A more charitable reading of the Adam and Eve story?

[OneSheep]

A friend opened my mind recently to a more charitable interpretation of the Adam and Eve story.

It begins with something like this, that the “Tree of knowledge of good and evil” symbolizes the human capacity to reject any part of life or creation. When we reject, we experience a separation from the whole of the universe, that there are consequences both known and unknown for such rejection.

Indeed, we know from Genesis 1 that all of creation is good, but what occurs in the human mind is the “knowledge” of evil, which in itself is the illusion that there is some part of creation, some aspect of our life, that is to be held unacceptable.

When we hold onto this non-acceptance, we suffer, just as Adam and Eve suffered.

Of course, this leaves a lot of other aspects of the narrative open to other symbolic representations, and it would be really cool to entertain those possibilities here.

Please feel free to explain why this “charitable reading” does not work!

 

[Wesrock]

I’m open to correction, but this sounds semi-Buddhist.

The Tree of Knowledge represents our capacity to accept God’s order or reject it, and Catholics are bound to understand original sin as a rejection of/disobedience of God. Human kind put ourselves (in our own judgment) above God.

 

[Hereiam]

Perhaps the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is free will…that might answer you question.

 

[fhansen]

There’s truth in that IMO. The ultimate rejection, the one that reportedly causes all the other separation and alienation, even from and within ourselves, is the rejection of God, as God, by wanting to be God themselves. By wanting to be “like God”, but by opposing and disobeying His superior authority, His godliness, they simultaneously rejected their “creaturely status” as the catechism teaches, and shame entered their world. They no longer accepted themselves, they hid behind clothes as a sort of awkward attempt to cover their shame, their “ungodliness”. Their shame, that we all carry with us to this day, was wrong; their innocence had been lost where previously they didn’t even know they were naked. God, working with this situation, with long-term plans already in mind, Himself fashioned clothes for them, acknowledging their fallen state and need to hide while not rejecting them for it. This was the beginning of a journey away from God, who was now in the background with man free from His more immediate presence and direct control and, hopefully, finally, a journey back to Him.

I don’t know that evil is just an illusion that comes from identifying something as such, however, as if evil is caused by a being with free will rejecting a good of creation. But maybe. They had, in a way, identified themselves/their bodies as evil-and shame and self-hatred resulted, after their counterparts, pride and self-righteousness- first asserted themselves. This is the paradox of human nature and both extremes certainly cause gobs of ugliness in our world, and both, incidentally, come from rejecting/not accepting ourselves for who we truly are. Humility brings us back around to sanity but it’s a fairly rare commodity to the extent that we desperately need it IMO. I think the acceptance of a Superior, of God, is the final answer. That’s what Jesus came to accomplish, true reconciliation between man and God.

It’s interesting to me in any case that we do know evil in this world, without doubt. Such would not have been the case in Eden. A paradigm shift occurred right then; with that first act of disobedience Eden was gone and they had stepped into an altogether different world, one of strife, disharmony, anger, competition, selfishness, sin, and death, to name some of the worst aspects of our existence here.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m open to correction, but this sounds semi-Buddhist.

The Tree of Knowledge represents our capacity to accept God’s order or reject it, and Catholics are bound to understand original sin as a rejection of/disobedience of God. Human kind put ourselves (in our own judgment) above God.

Okay, for example, does your statement communicate an acceptance of humanity, or more of a rejection? Or a little of both?

Thanks for the response.

 

[edwest211]

Take the Church’s approach.

From Humani Generis -

"23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

"24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” and Benedict XV in the Encyclical “Spiritus Paraclitus,” as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu.”

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

 

[Aulef]

Adam and Eve had free will since day one…

This is why the devil (serpent) had to tempt and trick Eve in order to make her, by her own will, take the fruit and convince Adam, by his own will, to do the same.

 

[WileyC1949]

I really don’t see how people can miss that eating from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” refers to man being given a conscience. When you think about it you realize that it is the conscience which truly separates us from all other animals and is also responsible for ALL of the achievements and innovations done by man because it creates in us the desire for a greater good than what we have, and of course, the desire for the greatest good which is God. It is the conscience which truly makes us human.

 

[Wesrock]

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

The core of this paragraph is, “For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents” and “original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

These are truths which must be acknowledged by all Catholics. Now, the Pope did not see how a reconciliation could be made, but he did not state that there could be no such reconciliation. The Kemp proposal is specific to endorse all the truths outlined above and to not contradict them or propose anything to the contrary. What HG37 states is that we are not at liberty to dispute those truths, and the Kemp proposal agrees.

 

[Wesrock]

I really don’t see how people can miss that eating from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” refers to man being given a conscience. When you think about it you realize that it is the conscience which truly separates us from all other animals and is also responsible for ALL of the achievements and innovations done by man because it creates in us the desire for a greater good than what we have, and of course, the desire for the greatest good which is God. It is the conscience which truly makes us human.

You’re proposing that God forbade man from getting a conscience.

 

[edwest211]

Where is the Kemp proposal?

 

[WileyC1949]

I do not see the story as being historical. It strikes me as a theatrical telling of a profound truth with a number of literary devices such as their names, the Garden, A & E walking with God in the Garden, the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” and the names of the other trees there, the serpent, etc. all representing something else. I would tend to doubt that even the very first people who heard the story actually thought a serpent spoke but as a literary device it works perfectly. In real life God did not forbade man from getting a conscience, He is the one who gave it to him.

