A Pastoral Proposal for an Evangelical Theology of Freedom. Albert J.D. Walsh

foolishness! However, when considered from the vantage point of graced freedom, this narrative unfolds a drama that stands in the foreground of salvation history, disclosing as it does both the essential nature of “sin” and the abolition of graced freedom, as the basis of covenantal obedience. It is in the subtlety of this story that one discovers the depth of the tragedy that is the defeat of graced freedom and the absurdity of both “evil” and “sin” as shadowed realities. We propose to explore and explicate this narrative as an etiology for the abolition of graced freedom, and, in all of the intricacy and suspense the story entails, elucidate those ways in which the story is a mirror image of the plight of the “fallen” human across the great span of generations. The ease with which Eve (and Adam) relinquish God’s graced freedom is not only genuinely unsettling, but is also in its implications a warning to all those who assume that one can only surrender such graced freedom after a prolonged and dreadful battle with temptation.

      The surrender of graced freedom begins, not with some dramatic demonstration of the power of temptation over the fragile nature of the vulnerable human soul, but with—what amounts to—a casual conversation, a kind of theological engagement, a discussion regarding the exact content and meaning of God’s word, promise, and providential grace. For our purposes, there seems to be little value in entertaining an exploration of this passage as the “origin of evil,” as this would merely distract us from following the narrative as it stands in its present canonical form. Nevertheless, we note that the serpent is referred to as a creature that God has made, which would imply that it was—like the rest of the created order—in its originality good (i.e., conforming to the purpose for which it was created) in the sight of God. It is critical to our purposes to see the manner in which the “serpent” was—as a good creature of the Lord—the first to surrender that freedom with which it was imbued at creation, in both its own participation in that which was contrary to its creaturely-covenantal obedience to the will of God for its being, and in advancing that which would foreshadow the abolition of graced freedom on the part of Eve and Adam. What is dramatically demonstrated is the horrific manner in which freedom is the first casualty in the introduction of both temptation and consequent sin into the created order itself; the abolition of graced freedom on the part of Eve and Adam is a mirror image of this initial surrender of a sacred trust.

      Considering, in more specific terms, the conversation that leads to this tragic event we begin, of course, with the serpent’s counsel: “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?’” The absurdity of the query is patently evident; should Eve and Adam be prohibited from eating from any of the trees of the garden, they would perish! As of equal, if not surpassing importance, the question posed by the serpent directly contradicts the command of God (see Gen. 1:29–30); it is, in its essentials, the opposite of what God has graciously provided and commanded of his covenant partner. One should not be too hasty in criticizing Eve for failing to see the absurdity in the serpent’s logic, as, with all genuine intent, she might have undertaken this conversation in order to defend the honor and integrity of God’s word and providential intention; one could raise the question as to what constitutes the purpose of obedience (as graced freedom before God), if not a willingness to engage in apologetics!

      Yet one readily sees the fallacy of such logic when considering the full reply offered by Eve to the serpent’s query: “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” If the serpent’s question is an absurdity, the reply of Eve is equally telling. She has—for reasons that are not stated in the narrative—added to the command of the Lord; nowhere in the text thus far has there been any reference to “touching” the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden as being equally forbidden. This additional wording heightens the demand of God’s prohibition, making God’s command almost as absurd in its implications as is the question of the serpent! Eve’s editorializing of God’s word also implies advancing beyond the boundary of her authority established by the Lord; in the misuse of her graced freedom she extends God’s direct command with impunity (one recalls the stern admonition found at the close of John’s Revelation, 22:18–19).

      Now comes the moment of the turn, as the serpent uses words that directly countermand the word of God; he says to Eve, “You surely will not die.” Graced freedom continues to hang in the balance, as the fact of Eve’s continuing discussion—and even her unfortunate addition of wording to God’s command—has not yet led to the surrender of such freedom. First the serpent, as a creature of God, further demonstrates its own capitulation of freedom as it engages in the “lie,” which will remain at the heart of all manifestations of evil and for all time; the “lie” is fundamentally that God is himself untrustworthy, deceitful with his creatures, and intent on their obeying his will by use of threat—and not as the direct consequence of graced freedom. The “lie” is that one is truly “free” only to the extent that he or she has the “choice” to obey or follow his or her own path—or that suggested by another!