Bible-pedia.org

  The Garden of Eden Story – Disobedience, Travail, Death and Hope

Genesis chapter II - fact or fiction?

Do you enjoy these essays?  Then your are sure to find my latest book "The Struggle for Utopia. The History of Jewish, Christian and Islamic Messianism" of extreme interest. For more details, see the Home Page. But before you do this, do watch this short video by clicking on these words in yellow. 

The Biblical account of creation constituted a sea change in religious thought.  The universe created in the Bible was not one created by a multitude of gods in conflict with themselves but a perfect and harmonious universe created by a single God.  As the Bible emphasizes at the end of the six days of creation, this was a universe that was “extremely good”(tov me’od) (Óטוֹבמְאֹד) (Genesis 1:31).  

 However, there is an obvious dissonance here.  The world we live does not appear to be one that is “extremely good.”  It is a world full of travail and sorrow.  How could an omnipotent God create such an imperfect world?  Do not the pagan ideas of a world indifferent to mankind and ruled by forces in conflict with themselves and in which man is subjugated to the will of the gods seem a more plausible explanation for the burdens of mankind?  

 Yet another question remains from chapter 1.  God has given man dominion over the physical world, His only expectation being that man acknowledge His kingship over the universe by sanctifying the Sabbath day.  But what of the spiritual world?  If man is to be a caretaker of the physical world, does he not have a place in the supernatural realm together with God?

 Before we explore these issues, two other fundamental questions need to be answered; firstly, is the Garden of Eden story to be taken literally or figuratively?   And secondly, how does one explain the contradictions between Genesis chapter I and Genesis chapter 2?  

 To the classic medieval Jewish commentators there could be no doubt as to whether the Garden of Eden story should be taken literally or figuratively.  The Garden of Eden story must be a factual account.  Despite the story’s allegorical-like imagery, there are a number of reasons they adopted this approach.¹  First, both Genesis I and the subsequent Noah story were considered  factual accounts and an intervening allegorical story would be very much out of place.  Second, there was the fear that allegorizing any of the Genesis stories would be a slippery slope towards allegorizing the legal (halachic) portions of the Bible.  However, in view of what we now know about the allegorical nature of Genesis I and the Noah and Flood story,² an allegorical interpretation for this part of the Bible no longer seems inappropriate. 

 It is difficult to accept, for example, that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth.  According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created in the year 3,750 BCE.  However, we know that homo sapiens first appear in the fossil record hundreds of thousands of years before this date.³  Adam and Eve as the first humans would only make sense, therefore within an allegorical framework -  but what concept do they represent?

 The first great civilization, the Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia, dates from approximately 5,300 BCE to 2,300 BCE.⁴  Agriculture at that time became sufficiently advanced to sustain large urban centers of population.  The first written document in the archeological record dates to about 3,500 BCE (the Kish tablet).⁵  It seems likely, therefore, that the story of Adam and Eve relates to the beginnings of civilization and not to the first appearance of primitive man.  One may also surmise that the focus of the Bible was agricultural man living in advanced civilizations, and not primitive hunter-man subsisting in small communes. 

 From the beginning of the story, the fact that the Garden of Eden story was an allegorical and not factual account would have been readily apparent to a reader from ancient Israel.  Consider the following verses found towards the beginning of chapter 2: 

“A river issues forth from Eden to water the garden and from there it is divided and becomes four headwaters.  The name of the first is Pishon, the one that encircles the whole land of Chavilah, where the gold is.  The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there and the shohan stone.  The name of the second river is Gichon, the one that encircles the whole land of Cush.  The name of the third river is Chidekel, the one that flows towards the east of Ashur; and the fourth one is the Euphrates.” (Genesis 2:10-14)

 There is no place in the Near East at which four major rivers join together.  The river “Chidekel” is usually identified with the Tigris, which was known in Mesopotamia as “Idiglat,”⁶ and this river does indeed join the “Euphrates” near the Persian Gulf.  However, this point in the Persion Gulf is nowhere near “Cush.”  The “land of Chavila” is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible as the land where Ishmael’s progeny lived, but this is not in Mesopotamia (“They dwelt from Chavila to Shur – which is near Egypt – towards Assyria.” Genesis 25:18)⁷  Mesopotamia also had little mineral wealth.  However, the upper reaches of the Nile were well known for their“gold”, and it seems likely that “Pishon” and “Gichon” were two tributaries of the Nile that joined together in southern Egypt.  

 What the Bible is describing here is a fictitious place in which the most desirable water and mineral resources of the known world were combined together to create the most fertile and richest paradise in the Near East.

 The 19^th century Biblical commentator Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, after proposing the somewhat unlikely notion that these rivers joined together underground, explains as follows:

 “Four districts seem to be named which, each in its way, yielded the richest of products.  All the riches and all the abundance which lay separately in these lands were found together in Paradise.”⁸ 

 The second fundamental question - how does one deal with the apparent contradictions between the two creation accounts listed in the following table?  Does this mean that the Bible contains two different creation stories?  

Table 1.  Major differences between the two creation accounts

 To the Jewish medieval Bible exegetes there could only be one account.  Since both creation stories were factual, there could hardly be two variants of the same facts.  The great medieval Biblical commentator Rashi, for example, explains that the second creation story is an amplification of the first, and he demonstrates that this is evident from the wording of the very first verse of chapter II:

“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created; in the day that YKVK Elokim made the earth and the heavens.” (Genesis 2:4)

 The first part of this verse refers to chapter I, which is why the heavens are mentioned before the earth, while the second part of the verse, which places the earth before the heavens, refers to events about to be described in chapter II.¹⁰  Rashi admits that these two stories do sound like different accounts, and to counter this argument he explains:

“And YKVK Elokim formed [man of soil from the earth]” etc and He made the Garden of Eden grow for him, “and He placed him in the Garden of Eden” and “He cast a deep sleep over him.”  One who hears this is under the impression that [the second account of the creation of man] is a different incident [from the earlier mention of his creation], yet it is nothing but a detailed account of the first mention.  Similarly regarding the animals [the Torah] came back and wrote “and YKVK Elokim formed …..out of the ground every beast of the field” [after having mentioned the creation of animals in 1:25] in order to explain in detail “and He brought them to the man” to name them, and to teach us about the birds that they were created from mud.⁹ 

 In Genesis I, fowl and fish arise from water.  In this account, seas are formed from the deep waters between the landmasses, and heavens are formed as a layer or firmament between the water on earth and the water above the firmament.  It is from these very watery beginnings that fowl and fish arise:

 “And Elokim said: let the waters teem with teeming living creatures and fowl that fly about over the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:20)

 In the second creation account, however, all life is described as arising from the earth:

 “Now YKVK Elokim formed [had formed] out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to man to see what he would call each one, and whatever the man called each living creature that remained its name.” (Genesis 2:18)

 Rashi’s solution to this contradiction is that fowl were formed from a combination of water and earth  – i.e. from mud.  Rashi has resolved the inconsistency, but not necessarily in a way that all will find satisfactory. 

