Adam, Eve, and Satan in the Garden

[Tim_D]

Scott Hahn is one of the most prestigious Catholic Bible scholars in North America and needless to say his books all have the nihil obstat, which at the very least demands that you don’t jettison this idea as in anyway contrary to the faith.

I’m afraid that the little letters of Ph.D behind a person’s name is not an infallible declaration that every word uttered from their lips should be taken as gospel. And “nihil obstat” simply means that the text does not contain anything contrary to the faith, not that it is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches.

This might sound arrogant but I think I possess the intellectual ability to read the story of Adam and Eve and arrive at a conclusion that is based on and consistent with what the Church teaches about the subject. It is hardly Shakespearean in its complexity. According to the the text, Adam never even encounters the serpent; it was Eve alone who spoke with it. Also, when Adam was confronted with eating of the forbidden tree, his response wasn’t “I did it for fear of being killed by the serpent” (an ancient form of the “the devil made me do it”) but “the woman whom you put here with me gave it to me.” Adam’s response was the ultimate cop-out; he blamed God for his act. The saying is that “pride goes before the fall,” a particularly accurate description of Adam and Eve’s situation because their sin of disobedience was joined with the sin of pride (presumption) to be “like God who knows.” Nowhere is it said or can it be deciphered that Adam and Eve ate for fear of the serpent without reading things into the text that are not there. One could more accurately fit the role of Lilith into the creation accounts than the notion of man-killing dragon.

 

[TimothyH]

I’m afraid that the little letters of Ph.D behind a person’s name is not an infallible declaration that every word uttered from their lips should be taken as gospel. And “nihil obstat” simply means that the text does not contain anything contrary to the faith, not that it is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches.

This might sound arrogant but I think I possess the intellectual ability to read the story of Adam and Eve and arrive at a conclusion that is based on and consistent with what the Church teaches about the subject. It is hardly Shakespearean in its complexity. According to the the text, Adam never even encounters the serpent; it was Eve alone who spoke with it. Also, when Adam was confronted with eating of the forbidden tree, his response wasn’t “I did it for fear of being killed by the serpent” (an ancient form of the “the devil made me do it”) but “the woman whom you put here with me gave it to me.” Adam’s response was the ultimate cop-out; he blamed God for his act. The saying is that “pride goes before the fall,” a particularly accurate description of Adam and Eve’s situation because their sin of disobedience was joined with the sin of pride (presumption) to be “like God who knows.” Nowhere is it said or can it be deciphered that Adam and Eve ate for fear of the serpent without reading things into the text that are not there. One could more accurately fit the role of Lilith into the creation accounts than the notion of man-killing dragon.

I think your comment about Genesis being “hardly Shakespearean” and your intellectual ability does sound extremely arrogant. With all due respect to the bard, everything he ever wrote times ten thousand doesn’t add up to one syllable from Genesis.

Have you read Theology of the Body by Saint Pope John Paul II? What he gleaned from Genesis is truly breathtaking and shows the depth of scripture that 99.999% of us will never approach.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Church teaching has developed over twenty centuries, guided by the Holy Spirit and driven by some of the greatest mystics and intellectuals in human history. For me to say that I can read the text and draw those same conclusions is presumptuous at best. I’m no Augustine, Aquinas or Bernard. Perhaps you are.

Remember that logic and reason failed St. Thomas Aquinas at the end of this life and these approached the written word of God with reverence and humility. Scripture is the Creator of the Universe speaking to his creatures. We will never know all that it contains.

-Tim-

 

[simpleas]

God created all of us yet many belong to Satan.

1 John 3 talks about how we know who the children of the devil are.

1 Peter 5 talks about the devil devouring people.

-Tim-

Maybe people who are satan worshipers and believe in doing all for him.

