But one thing I think we forgot to address… God spoke with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening but then they were driven from His presence with a faming sword to prevent them from coming back. Now the need of prophets to hear what God is saying? And the need of a person to be anointed to do so? But not God’s desire that so few could hear Him.
First, let me apologize for the length of my reply. This post is ungodly long! I personally just hate long posts, so if you want to skim or skip around, I completely understand. I have tried to make it easier for you to do this by using
bold for the main ideas. I really tried very hard to be succinct, but we are discussing things that have a lot of nuance, and it just takes more words to express the ideas. Okay, let's proceed.
I often talk about stories from within the context of story, such as when I might say, "The reason Gandalf went to Minus Tirith was because..." It doesn't mean I think Gandalf exists.
There comes a time in any discussion about the opening chapters of Genesis that I need to inform or remind that I do not consider these stories to be history. They are wonderful stories which inspire us and teach us important truths about human nature.
This sometimes comes as shocking to some groups of religious people, who think that if you follow the Bible you have to take it all literally. However, if you pin them down,
there are many occasions that Christians themselves do not take things literally, yet still "believe in" the Bible. The easiest example would be the Parables of Jesus. There was never any historical Good Samaritan, but
a Christian can understand that the story is fiction, and still accept the lesson that we need to reach out in compassion to all regardless of ethnicity. In that sense, it is perfectly appropriate for a Christian to say they "believe in" the story. It is no different for me and the stories of Genesis.
It is the nature of myths to teach values a culture holds so deeply that they are usually unconscious. Further, there is no better teacher of morality than fiction. It is also characteristic of myths to present lovely imaginative suggestions how certain things came to be, such as in the African myth of How the Zebra Got Its Stripes. The Biblical equivalent is that the eating of the fruit of the tree is why women have painful childbirth, why snakes have no legs, etc. Similarly, it is also characteristic of these stories to have all kinds of extraordinary things and events that don't really exist in real life.
Now let's discuss how I see the creation stories as they instruct about human nature, and how this might relate to actual history. I will do this in narrative form, rather than prose.
In the beginning, the ancestors of humans functioned entirely on instinct. They lacked the intelligence and self awareness necessary for a conscience. Like all the other creatures, they were in harmony with nature, with themselves, and with God. But eventually they began to evolve a sense of empathy and fairness, the building blocks of morality. IOW, there came a time in our history that we developed a conscience. The trouble was, there were occasions when other instincts came into conflict with conscience, such as wanting the food another is eating and wishing to take it, but conscience telling them that this would be wrong. So, by developing a conscience, they LOST the harmony they had once had with nature, with themselves, and with God. Sometimes they chose to abide by their conscience. But other times they would opt for their animal instinct despite conscience, and that is what sin is. "The Fall" is an excellent metaphor for this event, and the Genesis 3 story is a wonderful way to illustrate it.
That said, we can now return to discussing these stories from within the narrative of the text.
If I am not mistaken, in the original Hebrew the word “death” is actually plural. I would personally say it this way, “In dying you will die”.
I don't really speak Hebrew. I know just enough to follow along in the Prayer Book. But I researched this as best I could. The Hebrew word for death is מָוֶת (mavet), and is not plural. In Hebrew, the plural form is מוֹתִים (motim), though it is not commonly used in a literal sense. The plural form can convey a more abstract or figurative meaning, often referring to multiple instances or types of death, rather than multiple deaths in a straightforward, literal sense.
In Genesis, the word death is never used. You are perhaps thinking of the word DIE, which is a verb.
- Genesis 2:17: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Hebrew: כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת, ki beyom akhalcha mimenu mot tamut).
In this verse, the word
מוֹת (
mot) is used, which is the infinitive form and can be understood as "dying you shall die," which is exactly what you were saying. It emphasizes the certainty of death. But it is not in the plural form.
Although a type of death is when we stop breathing, I wouldn’t define death in that fashion although it is a death. I would define death as any area that is “separated from the life of God”.