 Furthermore, in Genesis 2:18, man appears to be formed before the beasts and birds, whereas in Genesis I man is the final act of creation.  One way of resolving this apparent contradiction is to translate the word “He formed” (וַיִּצֶר) (viytzar) as “He had formed.”  In other words, the beasts and fowl had previously been formed and were now brought to Adam to name.  However, the pluperfect tense in Hebrew has its own grammatical construction, and this may not be considered a satisfactory explanation by everyone 

 An alternative way of viewing these contradictions is to accept that there are indeed two accounts here!  This is the approach of the Documentary Hypothesis.  This hypothesis suggests that a “redactor” joined together two variant creation accounts that were composed by different authors during different historic periods.  This hypothesis posits that the second chapter was written in the southern Kingdom of Judah in about 950 BCE by a source that used the name YHVH for God (Jahwist or J source), whereas the first chapter was written by a priestly source (P source) during either the Second Temple period, or according to some during the First Temple period.  The P source was familiar with the J source and repeated some of the previous stories, albeit with a more priestly perspective.  J and P sources are found throughout the Bible, although P sources comprise the largest sections.  

 The first authoritative figure in the Jewish religious world to acknowledge that there indeed may be two different creation accounts here was Rabbi Joseph  Soloveitchik in his well-known essay “The Lonely Man of Faith.”  Rabbi Solveitchik studied philosophy at Berlin University and was no doubt familiar with the orientation of secular German Biblical scholarship.  The following quotation from this essay summarizes the direction of this influential work:

 “There are two accounts in early Genesis of the creation of man …. The two accounts deal with two types of Adam, two representatives of humanity, two fathers of mankind…. Adam I wants to be a “man,” to realize his humanity by being distinguishable from the rest of creation, by becoming the master over his environment ……  Adam I is engaged in creative work, trying to imitate his creator….Adam I’s creativity is not limited to the mind.  He also creates beauty with his heart, in the physical and literary arts .  He also creates legal systems to govern an orderly society….. It is important to note that Adam I is not a rebel.  He is merely carrying out G-d’s mandate to him on the sixth day of creation when G-d acknowledged his singularity by addressing him and summoning him to “fill the earth and subdue it.”¹¹

     Unlike Adam I, Adam II does not seek to dominate nature but to serve that mysterious “He” he perceives in creation.  In a word, Adam I seeks dignity and is practical-minded, while Adam II aspires to holiness and is faith-oriented.

 The influence of this essay cannot be underestimated.  Rabbi Soloveitchik’s article provided an answer to a very real question being posed by religious immigrants to America and their religious children, namely how can a traditional Jew participate fully in American life and yet remain faithful to orthodoxy?  Rabbi Solveitchik’s answer is that there is almost a Biblical mandate to become involved in the sciences, humanities and arts.  This is the role of Adam I.  But having accomplishing his work, the man of faith, Adam II, will now turn to his family and faith community and seek a relationship with God.  In effect, religious man oscillates between Adam I and Adam II.  It is a lonely existence, and this would explain the title of his essay “The Lonely Man of Faith.”

 As an explanation that seeks solutions to contemporary issues from the Bible, this was an extremely meaningful essay.  However, as a work of modern Biblical scholarship it has a major limitation, namely that the concept of two types of humans developed by Rabbi Soloveitchik cannot be extended beyond the creation stories.  

 Nevertheless, Rabbi Solveitchik has breached a major barrier for the modern religious world in that he has raised the possibility that within the first three chapters of Genesis there exist two different accounts of creation, each with its own unique emphasis.

 Rabbi Soloveitchik focused on two types of personalities and how they could be synthesized within a largely secular world.  However, the Bible is not just about human personalities.  The Bible, and this is particularly the case for the book of Genesis, is about relationships between God and man. 

The names of God in Genesis I and Genesis II

 Two different types of relationships between God and man are described in the Bible and these are reflected in two different names for God.  

 The God of Genesis I is named Elokim.  In Genesis chapters 2 and 3, comprising the Garden of Eden story, a new type of relationship between God and man is revealed andbtwen  a new name for God – that of YKVK.  

 In contrast to the transcendence of Elokim, YKVK is an immanent and approachable God.  YKVK is a God of relationships and a God who provides moral instruction for the betterment of the individual.  

 This was a radically new revelation of the Divine previously unknown in the ancient world.  The gods of the pagan world had no compunction about using humans to do their back-breaking work, but never did they engage with them in mutual relationships.

 As the Bible unfolds, it will be YKVK who will relate on a personal level to Adam and Eve, to Noah and to the Jewish forefathers; it will be YKVK who will introduce Himself to Moses at the burning bush; and it will be YKVK who will become the national God of the Israelite people.   

 Nevertheless, chapters 2 and 3 are unique in that the name YKVK does not appear alone but combined with the name Elokim as “YKVK Elokim.”  This combination of God’s names is found nowhere else in the Bible.  The first appearance of these combined names is in the first sentence of the Garden of Eden story:

“These are the generations (i.e. products) of the heaven and the earth when they were created, on the day that YKVK Elokim made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4)

 Why these two names together?   

 The simplest explanation is that they mean “YKVK, who is Elokim.”  This would be similar to the Hebrew phase “YKVK Elokeinu” i.e. JKVK, who is our God.  In other words, YKVK is being introduced to the Bible reader and the Bible is emphasizing that YKVK is the very same God as Elokim, the aspect of God previously introduced in chapter one.¹² 

 There is a question that can be asked though regarding this explanation.  If the phrase “YKVK Elokim” is no more than an introduction to YKVK, why is this combination of names continued throughout the two chapters?  Would not the opening sentence have sufficed?

 Rashi, following a number of midrashim explains that the name Elokim relates to God’s attribute of justice, while YKVK is a God of mercy.  In the Garden of Eden these two aspects of the Divine were fused together.  He writes:

“Elokim created”[in Genesis chapter I]: It does not say YKVK’s creating [in Genesis chapter II] because at first it rose in thought [i.e. God considered so to speak] to create it with the attribute of strict judgment [using the name Elokim].  But He saw that the world could not last [if He did]. He [therefore] gave precedence to the attribute of mercy and joined it to the attribute of strict justice [in Genesis II]. That is the meaning of that which is written: “on the day of YKVK Elokim’s making of the earth and heavens” [in Genesis chapter II].¹³

 According to Rashi, God originally intended to create the Garden of Eden with the attribute of strict justice, but saw that a world constructed in this way could not endure, so He joined His attribute of justice to that of mercy in the second creation story, but giving precedence to His attribute of mercy. 

 There is a major problem, however, with this explanation.  The names Elokim and YKVK are found throughout the Bible and have many connotations besides justice and mercy.  Rashi’s explanation fits nicely into the two creation stories, but has limited application beyond.

 An alternative explanation suggests itself for the use of two combined names for God throughout the second two chapters of Genesis.  In the Garden of Eden two lone humans existed in close proximity to the Divine.  In this unique garden, the immanence of God was fused with His transcendence, although His immanence remained foremost.  However, once Adam and Eve were ejected from the Garden, they no longer perceived these two attributes of God as a single manifestation of the Divine.  From now on, man could only oscillate in his awareness of Elokim and YKVK.   

 So far we have discussed the two attributes of God in Genesis I and Genesis II as perceived by man, but how are these dual aspects manifested in the nature of man?

The nature of man in Genesis I and Genesis II

 As God has different attributes in the two creation stories reflected in the names Elokim and YKVK, so also, in a corresponding way, is the nature of man different in these two creations accounts. 

 In the first chapter in Genesis, man is created to subdue the earth:

“And Elokim said: Let us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness (Òבְּצַלְמֵנוּכִּדְמוּתֵנוּ)(bezalmeinu kidmoseinu).  They shall rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and over the animals, the whole earth, and every moving thing that treads upon the earth.  So Elokim created man in His image, in the image of Elokim He created him, male and female He created them.  Elokim blessed them and Elokim said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every living thing that treads upon the earth”.