As I said if you think about it I think you will see that the conscience which gives us the ability to judge good and evil is responsible for all of man’s developments. It gives him the desire to find something that is better than what he has… a “greater good” or even a “greater evil”. Everything that man has developed is a result of the search for something better than he already has. Other animals learn to live with whatever the status quo is at the moment. They don’t think of something better or dream of a brighter future.

The conscience is an incredible gift. And perhaps, by its sparking of the imagination, may be what stirred the brain to a different way of thinking. This may have been the stimulus for our development of a larger brain. Like a muscle that we exercise it became stronger.

 

[edwest211]

The last paragraph is speculation, nothing more.

"Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” ( Humani Generis 37).

"The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

Source: Catholic Answers

 

[Wesrock]

I do not see the story as being historical. It strikes me as a theatrical telling of a profound truth with a number of literary devices such as their names, the Garden, A & E walking with God in the Garden, the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” and the names of the other trees there, the serpent, etc. all representing something else.

It’s a historical event told in a mythological style. While Catholics can believe in evolution, they are bound to affirm the historicity of the story of the Fall and the details contained in paragraph 37 of Humani Generis, which was quoted in the discussion between edwest and myself. The idea that it is only a fable is not acceptable for a Catholic to hold.

 

[Wesrock]

Oy, I mixed this up with another topic I had responded to on the same subject today and where I linked to Kenneth Kemp’s proposal, which I’ve linked for you before, so you may have already seen it. It’s titled Science, Theology, and Monogenesis, and can be downloaded from this link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2a4ZeV4my-E3KbxoOzuz9L

 

[WileyC1949]

…they simultaneously rejected their “creaturely status” … and shame entered their world. They no longer accepted themselves, they hid behind clothes as a sort of awkward attempt to cover their shame, their “ungodliness”. … their innocence had been lost where previously they didn’t even know they were naked. God, working with this situation, with long-term plans already in mind,…

If you believe in evolution this sounds like man changing from an animistic pre-human to an actual human. An animal feels not shame at being naked either. The stimulus for this was right in front of him placed there by God: the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”, or in other words, a conscience. But figuratively the the decision to eat from it was man’s.

This was the beginning of a journey away from God, who was now in the background with man free from His more immediate presence and direct control and, hopefully, finally, a journey back to Him.

Precisely. We can only do good by the free choice to do good over evil. I think this is actually God’s plan and the reason why He created the physical realm. Here we are denied direct knowledge of God’s existence, making our choice to do good or evil a true free will decision. I firmly believe that His ultimate goal is that we learn to love selflessly. Love by its very nature must be freely given or else it is not love. So God could not create us already “loving” because that would be a contradiction. We also learn it by something else that God could not provide in the spiritual realm: pain, suffering, toil, and death. These were the so-called “punishments” given A & E in the story. I see them as realizations.

It is through the experience of pain, suffering and death with ourselves or within our social circle that we can learn to be compassionate and sympathetic to someone else experiencing the same thing. By first learning compassion and sympathy we can learn to care about those outside of our social circle. And it is only when we care about others that we can learn to love them selflessly. It is all connected, and the conscience is key.

It’s interesting to me in any case that we do know evil in this world, without doubt. Such would not have been the case in Eden. A paradigm shift occurred right then; with that first act of disobedience Eden was gone and they had stepped into an altogether different world, one of strife, disharmony, anger, competition, selfishness, sin, and death, to name some of the worst aspects of our existence here.

If my thinking is correct “Eden” was our carefree animal days when we did not think of what would happen tomorrow and lived as animals do by the status quo, whatever that is. You are correct that we did step into a whole new world filled with all of the things you mentioned. But it was also filled with peace, caring, fairness, giving, goodness and love. And we have the free choice to choice from the list you gave or the list I gave.

 

[WileyC1949]

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

This has always been something that has bothered me. The Pope is actually stating that the reason we have to hold that Adam and Eve are our historical first parents is because there is no way to reconcile the doctrines which came from the “Teaching Authority of the Church” as a result of thinking them historical to the modern concept of evolutionary development, which he also says is okay for a Catholic to accept.

Hmm. I will let you draw your own conclusions from that. For some reason it reminds me of what Nixon said (it has been attributed to Kissinger, but I remember Nixon saying it): "I know that you think that you understood what you thought your heard me say, but I want to make it perfectly clear that what you thought you heard was not what I meant to say."

 

[Wesrock]

edwest211:

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

This has always been something that has bothered me. The Pope is actually stating that the reason we have to hold that Adam and Eve are our historical first parents is because there is no way to reconcile the doctrines which came from the “Teaching Authority of the Church” as a result of thinking them historical to the modern concept of evolutionary development, which he also says is okay for a Catholic to accept.

Hmm. I will let you draw your own conclusions from that. For some reason it reminds me of what Nixon said (it has been attributed to Kissinger, but I remember Nixon saying it): "I know that you think that you understood what you thought your heard me say, but I want to make it perfectly clear that what you thought you heard was not what I meant to say."

You’re overcomplicating things. The doctrine of original sin and Adam’s fall is the basis of our theology around Christ. It is a non-negotiable dogma of the faith. Part of being Catholic is accepting the authority of the Church in regards to never defining falsities as dogma. Yes, that is the teaching authority of the Church and the extraordinary magisterium. That doesn’t self-refute the point and isn’t shaky ground if you actually are a believing Catholic.

 

[WileyC1949]

The Kemp proposal is specific to endorse all the truths outlined above and to not contradict them or propose anything to the contrary. What HG37 states is that we are not at liberty to dispute those truths, and the Kemp proposal agrees.

I am not familiar with the Kemp proposal. Could you explain what it is.

 

[WileyC1949]

I will let it slide.