I am curious how traditional Judaism, the ancient Jews in particular, understood Gen 2:16:17 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. I have always understood that A&E were created immortal and when they sinned they lost their immortality. But nowadays it seems to be popular to say A&E were created mortal because they did not die on that day. Where is Fenris when you need him
As an aside -- From even a Christian (theological) perspective, Genesis has never taught that Adam and Eve were created immortal as we think of the word today. If we were to pick someone random like Augustine, and look to his City of God (book 22, chapter 30) we'd read, in part: "For as the first immortality which Adam lost by sinning consisted in his being able not to die, while the last shall consist in his not being able to die; so the first free will consisted in his being able not to sin, the last in his not being able to sin." From https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120122.htm. Adam and Eve were both created and their creation was declared 'good', but they clearly (1) had the capacity to sin, which requires a moral imperfection, and (2) had the ability to die, as implied by the 'tree of life'. In terms of Christian theology, Adam and Eve were 'immortal' but only if we mean that it was possible for them not to die. They weren't unable to die as God had created them, at least, not at the time of the fall. As things go, this possibility fails to actualise through their expulsion from the garden, and thus left on their own, as God created them, they eventually die. The 'eat from the tree of life' narrative is important, as what we plainly have there is a withholding of 'living forever', as opposed to some other narrative that laments humanity's immortality now that they're fallen.
What he said. And note that the imagery is repeated in Revelation 22, in which we see the "tree of life" on either side of the river flowing from the Throne of God.
Yes, I find it hard to believe God created a world with the necessity of physical death as the proponents of (Christian) evolution want me to believe.
And insects even sooner But the garden of Eden, Paradise is not the same as earth, the Fall happened in Paradise in the presence God. Those who sinned in the presence of God, joined the uprise under the lead of the snake are kicked out and arrive here on earth. Only in this scenario I can accept evolution with the necessity of physical death on this small place and as a result of sin. After all the wages of sin are..... death.
The garden of Eden wasn't a separate realm from Earth. In the Hebrew, 'Adam' literally means 'earthling', so I don't think it would be appropriate to approach Genesis as suggesting that Eden was one place, Earth another, and Adam and Eve 'arrived' on earth after having sinned. Eden was a particular, earthly garden. Probably we could call it the Earthly garden. Personally, I think God entered into creation, and thus the garden would have still been before Him (properly, not from a distance), even while on earth. Human death specifically (both physically and spiritually) seems to be the concern of Genesis. But algae, plants, insects, animals? Unless creation was wholly static and none of these things propagated, it would have been necessary. The same for human propagation too, eventually - although I think there's a reason the universe is as large as it is. Going back to what I said above, God obviously didn't have an issue calling morally imperfect creatures 'good' as it pertained to His plan, so in that same vein, I don't think non-human death is the problem we make it out to be. (Human death being uniquely terrible because of what it entails, re: our creation in God's image.)
OK, so note that Genesis 3:22 says "...and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever." This implies that they were not immortal, but eating from the tree of life would have made them so. And they were never prohibited from eating from the tree of life, or for that matter even told of it's existence. So an interesting line of thought develops: Had they simply obeyed God and not eaten from the tree of knowledge, they would have eventually by chance eaten from the tree of life and became immortal. So perhaps the warning that "if you eat from the tree of knowledge you will surely die" means they would be expelled from the garden and lost the opportunity to become immortal. This is the extended thought that occurs to me. The simplest explanation from the Jewish perspective is that sin brings death, and by eating from the tree of knowledge they became capable of sin and thus subject to death. Of course, there are biblical characters that did not die, Elijah the prophet for one, so in Jewish thought it is understood that they did not sin. Oh and hi everyone, I really must drop in here more often.
Oh hai So, how does this work if the sinful act preceded the eating of the fruit? That is, did they become capable of sin or did they express what they were already capable of, now that they have the opportunity to express that part of their being?