 Rashi explains that the “image” (zelem) of God means in “the mold” of God, while “after our likeness” means that man has the capability of achieving intellectual knowledge.¹⁴  Lest there be misunderstanding, he repeats this explanation in connection to the next verse:¹⁵ 

“In the image of G-d He created him: [the verse] has explained to you that the image which is fixed for him is the image of the semblance of his Creator.” 

 Rashi’s explanation fits well into the remainder of the paragraph.  Man is created to rule the world.  It is appropriate, therefore, that he have the physical and intellectual attributes to fulfill this role.

 Another perspective is provided by Biblical scholarship.  In the pagan world, the spiritual essence of a god could be transferred to an idol so that the idol now becomes the abode of that force of nature.  In the Acadian language this physical image was termed a salmu.¹⁶  A physical entity could become the şalmu of a god, and this would explain how the ancients could believe that inanimate stone or clay or wood could be a living god.  In the Bible, as the “zelem” or “salmu” of Elokim, man becomes the recipient of some of the powers of Elokim to enable him to assume his role as master of the world. 

 Very different from this is man’s creation in Genesis II.  This account is about man’s earthly beginnings and earthly end:  

“And YKVK Elokim formed (וַיִּיצֶר) (vayitzar) man of the dust from the ground, and He blew into His nostrils the soul of life (נִשְׁמַתחַיִּים) and man became a living being (לְנֶפֶשׁחַיָּה).” (Genesis 2:7) 

 Not only is man an earthly physical being created from the earth but he also possesses a spiritual soul or “a soul of life” (נִשְׁמַתחַיִּים) (nishmas chayim) blown into him by God.  Animals are also formed from the ground and are described as a “living being” (נֶפֶשׁחַיָּה) (nefesh chaya) (Genesis 2:19), but unlike man they are not endowed with the breath of God.  Jewish commentators have also noted that the word “formed” (וַיִּיצֶר) (vayitzar) describing the creation of man has two letter yods, while the same word וַיִּצֶר (vayitzar) describing the creation of animals has only a single yod.  The yod is the first letter of the word YKVK.   With the duplication of the yod, the Torah may be hinting to the dual nature of Man - his earthly body and his spirituality from God.  

 The Adam created by the transcendent Elokim of Genesis I is to “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over” God’s creations.  The Adam created by YKVK-Elokim in Genesis II, on the other hand, has very “earthly” concerns.  His role is to “work it and tend” to the Garden of Eden.  Midrashim will expand this role to include a spiritual function, but on a non-exegetical level his task is very much here on earth.  Nevertheless, in order to maintain his relationship with YKVK he needs to adhere to one command and this relates to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.

The serpent and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad 

 Many questions spring to the fore.  What is the function of the Tree of Knowledge?  What does the tempting serpent represent?  And what type of knowledge of Good and Bad did this Tree permit?  

 To answer these questions, we will first cull the storehouse of Jewish commentaries.

 Adam was given but one command:

“And the Lord God commanded (וַיְצַו) (vayetzav) the man saying: Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, you must not eat thereof, for on the day you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

 The Biblical commentator Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch notes this command’s relation to food, and suggests that this is a typical statute (“chok” in Hebrew).  A “chok” or statute is a command between God and man that cannot be derived by strictly logical reasoning,⁷  and the prohibition of eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is the first “chok” given in the Torah.¹⁸  By contrast, in the Cain and Abel account soon to follow, Cain was punished for killing his brother, and this represents the first transgression of a judgment of a logical nature that relates to man and his fellow. 

 Others consider the fruit of this tree to represent no particular category of command or mitzvah, but rather to represent the entire gamut of mitzvot necessary for man.  Adhering to this single representative command was the means by which Adam and Eve would be able to maintain their unique relationship with God, as a relationship with God can only be sustained by fulfilling His requests.  

 Every tree in the Garden was available for their pleasure but one.  The phrase “eat you shall eat” or “you should surely eat” (ochol tochal) (אָכֹלתֹּאכֵל) could even be interpreted to mean that they had an obligation to indulge from the fruit of every tree in the garden - except for this one.  Of course, the very fact that it was forbidden made it all the more tempting. 

 The medieval Jewish commentators were bound to a literal interpretation of the text, but most were prepared to accept that the serpent was a representation of evil.  Sforno, for example, suggests that the serpent represents Satan.  He writes:  

“And the serpent: He is Satan, he is the evil prompter.  Although he is small in appearance he does much damage. The Torah describes things figuratively by (various names) which are similar to them ….  In this manner the evil inclination which tempts man is called “serpent”, for he is similar to a serpent, which is an animal with limited utility but great potential to do harm, though small in appearance.”¹⁹

 It is questionable , however, whether the concept of Satan belongs within the Pentateuch.  A entity called Satan is found three times in Scripture, although never in the Torah.²⁰  In the story of Job, Satan is one of God’s counselors who provides suggestions of a malevolent nature and with God’s approval brings them to fruition.  The notion that an external force called Satan has the power to influence people through their evil inclination (through their “yetzer hara” in Hebrew) is also mentioned in the Talmud.  In the Talmudic volume Bava Basra, Satan is identified with both the evil inclination and the Angel of Death.²¹ 

 However, the notion that a malevolent force such as Satan tempted Eve is a difficult one, since it implies that the temptation was manufactured by God, or at the very least carried out with His approval.  Moreover, it is difficult to understand why a situation that smacks very much of entrapment should have led to such dire consequences for mankind. 

 Other medieval Jewish commentators suggest that the serpent represents the evil inclination or “yetzer harah” itself.  This need not necessarily be external to a person but could be part of his or her internal nature.

 Noteworthy in this respect is that the Torah makes a connection between the words “serpent” and “nakedness”.   Hence, no sooner is Eve brought to man by God, than the Bible tells us the following:

“They were both naked (עֲרוּמִּים) (arumim), the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:25)

 A few verses later, commenting on the nature of the serpent, the Bible writes:

 “Now the serpent was cunning (עָרוּם) (arum) beyond any beast of the field that YHVH Elokim had made.” (Genesis 3:1)

 There is a word play here.  The words for “nakedness’ (arum) and the serpent’s “cunning” (arum) are the same (although they are from different root letters).  Hence, the Bible is making a connection between animal cunning and nakedness.  This leads to the interpretation that the serpent represents the animal, sensual, or ‘earthly’ part of one’s being.  The temptation represented by the serpent is not external to Adam and Eve but part of their very make-up.  

 Of the classic Jewish Biblical commentators, it is Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch who writes the most expansively about the animal sensuality of humanity:

“It was animal wisdom which lured the human beings from their duty, today it is the same animal wisdom which serves as the midwife to every sin.  ……..   But as soon as Man hands over reigns to his sensuousness, does not exercise moral energy to raise his sensual life up into the realm of godliness, but on the contrary, by his sensuality his godliness itself gets dragged down into the unfree state of the senses, then at once he has to be ashamed of his nakedness.  …….  At every demand of God’s laws of morality, still today, every one of us stands, like the first human pair, before the tree of this knowledge, and has to decide whether he will follow the voice of his bodily sensuality, his own judgment and sense, and the wisdom of instinctive animal life, or conscious of his higher calling, the voice of his God.  And still today this choice of God is not revealed directly to us, but only through tradition …..”¹⁷ 

 It is clothing, which may be no more than a fig leaf, that stands between man’s higher calling and his animal nature.  The nude state forces on us the awareness that at a fundamental level we are no more than animals that defecate, urinate, are sexually aroused, and copulate.   Only with clothes on are we able to sublimate our animal nature and seek meaning and immortality in our religious, intellectual and material endeavors. 