I will accept that you use the word this way, since our language certainly has a long tradition of using the word death figuratively, indicating that something that once was is no longer the case, usually with a sad connotation. However, your use feels strange and awkward to me.
I just don't use the word death that way. I tend to think of "separation from God" as more like discord, a lack of harmony, than as death.
I took note that Adam said, “I was afraid” whereas he was never afraid before. Fear is simply an area of separation from the Shalom of God. It isn’t in alignment with the proper order of God.
I tend to view that passage as similar to when a child knows they have done something forbidden and is worried about daddy finding out, because he will be angry and discipline them. It doesn't mean the child is somehow "separated" from the Father, who still loves and accepts them as his child.
Fear is a perfectly natural instinct, a response to a threat (real or imagined). It is a good thing. It helps us run away when encountered by a wild animal.
So, first I would say he experienced a spiritual separation from God. (Thus the sacrificing of animals, the washing process at the Bronze Basin.) And the rest of the process to enter the Holy of Holies.
Within the stories, there is no statement that sacrifices etc. were BECAUSE of Adam and Eve sinning and being driven from Eden.
Now let's look at this historically. Sacrifices originated in Middle Eastern culture. The idea was that natural Powers such as a hurricane, a war, or a great king (aka gods) could be placated.
Israelite culture evolved out of that previous thinking, and adopted the practice of sacrifice, redefining it as a form of adoration or atonement.
Atonement means to make right a wrong. Atonement is not something God does. God forgives, but that is not atonement.
Since God has done no wrong that he needs to make right, we cannot say that God atones. Atonement is something that we humans do.
It seems to be basic human instinct to divide things, places, and people into sacred verses normal. I believe this is because by designating something as sacred and holy, meaning set aside for God's purposes, assists us in our recognition of God's presence and his impact on our lives.
This is why the Bible says the Sabbath is a holy time, the Holy of Holies is a sacred place, the Kohanim (priests) are sacred people, etc. etc. If you use Strong's concordance to view all the times the Bible uses the word "holy," it will wow you just how extensively it is used.
From there I believe he experienced a death in His thinking process. He lied.
Again, I simply can't follow you into this usage of the word death, although I understand that it works for you. Lying has existed among our ancestors before they even became homo sapiens. There was never a time we didn't lie, thus nothing that once existed ended.
In our view, satan is the author of fear and the father of lies.
I do appreciate that your gospel says this, so it is your truth. However, no statement of this exists in the Tanakh. Lying is simply what people do in self interest, to hide what is private or what they have done wrong, or simply for the pleasure of making a story more interesting.
As to Satan, you should be aware that Jews have a completely different idea than Christians.
First, I would say that most Jews see Satan as simply a metaphor for our own Yetzer Hara (inclination to evil). So for example, the story in Job of Satan going up to heaven and making a bet with God is simply a literary device, not an illustration of fact.
However, among those Jews who do believe Satan is a literal heavenly entity, they believe his is an angel who works for God, but simply has a very horrible job to do. In Judaism, angels have no free will, so they are incapable of rebellion. For us, there is no such thing as a fallen angel.
Like when Hosea buys back Gomer after having married her. Man is the adulterer from the beginning being married with God (not in the natural sense) , always leaving God’s ways and creating our own ways. Going after other gods if not making ourselves our own gods. In the allegory, a slave to our own sins but He buys us back and says in Isaiah "the LORD who created you says, “Do not be afraid—I will save you. I have called you by name—you are mine.” He bought us back with a price.
Hosea tells his story of Gomer as an illustration of God's faithfulness to Israel even when Israel is not faithful to God. You have responded to this story by connecting it to your own experience that God similarly loves all of mankind despite our sin. This is fine --
it is perfectly appropriate to respond to literature by making a personal application to one's own life, even if that is not the intent of the author.
Again, so sorry for the length of this post. If you have only skimmed it or skipped around, I entirely understand.
