Day of the Church Year: 2nd Sunday after Pentecost
Scripture Passage: Genesis 3
My first semester of seminary in one of the core required classes called Pentateuch which just refers to the first five books of the Bible, we essentially read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy from beginning to end. I think it was on day one that Dr. Klein declared the story of Genesis 3, among others, a myth—which is a common understanding among contemporary biblical scholars. While I didn’t disagree with him, I raised my hand and asked, “How do we know this is a myth?” And Dr. Klein responded: “For starters, there’s a talking snake.” Indeed. As a myth, this story from Genesis 3 would have been shared at campfires and among circles of women spinning wool, part and parcel of the common, human story. Myths surface as a result of big questions, both moral and historical. Myths help us make sense of the world. Myths are not meant to be read literally or historically, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t true.
Genesis 3 opens with a discussion between the crafty serpent and the woman in the garden of Eden. The woman, whose name we later learn is Eve, reports to the serpent God’s word about the danger of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent denies the danger and declares eating of the tree will open her eyes and make her like God, knowing good and evil. So she eats the fruit of the tree and shares with her husband, and their eyes are opened. At the time of the evening breeze, Adam and Eve are nowhere to be found, and God who is walking in the garden calls out, “Where are you?” Adam confesses he ate from the tree but blames Eve and even God because, Adam says: God, you were the one who gave me this woman. Eve confesses that she ate from the tree but blames the serpent. At least the serpent is silent before God. After describing the consequences of this betrayal of trust between God and Adam and Eve, God sends them out of Eden but not until God provides clothing for them and a capacity to “eat bread by the sweat of their brow.” This capacity is named as part of Adam’s consequence, but it is also gift because it means he can survive in the world outside the garden.
The questions and themes of Genesis 3 are wide and deep and the theological commentary on these questions and themes through two thousand years of Christian history even wider and deeper. Within the church, Genesis 3 has traditionally been interpreted as the birthplace of “original sin,” the idea that humans are born sinful, not because newborns intentionally choose sinful action but because the inherent condition of all humanity is one of brokenness. Still, this is not the only thing the church teaches about Genesis 3. This story is also about God creating humans with a capacity to choose something God would not choose for us.
It’s about humans not taking responsibility for our actions but instead blaming others.
It’s about humans wanting to be like God.
It’s about humans’ vulnerability and limitations.
It’s about the brokenness of human relationships.
It’s about the brokenness of humans’ relationship with God.
Genesis 3 leads me to wonder: In history, why is Eve so consistently blamed for this transgression? Or when she is not, why is the serpent blamed? But so rarely Adam who does the same thing and rarely God for creating a world where such a transgression is possible. Also, why is this story so often framed as being about who is to blame?
Genesis 3 leads me to wonder: Why do we so rarely view Adam and Eve through the lens of compassion? Why do we call their transgression “original sin” and not simply a mistake born of human vulnerability and limitations? Why do we go so far as to say evil entered the world that day in the Garden of Eden instead of focusing on this very first biblical response to human error, namely a God who holds them accountable and also shows compassion? This will be the pattern of God for the rest of the biblical story: accountability and compassion.
Finally, Genesis 3 leads me to wonder: to answer what moral and historical questions led the ancient people to tell this story around campfires? For instance, I wonder if the people were wrestling with why bad things happen and what started the human journey of broken relationships.
Our question of the day is: What do you wonder about this story from Genesis 3? What questions does it raise for you? To read the questions of the Grace community, go to the Facebook live stream worship for Sunday, June 6.
What do I really think this story is about? I think this story is about the relationship between God and the ones God created from the dust of the earth and Adam’s rib. I think this story is about a disappointment and a betrayal in a relationship so close and intimate that God walks in the garden in the cool of the evening with them. In the Garden of Eden, there is only one rule: do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And they don’t follow it. I don’t think God is angry so much as sad that these beloved creatures would cross the one boundary God had laid down. God loves these first, mythic people so much that, even when they disappoint God, God provides for them. In an imperfect, broken world, this myth tells a truth about God: that brokenness, sin, evil, disappointment, betrayal can’t keep God from showing compassion. And for that we can say: Thanks be to God! Amen.