 The third question.  What “knowledge” does the fruit of this Tree provide? Specifically, was there a change in the nature of man that provided him with an attribute he previously did not have or was this external, experiential knowledge?

 Most medieval Jewish commentators perceived this “knowledge” as the former, i.e. one he did not have previously.  Nachmanides, for example, provides the following explanation as to the nature of man prior to and after his sin, an explanation that occasioned much criticism by later Jewish Biblical exegetes: 

“The best interpretation in my opinion is that man would do naturally whatever was appropriate to do according to his instinct, just as do the heavens and all their hosts, being “faithful workers, whose work is faithful, and they do not deviate from their tasks,” and they have neither feelings of love nor hate in what they do [and that is how Adam acted before eating of the tree].  But the fruit of this tree would produce the factors of will and volition, so that whoever ate it would then be able to choose one thing or its opposite, either for good or for bad. This is why it is called “the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.”  For “knowledge” is used in Hebrew to describe will and desire…”²² 

 Prior to his sin, Adam was an instinctive being.  Only after his sin did he gain free will. This explanation follows naturally from the text and is adopted by a number of modern commentators.  Cassuto, for example, views the original Adam as being like an innocent child.²³

 There are many problems, though, with this approach.  Maimonides a generation earlier in his Guide to the Perplexed poses a penetrating question that could well have been addressed to Nachmanides:  

“It would at first sight appear from Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly equal to the rest of the animal creation, which is not endowed with intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing between good and evil: but that Adam’s disobedience to the command of G-d procured him that great perfection which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of distinguishing between good and evil – the noblest of all the faculties of our nature, the essential characteristic of the human race.  It thus appears strange that the punishment for rebelliousness should be the means of elevating man to a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not attained previously.”²⁴ 

 There are other problems, too, with Nachmanides’ explanation.  If man and woman were unable to distinguish between right and wrong, how could they be punished for eating of the fruit?  Does not punishment presume free will?  Moreover, the text itself seems to highlight the fact that Eve possessed lust and that there was a choice before her - to succumb to these lusts or ignore them - in other words, that she had free will.  Hence, scripture informs us early in the story that “God caused to grow from the ground every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for eating” (Genesis 2:9).  Moreover, when Eve is tempted by the serpent, the temptation is described in very similar language:  “And the woman perceived that the tree was good for eating, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was pleasing as a means to wisdom… ..” (Genesis 3:6)  In other words, the text is highlighting the choices before her and the fact that she had free will.  

 A final problem with Nachmanides’ commentary is that there is a presumption among the Biblical commentators that the relationship between God and man in the Garden of Eden was an ideal state, and that humanity should attempt to recreate this model.  However, if pre-sin man was no more than a human with animal-like instincts or one who functioned as an innocent child then this entire aspect of the story is lost.

 Maimonides has a different approach:

“When Adam was yet in a state of innocence, and was guided solely by reflection and reason - on account of which it is said “Thou hast made him (man) little lower than the angels” (Ps 8:6) – he was not at all able to follow or to understand the principles of apparent truths; the most manifest impropriety, viz, to appear in a state of nudity, was nothing unbecoming according to his idea; he could not comprehend why it should be so.  After man’s disobedience, however, when he began to give way to desires which had their source in his imagination and to the gratification of his bodily appetites  .. he was punished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which he had previously possessed.”²⁴

 Maimonides is suggesting that prior to his sin, man possessed only objectivity and could only distinguish between truth and falseness.  With his sin came subjectivity and awareness of goodness and evil.  Hence, Nachmanides has lowered primordial man to the level of a humanoid with animal instincts, whilst Maimonides has elevated man to a level slightly below that of the angels.  

 There is a third explanation, and this is that Adam and Eve experienced no change whatsoever in their nature or intellectual make-up following their sin.  What they did achieve was experiential knowledge.  This explanation seems most true to the text which makes literary connections not only between animal “cunning” and “nakedness,” but also between “nakedness,”“knowledge,” and “becoming godlike”:  

 Consider the speech of the serpent as he attempts to tempt the woman:

“The serpent said to the women: “You will not surely die; for God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened (venifkuchu eyneichem) (Òוְנִפְקְחוּעֵינֵיכֶם) and you will become like Elokim (i.e. you will become godlike), knowing (yodei) (íיֹדְעֵי) good and bad.” (Genesis 3:4) 

 And no sooner did the couple sin, than the inevitable ensues:

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened (vetifkuchu eynei sheneihem) (וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה  עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם) and they knew (vayeidu) (íוַיֵּדְעוּ) that they were naked (arumim) (עֵירֻמִּם); and they sewed together a fig leaf and made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3:7) 

 This sentence if full of irony.  The serpent persuades the woman that eating of the fruit will endow the couple with god-like attributes, their eyes will be opened, and they will possess knowledge about good and bad.  Adam and Eve succumb to the temptation and their eyes are indeed opened.  However, the only knowledge they achieve is knowledge of their nakedness.  Moreover, the Bible equates knowledge of good and evil with knowledge of one’s individual nakedness, as well as with god-like knowledge.  

 This permits the following explanation of this episode.  A human being is composed of animal and spiritual elements.  In the Garden of Eden all of man’s physical needs were taken care of.   He was on such a high spiritual plane that his animal nature was inconsequential to him.  However, following his sin, knowledge of his animal nature would come to the fore.  

 The nature of Adam and Eve pre- and post-sin was exactly the same. After their sin, however, they became aware that their animal lusts had dragged them into sin, that their sexual instincts were akin to those of animals, that they had severed a unique relationship to God, and that disobeying a command of God has consequences.  

 If they had been able to lead a life totally in accord with God’s designs they could have stayed in the Garden of Eden forever and remained immortal.  But man has free choice and one aspect of his free choice is the ability to rationalize God’s commands and substitute his own behavioral code for that of God’s.

 To my mind, though, there is something incomplete in this explanation.  The forceful and clear polemic of chapter 1 is followed by difficult concepts that take pages of explanation to come to a conclusion.  Moreover, Adam and Eve’s crime and punishment seem not to correspond measure for measure.  Is it possible there is more to this story about the Tree of Good and Bad than we have so far discussed?  I would like to suggest there is.

Reaching for Divinity

 Many Hebrew words express underlying Biblical concepts.  For example, the Hebrew word for a serpent is nochosh – from the 3 root letters nun, chet and shin.   From these three root letters comes the noun nichush, which means magic or witchcraft.  The verb from these 3 root letters is lenacheish, which means “to engage in occult activities”.  

 This leads to the suggestion that the serpent in this story was functioning as an indicator of the occult.  We know, for example, that the god of the underworld in Mesopotamia was a serpent.  Also, at the entrance to Marduk’s temple in Babylon was the statue of a serpent.  

 It is difficult for us nowadays to appreciate the importance of the occult in ancient times. The supernatural world was the realm in which the gods operated.  It was also the realm of illness and death, since these were conditions controlled by the gods.  Diviners would attempt to tap into the supernatural realm to foretell the future by the use of omens.  The prophet Bilaam described in the book of Numbers was a skillful operator of the supernatural world.  At no time does the Torah deny the existence of the supernatural realm, since this was also the realm of the One God.  Neither, does the Bible deny Bilaam’s art and its effectiveness.  The story of Bilaam in the Torah is about how God neutralized Bilaam’s control over the supernatural and took over his divinations.