 

[simpleas]

This is the first time I ever heard of it, and protestantism has Catholics beat by a mile when it comes to let’s just say “creative” interpretations of the scripture

Tim, what you’re asking me would involve preparing a report with references on my part, and to be frank, I don’t feel like setting aside the time in my schedule to do it. I have a list of some reference material on the previous page if you’re interested in pursuing this further. Scott Hahn is one of the most prestigious Catholic Bible scholars in North America and needless to say his books all have the nihil obstat, which at the very least demands that you don’t jettison this idea as in anyway contrary to the faith. The book is titled “What is Love” and Dr Hahn goes in far greater detail than the brief recap I’ve given in this thread. I think you’ll find it very enjoyable.

Good hunting.

“Belong” here referring to a union of persons. A wife “belongs” to her husband and a husband belongs to his wife. A person that separates themselves from God does indeed belong to Satan in a certain sense and scripture uses this kind of descriptive for it. They have been beguiled and enslaved by him, in the way a debtor belongs to a loan shark.

Yes, so if a person gives themselves, (fully aware) to satan, then maybe they belong to him. Personally I know of no one who gives themselves freely to satan.

 

[TK421]

A person doesn’t freely give themselves to getting evicted from their apartment, but if they spend thousands on trifles as a result of the passions that rule over them, they will face eviction.

Nobody ever elects for punishment or slavery. It still happens. They want the illicit pleasure without the consequences.

 

[Tim_D]

I think your comment about Genesis being “hardly Shakespearean” and your intellectual ability does sound extremely arrogant. With all due respect to the bard, everything he ever wrote times ten thousand doesn’t add up to one syllable from Genesis.

I take it that you are one those for whom the Bible must always “win.” Even St. Jerome admitted a tinge of guilt when he would leave his beloved latin classics to return to the rough, clunkered writing styles of the Old Testament.

The Church teaches that the Bible employs many different literary styles to teach its message. She does not regard the early chapters of Genesis to be a literal pre-history but a poetic way of describing the fallen nature of man in the world and the need for redemption that would ultimately happen in the fulfillment of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. In any event, to take the story of Adam and Eve literally is to not only miss the point but to cause the early authors to fail in their mission. To read into the story things that are simply not there and that the Church has never taught is the ultimate form of failure. Richard Dawkins has a Ph.D; do you take everything he says to be true? If not, then the same applies to Scott Hahn. As tk421 pointed out, protestants are the ones who come up with “creative” interpretations of the Bible. Catholics are supposed to rely on the authority of the Church. If Scott Hahn’s interpretation is legitimate, then please point out from the text of Genesis where Adam went in fear of the serpent or even a verbal exchange between the two.

 

[hu324b]

Actually it was Eve who was tempted by the devil first but that always seems to be left out of the discussion and she then went to Adam and got him to partake. I not trying to point fingers they are both equally guilty because God told them not to eat the fruit - and the Devil always seems to get away without any blame in this also. It all seems to fall on Adam shoulders when there were many players in this story. I guess the plot of the story does not matter - it the final outcome that is the point. I just don’t like the idea of all the fingers pointing to Adam when he was not the only player.

 

[mikekle]

Actually it was Eve who was tempted by the devil first but that always seems to be left out of the discussion and she then went to Adam and got him to partake. I not trying to point fingers they are both equally guilty because God told them not to eat the fruit - and the Devil always seems to get away without any blame in this also. It all seems to fall on Adam shoulders when there were many players in this story. I guess the plot of the story does not matter - it the final outcome that is the point. I just don’t like the idea of all the fingers pointing to Adam when he was not the only player.

I find it interesting as well that Satan seems to avoid any responsibility in this action, it is most always blamed on Adam and Eve both, even though we all know Satan REQUIRES permission from God himself to do ANYTHING…I think this is important to keep in mind, God ALLOWED satan to do this in the first place…I wonder what the outcome would have been if God told Satan NO?

 

[hu324b]

Another question I have to ask - as a parent would you leave your children in the presence of an evil beast with nothing but pure evil and death in it heart - then come back and blame your children for falling to this beast. Does the parent not have any responsibility in this ?

So as the above poster says God allowed it.

