Genesis 2 and 3

Shortly into the second chapter of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, we get an entirely differing account of creation from the first chapter. If I am honest, and I frequently try to be, I must admit that I have difficulty reconciling the two stories in a literal fashion. I have heard noble attempts to do so, however, they have appeared to me nothing more than mental gymnastics, and deeply flawed ones at that.
Nevertheless, I do not find the two stories contradictory. They do not read like literal accounts. Take the location of Eden, situated at the intersection of parallel rivers, a mythical location. (Perhaps here I should give a cautionary note. I do not mean to imply that these two stories cannot be literally true, or that Eden could not have physically existed, or that the Tigris and Euphrates could not have ever intersected at their source. I simply mean to say that for me to believe the messages the first three chapters convey do not require these things as literal fact, as I see the messages being beyond literal scenarios and speaking to deeper philosophical and spiritual truths – that is, to the character and nature of God, and the tendency of man.)
So, we find ourselves in Eden, located much like the Simpson’s Springfield or Batman’s Gotham. And we find Adam beginning to carry out God’s blessing – demonstrating his authority over the animals by naming them. Just as God named “light” and “day” and “sun” and “moon” and so on and so forth in the first chapter, so too does Adam reflect his creator’s image by naming things.
We also find out for the first time something that is not good. Until now, everything has been good, very good. Now, God states that something is not good. It is not good for man to be alone. Given the traditional assumptions about how Eve made Adam fall, one may wonder at this point if God may not be in error. Nonetheless, God declares that man should not be alone, so He creates a woman for man.
Adam’s declaration of the woman is remarkably similar to God’s declaration of human’s – made in His image. Adam seems to put Eve on an equal playing field.

THE TEMPTATION

Did anyone else notice that the serpent’s question to Eve misquotes God. “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden.’” The angle of the question makes it look like God is denying something to mankind. Eve responds nobly, that the serpent is wrong, but has two fatal flaws. First, she says God said she must not touch the fruit. God did not say they could not touch it. Thus, by misquoting God, she would be open to doubting things God did say when, having touched the fruit, she did not die.
Secondly, she replaced the name and meaning of the tree with the geography of the tree. The tree lost its meaning of “Knowledge of Good and Evil” when it was replaced to the tree “in the middle of the garden.” What a striking condemnation of the human heart! By failing to give the proper name, and the proper respect, to the tree, the command to not eat of it took on a frivolous form. Instead of a protective command, it became simply a “Because I told you so” command. Gone was the deep implication of what it might mean to have knowledge of good and evil. And so, by being able to touch the fruit and beginning to doubt the command, and by failing to recognize the significance of the tree, Eve became susceptible to temptation. How often do we, too, become susceptible to temptation because we reduce the significance of the crime?
Now, Eve’s failure to accurately quote God may have not been entirely intentional. Eve was not present when God gave the command to Adam, so it is entirely possible that Adam misquoted God’s commands to Eve. Perhaps he said to her that she should not even touch the fruit, so as to protect her from the possibility of eating the fruit. Yet another indictment of human nature! In effort to protect those we love, we extend the commands of God.

THE CURSE

Perhaps the most interesting thing that I noticed this time around in Genesis 3, and this is largely due to Jeffrey, was the nature of the curses.
The curse to the woman was first that childbearing would hurt – this I noticed before. But it is the next two that are interesting to me. That her desire would be for her husband, and that her husband would rule over her. I cannot even recall how many times I have heard the charge leveled to the Bible and towards Christianity that it unfairly treats women as subordinate. Yet here, in the very beginning, we see that this subordination was not the intent of God, but rather the consequence of sin.
The consequence to man is similar. Man now, instead of eating of fruits of the garden, which are easy and abundant, now must eat fruit from the fields, which must be toiled over. Man, as provider, must work the land, which will resist.
Thus, we see that traditional gender roles are not in place because the Bible favors the patriarchical system, but rather because of the curse of sin.
In fact, the first expression of gender roles, and the curse in action, occurs right after the curses are given. Adam names Eve. Until that time, Eve did not have a name, because Adam was not in a position of superiority over her. However, due to the curse, Adam exercises the naming power, and the gender roles form.

THE SOLUTION

Before the man and the woman are cursed, the solution to the curse is prophesied. Before man yet understands the consequences of his actions, a solution to those actions is foretold. God, in cursing the serpent, foretells of the offspring of Eve that shall crush the head of the serpent. This is the first prophesy of Jesus.
The second follows shortly after. After the curses, Genesis tells us that God made garments of skin to cover the shame of Adam and Eve. These garments came from an animal, and blood was shed. But it was God who shed the blood of an animal – it was God who made the sacrifice in killing one of His own creations to cover the failure of man. This, too, is a prophesy of Jesus, of whom it is said died to cover our transgressions. Even though man is about to be expelled from Eden, God still looks after man, and covers man. Even though eternal life is about to be removed, God does an act that signifies the future-coming of eternal life.
Man fails. But God acts to save.