 When Moses was approached by God to become leader of the Jewish people, Moses asks for signs that he could shown to the Jewish people (Exodus chapter 4).  God tells him to throw his staff on the ground - and it becomes a serpent.  Next, he is asked to put his hand under his cloak and it becomes leprous.  These are more than party tricks.  The serpent was a sign of the supernatural and leprosy a product of the supernatural, both indicating that God is a genuine God with control over the supernatural.

 When Moses does come to Pharaoh, his first demonstration is to throw his staff onto the ground - and it becomes a snake (Exodus chapter 7).  Pharaoh’s magicians are likewise able to do this.  Maimonides, ever the rationalist, suggests that Moses and the magicians had produced a sleight of hand.  But this is an unlikely explanation.  More plausible is that Moses was demonstrating to the magicians that Elokim was a genuine god who operates within the supernatural world.  Initially, at least, Pharaoh’s magicians were unimpressed, since they also were able to produce snakes from their staffs.  It did not take them long, however, to realize that their control over the supernatural was no match for Moses’, as Moses’ snakes were able to gobble up theirs.  

  There are a number of Biblical prohibitions against delving into the occult.  Divination was perceived by the Torah as a threat, as it sought to control the realm of the supernatural and thereby usurp God’s position. 

 An alternative explanation, therefore, for the Garden of Eden story is that the serpent was offering Adam and Eve a path to the supernatural world, a path that would place them to be on a par with God.  

 This explanation fits well into the plain meaning of the text.  Consider the following words of the serpent: 

“You will not surely die; for Elokim knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and bad.” (Genesis 3:5)

 The text does not say - and you will know good and bad and be like God, but rather you will be like God first and foremost and then have knowledge of good and bad.  

 It was previously explained that the serpent was offering man discernment to be able to distinguish good from evil on a situational level.  More likely, however, is that the serpent was offering man the ability to know good and bad from within the supernatural world.  The word “to know” means more than just to have acquaintance with, but rather to have total knowledge of.  In chapter 3, Adam “knows” his wife Eve - in other words he has relations with her and in so doing has full knowledge of herself and her sexuality.  Similarly, to “know good and bad” is to know everything there is to know about goodness and evil in the world.  The pagan gods did not possess this knowledge since they were familiar only with their delineated aspects of nature.  Only God Himself has a total perspective on the world - and this is exactly what the serpent was offering - “you will be like Elokim.”  He did not offer them YKVK aspect of God, since this he was unable to do.  However, he did offer them immortality, since gods can exist forever – and this is why the serpent explains to Eve “you will not surely die.”  

 In a nutshell, the serpent was offering Adam and Eve the opportunity to be on a par with God within the supernatural realm.  Clearly, however, Adam and Eve were overreaching.  They had been given a privileged position in a paradise, the Garden of Eden, in which their earthliness was of no consequence.  Now, however, it was necessary for awareness of their earthliness, human sensuality and mortality to be impressed upon them forever and for them to be driven out of the Garden of Eden.  

 The message from this story is now evident.  The trials of Adam and Eve resulted from their desire to transcend this mortal world and enter the realm of the Divine.  As the Bible says:

“And YKVK Elokim said “Behold man has become like one of us knowing good and bad, and now, lest he put forth and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever.”

 In the passage that follows, the Bible will show how Adam and Eve are made aware of their earthly origins, of their sensuality and their mortality.  Adam was, of course, already known as “earth” (adama), but his earthy nature had been of no relevance to him.  However, as soon as the couple sinned they would gain immediate awareness of their physical nature:

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed together a fig leaf and made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3:7) 

 The beauty of this explanation is that the punishments now fit the crime.  The Bible will also have explained in allegorical form how the dissonance that exists between the perfection of the universe that God created and the troubled existence of mankind came into being.

The origins of the human condition

 In His relationship with humanity, God operates in a paradigm of measure for measure, as this is the measure of strict justice.  Man and woman wished to transcend their humanity and become godly.  Their punishment will now be awareness of their earthliness.

 Let us look at the speech of the serpent again as he attempts to tempt the woman:

“The serpent said to the women: “You will not surely die; for God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened (venifkuchu eyneichem) (Òוְנִפְקְחוּעֵינֵיכֶם) and you will become like Elokim (i.e. you will become godlike), knowing (yodei) (íיֹדְעֵי) good and bad.” (Genesis 3:4) 

 No sooner did the couple sin, than the inevitable ensues – they become aware of their human nature:

 “Then the eyes of both of them were opened (vatipokachno eiynei sheneihem) (וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם) and they knew (vayeidu) (וַיֵּדְעוּ) that they were naked (arumim) (עֵירֻמִּם); and they sewed together a fig leaf and made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3:7) 

 The serpent was the first to sin and therefore the first to be punished.  He tempted the first man and woman to transcend their humanity.  Therefore, his ability to provide temptation will be severely curtailed and he will be brought down to earth in a most radical way.   

 The word “orum” (עָרוּם), ‘cunning describing the nature of the serpent is very similar to the word ‘orur’ (אָרוּר) “cursed” that describes his fate.  Moreover, just as the serpent transcended “all”” other animals in its shrewdness and cunning for evil, so its curse surpasses that of “all the cattle and beasts of the field:”  

“Now the serpent was cunning beyond (orum micol) (עָרוּםמִכֹּל) any beast of the field that the Lord G-d had made …………” (Genesis 3:1). 

“And the Lord G-d said to the serpent: Because you have done this, accursed are you beyond all (arur ato micol) (אָרוּר אַתָּה מִכָּל) the cattle and beyond all the beasts of the field, upon your belly shall you go and dust shall you eat all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:14).  

 Serpents do not eat dust but reptiles.  However, this serpent was tempting woman and man to reach out to the supernatural realms and it is only appropriate that his retribution be to eat earth.  Cassuto points out that the expression “dust shall you eat” is also an expression of defeat, just as one might say nowadays “to lick the dust.”²⁹  

 However one reads this story, it is very apparent that the snake represents evil.  The temptation to transcend one’s humanity, or alternatively the lust for evil and sensuality, contains within itself the capability of being overcome.  Hence, the paragraph continues:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring.  He will pound (yeshufecha) (יְשׁוּפְךָ) your head, and you will bite (teshufanu) (תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ) his heel.” (Genesis 3:15)

 There is another word play here.  The words to “pound” and to “bite” sound similar (although they have different roots).  Again, this is measure for measure.  You attempted to put discord between God and man and now enmity will be placed between you and man.  Man will be able to pound your head and remove your influence.  You will be able to “bite” and injure him.

 It is now the turn of the woman to be punished, since she was the next to sin.  The couple has lost its immortality.  It will now be role of woman to bear the travails of pregnancy: 

 “And to the woman He said, “I will greatly increase your suffering (etzvonech) (עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ) and your childbearing; in pain (be’etzev) (בְּעֶצֶב) shall you bear children.  Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

 One word in particular stands out in this sentence because of its repetition -  “travail” or “pain” (etzev) (עֶצֶב).   You previously had a life of ease but now you will experience the pain of childbirth and raising children.  Note the similarity in sound between “etzev” (עֶצֶב) (pain) and “eytz” (עץ), (tree), the source of their travail.  Moreover, just as you wished to influence your husband, you will now be subject to his desires.³⁰  

 What is the significance of “he will rule over you”?  A number of suggestions have been made by the medieval Jewish exegetes - sexually he will be the initiator (Rashi), his will will be more powerful than yours (Ibn Ezra), and your longing will be to your husband for intimacy (Nachmanides).  These are all true, being different aspects of man’s dominion over woman.  