Excellent question. Again, the bible gives information on the change. In Genesis 3:22 God says "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil..." which tells us that eating from the forbidden fruit changed Adam's nature in that there could be subject to temptation from within as well as without. There's actually a biblical commentary that translates the verse slightly differently, making the meaning clearer (and it IS a legitimate way of translating the verse) "Behold, man has become unique, from within himself having the ability of knowing of good and evil..."
Interesting - what's to prevent this from being interpreted as a kind of moral awakening vs. an ontic change? Something like, in disobeying they became aware of good/evil through disobedience rather than, say, obedience had they obeyed (it seems to me the moral awakening would have still occurred as it's forced by the choice itself)?
Someone else here yesterday talked about arguing from scriptural silence. The bible doesn't say anything about learning via obedience. It only tells us that they learned through disobedience. I'm content to accept that.
It would seem to me to be necessary unless they were utterly devoid of the ability to reflect, but that's a fair enough.
Outside of creating silly theologies as a process to make a point rather than learn anything theologically useful, I can't help thinking that Scriptural silence can mean little more than that something doesn't matter. Some things we are told must be done (e.g. love God), and some things we are told must not be done (e.g. commit adultery). On some matters one might argue that Scripture is technically silent but realistically it doesn't take a genius to figure out there's an implied call one way or the other - for example there's not a single verse in Scripture that mentions watching porn on the internet but it's not a huge leap of logic to figure what Jesus said about adultery probably covers it. On other things Scripture is truly silent, and I think those are things that we either don't need to know or we don't need a specific commandment one way or the other. My understanding of the whole issue with the trees in Eden is that Adam had a specific instruction not to eat the fruit. Then Eve came along and Adam told Eve the rule but embellished a little - he said they weren't to eat it or even touch it. Then the serpent twisted things a little, asking if they really weren't allowed to eat any fruit. It seems to me they were allowed to eat from any of the trees, including the Tree of Life that let them live forever, but not the Tree of Knowledge. When they ate from the forbidden tree they gained the knowledge they weren't supposed to have and were banished from Eden specifically so they couldn't access the Tree of Life and live forever. I struggle to see any interpretation other than that the Tree of Life was what let them live forever - if the Tree of Life wasn't critical to living forever then banishing them from Eden wouldn't change anything. In that regard the warning that eating from the Tree of Knowledge meant they would die could refer to a spiritual death and could also refer to losing access to the Tree of Life. At the end of Revelation when the Tree of Life is back and we are allowed to eat from it, it seems to me that we will live forever based on being able to eat freely from the Tree of Life. Whether or not we will have the option to stop eating its fruit and thereby die isn't mentioned, so perhaps we don't need to know that.
Two levels or types of culpability here: Eve was decieved (which demands a contextual definition of "deception)" while Adam was not. Her being deceived - 1Tm 2:14 - was the transgression. What does one call a state of consciousness subject to deception?
God didn't command them not to reflect. God commanded them not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Obviously eating from the tree changed their basic nature in some way.
Well, that goes back to my question above: did eating the fruit change their basic nature, or did it result in a kind of moral awakening that was inherent to their nature, but hadn't until that point been engaged. It might not have been engaged until that point, for instance, because this was their first opportunity to actually obey in light of an alternative (disobedience). So if we return to the alternative translation you mentioned - "Behold, man has become unique, from within himself having" - does the language itself require a change of being, or would it allow for the kind of moral awakening I just mentioned?
On the other hand, was Eve deceived because Adam failed to teach her, and what of his own sin in the full knowledge of what he was doing, and what of his being with Eve while she ate of the fruit without stopping her? That whole bit is rather odd.
So, a typology: by partaking of Eve's death, Christ and the Church are foretold(?). Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing... 1Tm 2:15
I had an idea on how the Tree of Life worked. This is just an idea, not a definitive statement. My idea is that it is something that gives life as long as you eat of it regularly. When you stop eating it's benefits stop and you will eventually die. It wasn't a case of "eat once and live forever." It is a possibility and would answer some possibilities.