Analysis of Genesis 3:1–7
After narrating the creation of the world and all things in it, the book of Genesis focuses in on a set of specific events in the garden. We find the serpent conversing with the woman who has been placed in the garden with man. The serpent is characterized as “crafty.” This English translation does not preserve the ambiguity of the Hebrew term (arum), which is not always used with negative connotations (Prov 12:23; 13:8; 14:15). As modern readers, we know the story and recognize that the serpent is an agent of chaos. Within the narrative, however, it is important to allow the character of the serpent to emerge since it is not necessarily clear that the woman automatically recognizes the serpent as her enemy.54 Part of what the woman is trying to determine is whether the serpent represents life or death.
The serpent’s line of questioning takes advantage of this ambiguity. While the first question has often been understood as clarifying the content of God’s command to the human couple, there is good reason to understand the question in a slightly different manner. The Hebrew construction that begins the serpent’s question in Gen 3:1 may be better understood as a rhetorical interjection that highlights the exaggerated nature of the statement. In other words, it is not so much that the serpent is trying to clarify the original content of the command. Instead, the serpent is attempting to highlight the absurdity and severity of that command.55
Reading the initial question in this manner, the serpent’s words might be paraphrased as “What more could God demand! Has he said, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden!?!” In essence, the serpent is implying that by denying the human couple the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God is withholding something essential and might as well starve the human couple. The serpent has accused God of being less-than fully benevolent in keeping the human couple from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
In this light, the woman’s response is not a misquotation, but an interpretation of the command. The woman does not doubt God’s benevolence, but suggests that God has prohibited the tree’s fruit for the good of her and her husband. The combination of “eat” and “touch” is found again in legislative contexts which prohibit the handling or eating of various unclean animals (Lev 11:8; Deut 14:8). The use of this language suggests that the woman is drawing a connection between the nature of the tree (i.e. that it is unclean) and the rationale for God’s prohibition. The tree has some inherent flaw that makes it deadly to the human couple.
Having listened to the woman’s explanation, the serpent now makes explicit his accusation against God. There is nothing wrong with the tree. God’s prohibition is motivated by self-interest and a desire to deprive the man and woman so that they do not reach their full potential. God wants to keep them under his thumb. The man and the woman will never achieve their highest stature unless they break loose from God’s command and begin to fulfill their own destiny.56
As the woman examines the tree, the plausibility of her explanation begins to fade. The tree was “good for food” and “a delight to the eyes” (Gen 3:6). Being persuaded by the serpent’s wisdom and trusting now that the serpent is indeed an agent of life, she also recognizes that the tree offers wisdom (v. 6). Unfortunately, the woman misjudges the serpent. Rather than bringing life and wisdom, the serpent points the human couple toward chaos. By choosing to believe that God’s order was wrong and that they should somehow be able to transcend their position in the cosmos to be equal with God, the human couple disobey God’s command. They misrecognize their place in the world, doubt God, and, as a consequence, must now live a cursed existence in which God, humanity, and the rest of creation are not rightly related.
The Fall and Structural Evil in the Old Testament
Pharaoh’s efforts to curtail the multiplication of Israel not only represents the evil musings of one man, but also the sort of evil that derives from a particular societal order. The purpose of the increased labor and genocide implemented by Pharaoh against Israel was to curtail the growth of the nation and to prevent Israel from joining Egypt’s enemies in the event of an attack. The comparison of the previous Pharaoh and the Pharaoh “who knew not Joseph” highlights the second Pharaoh’s dismissal of God. The systematic oppression of the Israelites reflects the Pharaoh’s dependence on his own power to provide security for Egypt. That this dependence manifests itself in the inhumane treatment of Israel is rooted in the underlying assumption that what Pharaoh has built must be protected at all costs.
Pharaoh’s program against Israel is rooted in taken-for-granted assumptions about the world and God’s activity in it. The political and economic dimensions of Pharaoh’s activities are not simply an individual perversion, but the extension of the logic of a system dependent on tyranny, military strength, and material production. In other words, Pharaoh has no viable choice, but to oppress Israel because of his commitment to a particular way of life. Egypt could not stand unless Pharaoh had a workforce that was constantly working to produce wealth. Similarly, this workforce had to be constrained because Egypt’s security was guaranteed not by its faith in the one true God, but by its military capacity to defeat those who opposed it. This way of thinking denies God’s ability to provide without labor and to protect without military might. Pharaoh, despite being given alternatives, would have been hard pressed to shake off the logic of the system that he had seen build Egypt into an impressive empire.
Structural evil is also evident in the pronouncements of the prophets against the established systems of power which exhibit and are guided by human rather than divine wisdom.57 The frequent condemnation of oppressive practices designed to increase personal wealth and security, injunctions related to the perversion of religious practice, and general dismissal of God’s power through dependence on political alliances, characterize a social system with underlying assumptions concerning the value of material wealth and militaristic strength. Worse still is the false theology that, at times, arose in relation to religious structures. At various points in Israel’s history, the people and their leaders attempted to use spiritual disciplines such as fasting and Sabbath to manipulate God as if he were obligated to respond to their piety. Similarly, the people and their leaders also mistakenly thought that God was somehow tied to Israel in a way that precluded judgment.
Jeremiah 7, for instance, critiques the underlying assumptions related to the association of the physical temple with God’s continued blessing and protection of Israel. The false sense of security fostered by the existence of the temple reinforces the practice of false worship and the continuation of . God’s continued presence, as witnessed by the physical temple, was seen as an implicit legitimation of Israelite practice. The role of the prophet in this case is to correct and reorient the community’s vision by helping them to recognize rightly their misplaced assumptions and providing them with appropriate theological perspectives which would reshape their character and motivate faithful action.
The Fall and Structural Evil in the New Testament
Romans 1:18–32 demonstrates a dynamic similar to that described regarding structural evil. Here the natural is exchanged for the unnatural as a consequence of human disobedience. This exchange and God’s subsequent giving over of humanity to a “depraved mind” resulted not only in the development of a disposition toward wickedness, but in the approval of those who practice such wickedness (v. 32). This approval may well be akin to what Augustine identified as the “Well done! Well done!” of mankind in relation to Jas 4:4. He references the “well done” again in his discussion of offices. Concerning the “third kind of temptation” which