 To the modern mind these statements sound extremely sexist.  Few women appreciate hearing that their husband’s dominion over them is embedded within nature! 

 While it is true that Mesopotamian society was a very male dominated one.  There are no influential queens in Mesopotamia, for example, as one meets in ancient Egypt.  Nevertheless, these comments are not only framed within the context of punishment, but they are also comments on natural consequences and the nature of the human condition.  When a woman chooses to live together with a man, she is subjecting herself to the will of her partner.  

 Women have a choice.  They can forgo matrimony and childbirth.  They can even become single mothers.  As such, they will remain free from male domination.  However, as soon as a woman develops a permanent liaison with a male for the purpose of having children, she subjects herself to her partner/husband.  Becoming pregnant and raising children entails dependency on him for protection and financial security.  It is also not in her interest that he seeks other sexual liaisons, so she is now dependent on his faithfulness.  Moreover, man is physically stronger than woman and built for a more active role in sex.  The Bible’s comments are not sexism, but the reality of the human condition.  

 Finally, it is the turn of Adam, the last to sin and the last to discover its consequences.

“Because you listened to the voice of your wife and ate of the tree about which I commended you “You shall not eat of it”, accursed is the ground because of you; through suffering shall you eat of it all the days of your life.  Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you and you shall eat the grain of the field.  By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread until you return to the ground from which you were taken; for you are dust and to dust shall you return.” (Genesis 3:19)

 A land is fertile and blessed when it has water.  When not fertile – it is cursed.³¹  The land in much of Mesopotamia is sub-desert and agriculture is dependent on bringing water from the great rivers to the fields.  No longer sustained by God, man now has to work the land.  Like the serpent that crawls on his belly and eats dust “all the days of your life,” you/man will continue working “all the days of your life” until your death. 

 With the mention of death and dust - “until you return to the ground from which you were taken” - the story has come back full circle.  After a life of travail, Adam will return to the dust from which he was created.  

“And YKVK Elokim formed man of dust from the ground ……..” (Genesis 2:7)

 Cassuto comments – “you wished to be like God and to transcend the status of earthly creatures, but you must not forget that although you were created in the divine image, your body was derived from the ground, and everything in nature must return in the end to its original source.”²⁵  

Jewish sexuality 

 Within many of the stories of the Bible one finds multiple layers, and this story is no exception.  This is one reason there are so many facets of Torah interpretation.  

 The Garden of Eden story is the Bible’s opening critique of bestiality and homosexuality and its defense of matrimony. 

 Aberrant sexual behavior is a topic raised many times in the Torah.  “Accursed is one who lies with any animal” (Deuteronomy 27:21) is one of the twelve curses that were to be recited in a ceremony on Mount Ebal, close to Shechem, when the Jewish people reached the Holy Land at the time of Joshua.  The Jewish people were also warned on several occasions by the Torah to distance themselves from the sexual practices of their Canaanite neighbors.  It would seem from these statements that sexual relationships were fluid in Canaan and that faithful matrimony had serious competition.  

 In this respect it is worth considering the Gilgamesh myth, since this was a well-known and popular Mesopotamian myth that seems to have been accepting of homosexual tendencies.  As such, it provides a window on views of sexuality at that time.  The Gilgamesh myth was composed well before the Bible was written and was widely known in the Near East.  Gilgamesh was, in fact, an historic Sumerian king, although it is doubtful that he participated in any of the greater-than-life adventures of this epic.  The poem is about two men who have manly adventures together and about Gilgamesh’s search for the secret of immortality following the death of his close friend Enkidu.  Giglamesh is a half-human half-divine despotic king and Enkidu a half-animal half-human commoner.  There is no mention in the epic of any sexual encounters between the two men, but Gilgamesh is absolutely distraught about Enkidu’s death, and the sentiments he expresses for Enkidu are equal to, and even surpass, the feelings that most men would have for a female lover.  Women, on the other hand, are given short thrift in this story.  Prior to meeting Enkidu, Gilgamesh has been sleeping with the brides of the city and Enkidu cements his friendship with Gilgamesh by sleeping with a prostitute.  One cannot but avoid the conclusion that in this entertainment story long-lasting relationships between men were more important than those between men and women.

 The topic of matrimony is not covered as an isolated topic in the Garden of Eden story but is interlinked with other themes, and perhaps somewhat surprisingly, with man’s relationship with the animal world.  

 The relevant passage reads as follows: 

“And YKVK Elokim said: “It is not good that man be alone.  I will make him a helper corresponding to him.”  And YKVK Elokim formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky from the ground and He brought them to man to see what he would call each one (Óיִּקְרָא-לוֹ), and whatever man called each living creature that remained its name.  And man called names to all the cattle and to every beast of the field, but as for man he did not find a helper corresponding to him.” (Genesis 2:18-20)

 In Genesis I, man and woman are formed as sexual beings whose role it is to procreate and populate the world as rulers over a harmonious world in which every living thing has its place and function.  Genesis II points out, however, that there is more to the man/woman relationship than procreation alone.  In Genesis II, YKVK Elokim, the God of relationships, surveys the ideal world He has created and asserts that: “…. It is not good that man be alone, I will make him a helper corresponding to him” (Genesis 2:18).  In a harmonious world of pairs, the loneliness and isolation of man stands out as an imperfection in God’s creation.  

“And YKVK Elokim cast a deep sleep upon the man and he slept, and He took one of his sides and He filled in flesh in its place.  And YKVK Elokim fashioned the side that He had taken from the man into a woman, and He brought her to man.” (Genesis 2:21-23)

 Woman is presented to man as a gift from God to resolve this imperfection.  The type of rational the Bible uses for the creation of woman is a model it will frequently use elsewhere.  Something of value can only be truly appreciated when its absence is also experienced.  Hence, Abraham is given a son only after years of infertility.  The Jewish people are given freedom from Egypt only after years of slavery.  Similarly, God’s gift to man of a woman will only be appreciated once Adam has experienced the loneliness of living without a wife. 

 Moreover, just as Elokim in Genesis I bestowed upon man and woman the physical and intellectual attributes that will enable them to assert their rule over the earth, so woman in Genesis II is also formed in a manner that will permit her to perform her role as partner.  

 The nature of the allegory describing woman’s creation is explained by Cassuto:

“The story of the rib is an allegory of the relationship of the woman to her husband.  Just as the rib is found at the side of the man and is attached to him, even so the good wife, the rib of her husband, stands at his side to be his helper-counterpart, and her soul is bound up with his.”⁴¹ 

 In the sentence that follows, and this can be considered almost as a comment in parenthesis, the Bible emphasizes that these attributes of woman will remain a permanent feature of the man-woman relationship:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

 “Becoming one flesh” is not necessarily a description of sex.  It may also be the clinging together for companionship of two individuals, male and female, who are different but complementary in nature.   

 After the couple’s sin, the procreative possibilities of woman become man’s passport to immortality: 

“And the man called his wife’s name Eve (Chava) (חַוָּה), because she had become the mother of all the living (chai) (חָי).” (Genesis 3:20)

 The Hebrew word for “life” is built into the very name Eve.  Death has been proscribed for man, but he lives on not just in his material accomplishments but also in the values he passes on to his offspring.

