An important concept discussed in the Garden of Eden story was the etiology of mortality. Whether humans were created mortal or immortal before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge has been a subject of great controversy.
In Gen 2:7, God "formed the human, of dust from the soil." Here, God created humans from dust. But why would God specifically create human beings from dust, when he could have easily created mankind from nothingness, like in the first Genesis story? Though many believe that God punished mankind by making them mortal, the text clearly stated that all God did was make the life of humans painful and full of suffering. After God punished the three characters, God said to Adam, "For you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Gen 3:19) Was this part of the actual punishment, or was God merely reminding Adam that he was mortal from the moment he was formed from dust? From this line, the latter statement was true. Since man was created from dust, man was mortal from the moment of creation. God formed humans from dust because he intended for them to die, or return to the dust.
In Genesis 2:20, God decided to create woman for man. He did this because "there could be found no helper corresponding to him." Specifically, God created woman so that mankind could reproduce. Living things reproduce in order for their species to survive. The species of humans, if immortal, would not need reproduction to survive. Thus, God realized that, in order for mankind to survive, Adam would need a "helper corresponding to him." This was a clear sign that humans were originally created immortal in Genesis 2. This notion was also accentuated in Genesis 1, when God told humans to "bear fruit and be many and fill the earth and subdue it!" (Gen 1: 28) Thus, God wanted human beings to reproduce in order for them to survive. If human beings were immortal, they would not need to reproduce.
However, God warned Adam, saying, "From every other tree of the garden you may eat, yes, eat, but from the Tree of Knowing of Good and Evil--- you are not to eat from it , for on the day that you eat from it, you must die, yes, die." (Gen 2:17) This statement has been argued to be proof that mankind, by eating from the forbidden tree, became mortal. However, there was no indication in any of these three books of Genesis that hinted that mankind was immortal. There was never an incident when Adam or Eve ate from the Tree of Life, which would grant immortality to the eater. Since mankind was originally made from dust, "to dust (they) shall return," and thus, they were mortal from the beginning. Much like they had to obtain Knowledge of Good and Evil by eating from the tree of the same name, humans had to gain immortality by eating from the Tree of Life. Humans never ate from this tree, and as such were never immortal.
In Genesis 2-3, God realized that humans had the potential to break the boundaries of human and divine. They demonstrated this when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. By acquiring knowledge, one of the two characteristics that define a divine being, humans became more like God. Much like they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, Adam and Eve could easily have eaten from the Tree of Life. God recognized this and took action against humans in order to prevent them from breaking the boundary between Creator and creatures. He banished them from Eden because he did not want them to acquire the second god-like characteristic, immortality. God's actions exemplified the notion that humans were mortal from the moment they were created. In order to become immortal, they needed to eat from the Tree of Life, which they never specifically did in the text. God realized that humans were mortal. Thus, God prevented humans from acquiring immortality by making sure that they did not have a chance to eat from the Tree of Life. (Gen 3:22-23)
You've given most of the arguments I would also have made. We'll see in class the possible objections.
ReplyDeleteYou're assuming that the woman was made to be a helper in procreation. That's probably the case (and was certainly the idea behind what I view as an addition in 3:20, 'the mother of all the living'). If this is correct, the animal-naming episode becomes weirder, and the omission of a reproductive partner in the original creation of the human seems like a pretty egregious error. The stress on procreation seems to me a distraction from the main theme here (as opposed to that of Gen 1), the etiologies of the present human condition. And it ignores the etymological basis of the story, the word plays (and the potter image) that necessitate the prior creation of the (male) human.
Also, on the tree of life:
The meaning of the word 'olam in 3:22 becomes a critical issue. It is usually translated 'forever' as indicating immortality, but this needs refinement. We'll discuss this in class. The idea of immortality itself too.
Great article with excellent idea!Thank you for such a valuable article. I really appreciate for this great information..
ReplyDeletebrad browning scam