To be clear I am not making God the bad guy - I’m fine with the story - but I always wanted to ask these question - in no way do I want to be insulting to God or anyone else. They are simply questions that come up from the story.

 

[Tim_D]

I find it interesting as well that Satan seems to avoid any responsibility in this action, it is most always blamed on Adam and Eve both, even though we all know Satan REQUIRES permission from God himself to do ANYTHING…I think this is important to keep in mind, God ALLOWED satan to do this in the first place…I wonder what the outcome would have been if God told Satan NO?

The classic response is that Adam and Eve both had sufficient ability to resist temptation (God’s grace) but chose to pursue their own will instead of following God’s, the very definition of sin. God is blameless; the fault lies with Adam and Eve…unless, of course, you believe that the serpent was really a man-eating dragon who caused Adam to be so fearful of his life that he thought the dragon would kill him if he didn’t eat. D) Does anyone NOT see the problem with this interpretation?

 

[TMC]

It is interesting to me that this thread appears to assume a very literal historical reading of Genesis 3, except that every poster seems to take for granted that the serpent is an allegorical reference to Satan. Of course, taken literally the creature Eve talks with is an animal, a snake. For those that take this passage literally, why are you willing to read allegory or symbolism into the snake, but not into other aspects of the account?

 

[TimothyH]

It is interesting to me that this thread appears to assume a very literal historical reading of Genesis 3, except that every poster seems to take for granted that the serpent is an allegorical reference to Satan. Of course, taken literally the creature Eve talks with is an animal, a snake. For those that take this passage literally, why are you willing to read allegory or symbolism into the snake, but not into other aspects of the account?

I’m not a literalist nor am I here to defend Bible literalism but Scripture is pretty clear.

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9)

-Tim-

 

[TK421]

The classic response is that Adam and Eve both had sufficient ability to resist temptation (God’s grace) but chose to pursue their own will instead of following God’s, the very definition of sin. God is blameless; the fault lies with Adam and Eve…unless, of course, you believe that the serpent was really a man-eating dragon who caused Adam to be so fearful of his life that he thought the dragon would kill him if he didn’t eat. D) Does anyone NOT see the problem with this interpretation?

Nothing less was demanded from every apostle except St John, and countless thousands afterwards to the present day. We are all expected to do the same. Our life to God is to be a total self-donation of the self. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his only son, and this is because - as St Paul reveals in the New Testament - Abraham had faith that God had power over life and death, and could raise his son from the dead.

Even in an interpretation where Satan is impotent, God still put the tree in the garden, and then gave the commandment not to eat from the tree. A discerning person is forced to reconcile whether God is guilty (which is madness) or that he doesn’t have some higher destiny for mankind in mind, and desires them to be purified through fire. Many an atheist or non-religious has been formed precisely because they are so severely offended at God permitting the existence of pain & temptation.

A temptation in which the devil has no chips on the table is not a temptation at all.

 

[TK421]

Btw, it wasn’t even necessarily that Satan would have succeeded in martyring Adam, followed by Eve. Satan is powerless in the face of God, but God still has to be invoked by his servants. If it’s just Adam and Satan independently, the angelic prince possesses overwhelming more power, including the power to harm man physically. We discover from Job that Satan possesses the gift to kill (among many other things) and that this gift is suppressed by God. Satan does in fact kill some of Job’s family. We see his capacity to murder in action. The spiritual powers can affect matter. If we have first-hand account in scripture that Satan can take life, why is this so inconceivable with Adam?

Adam understood death, otherwise the command from God not to eat the fruit of the tree would have been inane nonsense to Adam.

(And, when God speaks of “die” it is in the Hebrew superlative of “die die” or “die the death”, similar to in English when we add the suffix “est” to words. In the dialogue with Adam & Eve, Satan simply uses the word “die”)

 

[TimothyH]

Another question I have to ask - as a parent would you leave your children in the presence of an evil beast with nothing but pure evil and death in it heart - then come back and blame your children for falling to this beast. Does the parent not have any responsibility in this ?