 As R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch eloquently points out:

“Individuals die, mankind lives; and it is through woman that man lives on in children.  Adam could well have castigated his wife, yet he names her by the loveliest calling of woman ….  She became the savior from death, the dispenser of life, the guarantor of mankind’s immortality.  She is not only the physical but the spiritual and intellectual perpetuator of mankind’s higher calling…..”²⁶ 

Immortality and hope

 It is often the case that the punch lines for stories in the Pentateuch are at their very end.  This is also the case for the Garden of Eden story, although its ending is perhaps more enigmatic than most others.

“So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden, to work the soil from which he was taken.  And having driven out the man, He stationed at the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim and the flame of the ever-turning sword, to guard (Òלִשְׁמֹר) the way to the Tree of Life.” (Genesis 3:24)

 Many Biblical commentators have given this passage a wide berth because it so puzzling, but this hardly makes the questions less pertinent.  What is the significance of the “cherubim?”  Is the Garden of Eden forever closed or can paradise be regained? 

 These two verses can be compared with a verse at the beginning of the Garden of Eden story when Adam is called upon to “guard” the garden.  

“And the Lord God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and guard it (וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ).” (Genesis 2:15)

 The initial role of Adam was to “guard” the Garden of Eden and preserve it for use.  So, also, the role of the cherubim is to guard paradise for future use.  For if the Garden of Eden is to be closed forever, what reason would there be “to guard the way to the Tree of Life” (Genesis 3:24)?

 Cherubim are found in two places in the Torah.  They guard the Garden of Eden with their flaming ever-turning swords and they were also found in the most holy of places in Judaism.  In the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple, a curtain separated the Holy chamber from the Holy of Holies and on this curtain were pictorial representations of cherubim.⁴⁵  Cherubim were also found within the Holy of Holies.  Within this sacred space was the Ark, which contained a copy of the Torah and the two tablets on which was written God’s covenant “signed”/etched by God Himself.  The cover of the Ark was made from a single piece of gold and from it arose two golden cherubim with wings outstretched.  God communicated with Moses from directly above the ark.  

 The concept of the cherubim (cherubim is the plural in Hebrew of cherub) is an unusual one for the Bible, since Judaism is usually opposed to the use of physical imagery within a religious context.  Nevertheless, cherubim are the exception.  The cherubim represent the portal to the heavenly realms and in Psalms the cherubim are considered the support for God’s throne (Psalms 99:1). 

 But in what way does the paradise of the Garden of Eden still remain potentially open?

 Let us consider again the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh myth.  There is no direct evidence that the Garden of Eden story was polemicizing against aspects of the Gilgamesh myth, although it is a possibility.  Nevertheless, the Bible almost certainly is addressing concerns reflected in the Gilgamesh epic, since the Gilgamesh myth is itself a reflection of concerns of that period.

 The topics of death and immortality were almost certainly of considerable concern to people in the ancient Near East, and this may even have accounted for the popularity of the Gilgamesh epic poem.  There was good reason for this interest.  Life in Mesopotamia was difficult and uncertain.  Agriculture was difficult (which is why the gods wanted to give it up), since much of Mesopotamia is sub-desert.  Water from the two great rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, had to be led by ditches to the fields and these ditches maintained by backbreaking work.  Life was a struggle, and like the gods in their myths, the winnings were to the strongest.  Stripped of its entertainment value, the Gilgamesh myth reflects the pervasive existential pessimism of Mesopotamian society.    

 As described in one of the cuneiform tablets, Gilgamesh makes a perilous journey to the flood hero Utnapishtim who was made immortal by the gods.  In a final tablet, Gilgamesh succeeds in bringing Enkidu back from the land of the dead, but this is only a temporary reincarnation, and Gilgamesh finally accepts that his search for the immortality of his friend is futile.  

"The life that you are seeking you will never find. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping.”²⁷   

 Gilgamesh has come to the realization that his path to immortality lies in his material accomplishments, and in particular the walls of his city that he constructed as monarch.   However, only a king can build the walls of a city.  For a commoner, there was little cheer for an honorable life well led and no hope for respite and restitution in a future afterlife. 

 This is how the netherworld is described in another Mesopotamian myth called Ishtar’s Descent to the Netherworld:

“….. to the dark house, the abode of Irkalla, to the house which none leaves who has entered it, to the road from which there is no way back, to the house wherein the entrants are bereft of life, where dust is their fare and clay their food (where) they see no life, residing in darkness (where) they are clothed like birds, with wings for garments, (and where) over door and blot is spread like dust.”²⁸

 In reality, the netherworld may not have been quite as dismal as this, since the gods of the netherworld could be appeased with gifts from the living.  Nevertheless, this myth is hardly a description of comfort.

But what exactly is the Bible’s answer to the pessimism of Near Eastern society, since at first glance Scripture seems to agree with Gilgamesh that the possibility of immortality is lost forever?  

In reality, the subjects of death and immortality are never fully addressed in the Pentateuch.  There was good reason for this lack of clarity, since Judaism is a religion that extols life and not death.  Nevertheless, there are enough hints within the Garden of Eden story for Jewish theology to expand upon.  Admittedly, implies this story, immortality is out of reach in this world, but this does not mean that immortality is forever unobtainable.   

The happenings after death are poorly defined in Judaism.  It is possible that the early Israelites, like the Mesopotamians and Canaanites, held that the nether-world exists deep within the earth.  Psalms, for example, talks about death being a descent into the “pit.”²⁹  Nevertheless, Jewish tradition believed strongly in the immortality of the soul and that the souls of the righteous return to the heavenly realms.  Rabbinic Judaism was also deeply vested in the concepts of the Resurrection and Messiah.  These concepts were never put into sequential order by either the Mishnah, Midrashim or Talmud.  Nevertheless, it was believed that proximity to God would be achieved by the righteous in the heavenly World to Come and also in the earthly World to Come at the time of Resurrection.  Because of their proximity to God, both these “places” were considered akin to the Garden of Eden.

 In the following Talmudic passage, R Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders of the people in the 2^nd Temple period, expresses concern that his soul may be unworthy of soaring into Gan Eden but would descend to Gehinnam:

“When R. Yohanan ben Zakkai fell ill, his disciples went in to visit him.  When he saw them he began to weep.  His disciples said to him: “Lamp of Israel, pillar of the right hand, mighty hammer!  Why are you weeping?  He replied: ……….  Moreover, there are two roads before me, one leading to Gan Eden and the other to Gehanna, and I do not know by which I shall be taken.  Shall I not weep?”³⁰ 

 In this second passage, also from the Talmud, the Garden of Eden concept is closely related to the Resurrection:

“Ulla Bira'ah said in the name of R. Eleazar: In the days to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will hold a chorus for the righteous and He will sit in their midst in the Garden of Eden and every one of them will point with his finger towards Him, as it is said, And it shall be said in that day: Lo, this is our God, for whom we waited, that He might save us; this is the Lord for whom we waited, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.”³¹

 The Garden of Eden would only be experienced in its totality in these two worlds yet to come, but Jewish theology also understood that the pathway to immortality exists in this world and that the role of man is to serve God in the here and now, despite the suffering, so as to achieve a touch of the Garden of Eden experience.  The Land of Israel, in particular, is a place where God manifests Himself more than in other places on the globe and where a glimpse of the fertility of the Garden of Eden can be experienced:

“Truly the Lord has comforted Zion,

Comforted all her ruins;

He has made her wilderness like Eden,

Her desert like the Garden of the Lord.

