but the TNIV has "them."

    I haven't been paying much attention to the discussion on Adam and Eve.

  4. Ah...Sue, but it is a translation issue. (and a rather philosophical one as well).

    If you speak up and say, "but wait! "adam" can also mean women (like you did in your first comment) but don't speak up when an egalitarian says that Eve's part of the "curse" was not a prediction because when she "turned to" her husband it means that she followed him out of the garden because only Adam was driven out...that sounds like a translation thing.

    But I also understand that we each have our own "thing" and Adam and Eve aren't yours.

    I just found it curious that there are a few egalitarians out there that 1) say that "adam" means human race and so we need gender-inclusive language...except 2) in Genesis, where obviously on the male ("adam") was driven out of the garden.

    Philosophically, what would have happened to the human race if they both had not been driven out?

    - would Eve have eventually been tempted to eat of the tree of life as well?
    - speaking of the tree of life, why were they not commanded not to eat of that as well?
    - speaking of the tree of life, is it the same "tree of life" in Revelation that believers will eat of?

  5. Sue

    As I said Adam and Eve are not my thing. Have you ever read some of the church fathers on whether there was sex before the fall? The speculation on Adam and Eve, if you really get into it, is amazing - philosophically.

    I actually haven't been following the Adam and Eve conversation that closely. It is all too speculative for me.

  6. Sue

    Okay, it has to be Adam, because of the preceding verse,

    "the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken."

    Has to be Adam. Eve was not taken from the ground.

  7. Sue

    when an egalitarian says that Eve’s part of the “curse” was not a prediction because when she “turned to” her husband it means that she followed him out of the garden because only Adam was driven out…that sounds like a translation thing.

    That's possible.

  8. Interesting...from a philosophical standpoint.

    I'm just enjoying exercising my brain with the exercise (and apparent contradictions, all of which have a reasonable answer)

    If Eve was not from the same place as Adam (whether directly or indirectly), why do we insist on making them image bearers in the same way?

    If Eve WAS created from a different "source" as Adam, which is the more accurate "image bearer"?

    Or (which teaching is it?), that the word for "rib" is more like "side" and the "surgery" was more like splitting the one human into two...that would make them both from the ground, yet split (like conjoined twins?)

    I think I'd prefer to have them both (ultimately) come from the ground, rather than have Adam left as the more accurate image bearer and Eve as a "johnny come lately".

  9. Sue

    First, I don't think that being taken from a rib makes Eve less of an image bearer. Historically women have been equal image bearers in the mainstream church, and Eve was made from a rib, supposedly. The notion that Eve is not an equal image bearer seems to me to be a new teaching. Maybe you could find some discussion that in the church fathers, woman was not an equal image bearer, but I am not familiar with it.

    However, it still seems to me that in the context of Gen. 3, when it says

    “the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken”

    it sounds more like it is referring to the man, since he was to word the ground. I know women also farm, but in the context of this chapter it sounds like this designates Adam.

    I think it could be interpreted as Adam, or both of them.

  10. Sue

    So here is Bruce Ware on this topic. First, he admits that historically humans, men and women together, in the same way have always been considered in the image of God. He is the first to really lay out that men and women are not in the image of God in the same way. He writes,

    It appears that God intends the identity of both to contain an element of priority given to the male, since God chooses as their common name a name that is purposely masculine (i.e., a name that can be used also of the man alone, as distinct altogether from the woman, but never of the woman alone, as distinct altogether from the man). As God has so chosen to create man as male and female, by God's design her identity as female is inextricably tied to and rooted in the prior identity of the male.

    But we know that "adam" can refer to women alone. Why does Ware not know this? Because he believes what Grudem says. Odd, they should know the Bible.

    Anyway, this kind of teaching from Ware is not traditional Christianity.

  11. Sue

    I think I’d prefer to have them both (ultimately) come from the ground, rather than have Adam left as the more accurate image bearer and Eve as a “johnny come lately”.

    Okay, I agree with you on this. That is why all women need to fight preachers who deface the image of God in women.

  12. Sue

    We’re not going to make this one into a “gender war” either.

    It was explicitly an anti-egalitarian post. It was an explicit challenge to me to comment on the translation of "Adam" in Gen. 3:34. The explicit answer, BTW, is that I don't know the answer.

    The article I cited by Ware is rather good actually in the way it traces out the concept of being "in the image of God" over the centuries.

  13. Actually, the "federal head" musing was more of a "Calvinist" question...and one that I'm not sure I buy into.

    Whether or not "being driving from the garden" was punishment or preventative had nothing to do with anything. That was just musing.

    The thing with Eve being driven out (or not) - I'm not sure that I'd base complementarianism on that. It's just a "thing" to me. Interesting, but (like the Trinity) has little to do with the actual gender debate.

    If you want to go there, fine.

  14. Sue

    I was just responding to your various challenges, statements that you brought up, that's it, I have no idea whether they were both driven from the garden together or not. Probably they were, but the text is not explicit.

    In Jewish writing sometimes adam is the adult male Jew, and sometimes adam is humanity. For example,

    "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
    by man shall his blood be shed,
    for God made man in his own image.."

    In Hebrew this can be understood as a command against abortion,

    "Whoever sheds the blood of adam in adam,
    his blood shall be shed."

    So, adam means a human inside a human, or a foetus. Interesting, eh? That's why the renewed call by CBMW today against gender neutral Bible translations is not scholarly. You really can't understand the Bible at all unless you read it as gender neutral where it should be, which is much of the time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments links could be nofollow free.