So as the above poster says God allowed it.

To be clear I am not making God the bad guy - I’m fine with the story - but I always wanted to ask these question - in no way do I want to be insulting to God or anyone else. They are simply questions that come up from the story.

It is a good question and good to ask questions. Questions are how we learn. Some people think we are being disobedient when we ask questions. Thomas Edison got thrown out of school for asking too many questions.

God allows things the same way we allow our children to have a car accident every time we hand them the car keys.

We have done everything in our power to prepare our children not to have an accident, hope it doesn’t happen and have done everything in our power to prevent it. At the end of the day however, we know that it is possible and hand them the keys anyway. Allowing something doesn’t mean that we give permission for someone to do it.

Allow means creating the conditions where it is possible.
Permission means approval from one who is in authority.

I allow my house to get broken into whenever I leave it unattended but I don’t give permission for theives to break in.

-Tim-

 

[TMC]

I’m not a literalist nor am I here to defend Bible literalism but Scripture is pretty clear.

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world – he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9)

-Tim-

Well, that is not what Genesis says. Genesis 3 twice refers to the snake as an animal, including quoting God as describing the snake as an animal, and never even hints that the snake is Satan.

 

[TimothyH]

Well, that is not what Genesis says. Genesis 3 twice refers to the snake as an animal, including quoting God as describing the snake as an animal, and never even hints that the snake is Satan.

I don’t think you actually read Genesis 3.

Where does Genesis 3 describe the snake as an animal? I just read it. The only thing it says is that the serpent is cursed above all cattle and all wild animals.

Nowhere does it refer to the serpent as an animal. In fact, the word snake isn’t even in Genesis 3. The only translation that calls it a snake is the NABRE and that is an extremely poor translation of the actual Hebrew word. Almost every other translation calls it a serpent.

I’ve read the Bible cover to cover five times, large parts of it hundreds of times and have spent months reading and rereading specific books. I’ve been in Bible studies and practiced lectio divina for years and give a presentation on the Catholic method of Biblical interpretation at my parish’s adult faith formation class every year.

One of the most important things I have learned through all of this is that the Bible is a whole. It is a big mistake to interpret one verse, chapter or book apart from the rest of the Bible.

-Tim-

 

[ScriptStudent]

Well, that is not what Genesis says. Genesis 3 twice refers to the snake as an animal, including quoting God as describing the snake as an animal, and never even hints that the snake is Satan.

On a very shallow and surface level of the text, Genesis may appear to say nothing more than that. However, even within Genesis 3 such a simplistic view presents many problems, such as the serpent’s intellect, will and enmity.

If one approaches Genesis recognizing the deeper symbolism present throughout the narrative, then it becomes very likely that the author intended to portray a supernatural creature with the figure of the serpent. After all, if the author describes God in anthropomorphic terms, should we be surprised that he would describe another, and perhaps significantly a lesser, supernatural being in zoomorphic terms?

Frank Sheed, although not a biblical scholar, makes a great point on this when he says, “That it was no ordinary serpent as known to zoology we understand as clearly as that the tree of Knowledge or Good and Evil was no ordinary tree as known to botany” (Theology & Sanity, 204).

 

[ScriptStudent]

In fact, the word snake isn’t even in Genesis 3. The only translation that calls it a snake is the NABRE and that is an extremely poor translation of the actual Hebrew word. Almost every other translation calls it a serpent.

-Tim-

I would not worry about this point too much. Although the Hebrew word *nachash *(I do not have my Hebrew keyboard on this computer ) can describe a leviathan like creature, as in Isaiah 27:1, it can also describe a literal snake, as in Proverbs 30:19.

 

[Tim_D]

One of the most important things I have learned through all of this is that the Bible is a whole. It is a big mistake to interpret one verse, chapter or book apart from the rest of the Bible.

It is also a big mistake to cherry pick quotes and force them into preconceived ideas and opinions. The Bible is not a book but many books and they weren’t all written to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.