Gladness and joy shall abide there,

Thanksgiving and the sound of music.” (Isaiah 51;3)

 It was also understood that the Torah itself had now become the “Tree of Life” and the pathway to eternity:

 As a Midrash states: 

“God hid the tree that granted eternal life to all who ate from it and in its place He gave us His Torah.  This is the Tree of Life, for it says, “She is a Tree of Life for those who grasp her (Proverbs 3:18)  When a man beholds it, and sees in it God’s wisdom, and His righteous and just laws and statutes, he is immediately induced to adopt a new mind, and observe them.  In so doing he acquires for himself reward in this world and in the world to come, as it says: “The Lord commanded us to observe all these laws for our lasting good and to grant us life.” (Deuteronomy 6:24)³² 

 Unlike in the Mesopotamian world, there was never pessimism about life or death in Judaism.  The pathway to Paradise is ajar but closely guarded.  This is the legacy of the Garden of Eden story and its “flaming swords.”

Conclusions

 Man was placed in a paradise and provided with a wife for companionship. Adam and Eve were provided with all the food they needed just by plucking from the trees of the Garden.  Their only tasks were to care for the Garden and to maintain a relationship with God by obeying His will.  If they had done this, they would have remained immortal.  But they were tempted by the snake to disobey God’s command.  This essay suggests that they were tempted to reach into the realm of the supernatural to be on a level with God.  They succumbed to this temptation and their intimate relationship with God was severed.  They were ejected from paradise and their immortality was lost. The Garden of Eden can never be regained, but it is the task of man to recreate the relationship with God originally present in the Garden of Eden to merit the World to Come and the Resurrection.  All this is described or alluded to in the form of a beautiful allegory in which the life of Adam with his earthly beginnings terminates in an earthly end.  In this multifaceted story the reason for the human condition with all its travails is explained, as is human mortality, the attributes of YKVK, God’s justice as measure for measure, Jewish views on sexuality, and the optimism pervading Judaism – all in only 48 sentences! This must be the greatest “story” in the history of religion.

References

1.   For a discussion of this issue, see The Challenge of Creation. Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution by Natan Slifkin, Zoo Torah, Yashar Books, 2^nd edition, chapter 7, Departing from Literalism, p103 

 Rashi and Nachmanides, two major medieval commentators, considered the Garden of Eden story to be a factual account, although Nachmanides appreciated there were symbolic aspects to the story.¹²  Sforno accepts the serpent as being allegorical, although he makes no mention of other parts of the story as being other than factual.  Maimonides, on the other hand, an important Medieval philosopher, legal codifier and rationalist, accepted that the Creation story need not be taken literally in all its aspects.  In his Guide to the Perplexed, II;29, Maimonides writes : “.. the account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all in parts literal.”  (Moses Maimonides, the Guide for the Perplexed, translated by M. Friedlander, On the Language of the Prophets, p211, Dover Publications Inc, New York, 2^nd edition.)  Maimonides also seems to be suggesting that our Sages were aware of this, and this is the reason they adopted a secretive approach to the story.  It is not clear whether he is talking about just chapter 1 of Genesis or both creation stories.  The Ralbag is another commentator who was prepared to accept an allegorical approach to the Garden of Eden story.  

2.    See “Genesis, Chapter 1” and “Noah and the Flood: an Epic Poem of Mythological Proportions” on this website

3.    "Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program". Human Origins Initiative. Smithsonian Institution. http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm. 

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sumer

5.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_tablet

6.  A Commentary on the Book of Genesis by Umberto Cassuto, Second paragraph. The Planting of the Garden of Eden, p121, The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, reprinted 1998

7.  Nachmanides (commentary to Genesis 2:10) considers the Land of Chavila to be to the north and east rather than the south and west of Israel, and therefore dismisses this sentence about Ishmael’s progeny (Genesis 25:8) as being irrelevant to the location of Chavila as described in the second chapter of Genesis.  In support of his position is that an individual named Chavila is mentioned twice in Genesis, once as the grandson of Ham and nephew of Mizraim (Genesis 10:7), and also as a sixth generation of Shem and grandson of Ophir (Genesis 10:28).  The descendants of Shem dwelt in “the mountain to the East” (Genesis 10:30)  The phrase “where the gold is” could identify this particular Chavilah as being in the territory of Ophir, which is mentioned as being a source of gold at the time of King Solomon (Kings I 9:28).  On the other hand, Nachmanides does accept the Pishon as being the Nile (commentary to Genesis 3:22), and interprets the confluence of these rivers in a symbolic manner. 

8.    The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch, commentary to 2:10-14

9.   Rashi’s Commentary to the Torah to Genesis 2:4.  Translation by The Sapirstein Edition of The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary , The Artscroll Series.  

10.  Rashi’s Commentary to the Torah to Genesis 2:8.  Translation by The Sapirstein Edition of The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary , The Artscroll Series.  

11.  http://www.traditiononline.org/news/converted/Volume%207/No.%202/The%20Lonely%20Man.pdf

12. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, part one, From Adam to Noah by Umberto Cassuto, Second paragraph, Introduction p88, The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, reprinted 1998

13.  Rashi’s Commentary to the Torah to Genesis1:1.  Translation by The Sapirstein Edition of The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary , The Artscroll Series.  See also, Bereishis Rabbah 12:15 and 14:1, Shemos Rabbah 30:13, and Pesikta Rabbasi 40.

14. Rashi’s Commentary to the Torah to Genesis1:26.  Translation by The Sapirstein Edition of The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary , The Artscroll Series.  

15.  Rashi’s Commentary to the Torah to Genesis 1:27.  Translation by The Sapirstein Edition of The Torah with Rashi’s Commentary , The Artscroll Series.  

16. God as a Writer in The Horizontal Society. Understanding the Covenant and Alphabetic Judaism by Jose Faur, p21, Academic Press, Brighton, MA 2008. He provides the following additional references: The Şalme in Mesopotamia in Art and Religion by Douglas Van Buren, Orientalia n.s. 10 (1941) and “God, Image of” in Encyclopedia of Judaism, supplement #1.

17.   The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 2:16 and 17

18. Yonatan Grossman, Religious sin, ethical sin and the punishment of exile in The Israel Kashitzky Virtual Beit Midrash at http://www.vbm-torah.org/bereishit.htm

19.  Sforno, Commentary to the Torah on Genesis 3:1    

20.  Job chapters 1-2, I Chronicles 21:1 and Zechariah 3:1

21.  TB. Bava Basra 16a   

22.  Nachmanides Commentary to the Torah on Genesis 2:9

23. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One, From Adam to Noah by Umberto Cassuto, Second paragraph, The planting of the Garden of Eden, p113, The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, reprinted 1998

24. Moses Maimonides, the Guide for the Perplexed, translated by M. Friedlander, Part I chapter II, Dover Publications Inc, New York, 2^nd edition 

25.  A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One, From Adam to Noah by Umberto Cassuto, Second paragraph, The Judgment and the Sentence, p160, The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, reprinted 1998

26. The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 2:24

27.  Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others by Stephanie Dalley, Atrahasis. Tablet 1, Oxford University Press, 2008, p 94

28.  From Ishtar’s Descent to the Netherworld, quoted in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East by Jack M Sasson. Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Mesopotamian Thought by Jo Ann Scurlock, p1883, volume 3 1995, Charles Scribner’s Sons, USA

29.  See for example Psalm 88, verses 5-8: “I am counted with those who go down into the pit; I am like a man who has no strength.  Free among the dead, like the slain who lie in the grave, whom you do not remember any more; and they are cut off from your hand.  You have laid me in the lowest pit, in darkness, in the deeps.”

30.  TB Berechot 28b and Avot de Rabbi Natan 25

31.  TB Ta’anith 31a

32.  Midrash Hagadol Bereishis 3:24