Follow Up: A Deeper Reading of Genesis 3

I want to follow up on my earlier post Why the LCMS Can’t Preach with a few caveats. First off, I understand the irony, and perhaps the appearance of hypocrisy, in advocating that we cultivate a love of words and restrain our lust for images and social media on social media and that I likewise advocated for better composition in a piece that wasn’t very well composed or edited. I am sorry for that and hope it wasn’t distracting from the argument. In my mind, all my posts on this blog, including that one and this one, aren’t essays and certainly aren’t scholarly articles. They aren’t books or sermons either. They are quick hit pieces in an on-going conversation. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they could be improved greatly by editing and research and time, but I don’t have the time or energy for that at the moment and I think that they can have value in helping us think about these things even if they aren’t as good as they might be.

Next, I want to give an example of the sort of exegesis of Genesis 3 that I often hear from good pastors in the LCMS. I do not mean to condemn those who hold this idea, nor am I picking on any one person. I have heard this idea dozens and dozens of times. It doesn’t result in heresy. It doesn’t even necessarily result in a bad sermon. Nonetheless, I think it demonstrates an easy, shallow reading of the text that sneaks up on us and which we must fight against and for which we must cultivate a better reading ability. Here goes. Genesis 3 is often read by modern confessional Lutherans in a way that I find shallowly literal and to be an actual misreading.

What these commentators note is that Eve’s report to the serpent of what God said is different than what is recorded in Genesis 2. In Genesis God is recorded as saying:

Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die (Ge 2:16-17, NKJ).

But when Eve responds to the serpent’s question she says:

We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die” (Ge 3:2–3, NKJ).

The commentators then leap to the idea that God never said that they should not touch the fruit and that Eve’s sin is that she added to the word of God.

Here is the problem. We don’t know everything that God said to Adam or if He ever spoke directly to Eve prior to this. We do know that more was said than what is recorded even though we don’t know what. It is entirely possible that God did say this exact thing to Eve or even that Adam, as the ordained preacher and head of the household, added this and did so without sin.

The story doesn’t hinge on Eve’s supposed addition. The story does expect that we will fill in some blanks, that we will recognize the movement and character of the argument. Ancient literature does not have the plethora of indications such as “he said,” “he said,” etc, that modern readers expect and need. Paper was too expensive. Readers were expected to pay close attention to the details in order to follow conversations and also to fill in gaps that were meant to be rather obvious and therefore not in need of being said.

This story hinges on Eve listening to the devil and then thinking that she can see for herself that the tree is good for food, is pleasant to the eyes, and is desirable to making her wise. Her sin is that she listens to the devil and lets him convince her to take for herself what she thinks is being withheld. Thus deceived her eyes are “opened” as the devil had said that they would be. She, who did not know evil, now knows evil in the form of her own nakedness and is still deceived. Her eyes are “opened” and she is blind. Seeing, she does not see. This is illustrated further when she tries to hide her shame from God with fig leaves and comes to the mistaken conclusion that God hates her and is coming to kill her.

God didn’t change. Eve did. Eve didn’t become seeing; she became blind. She died spiritually and was in imminent danger of eternal death. She was deceived by the serpent but he was right about this much: she knows evil. Her sin was being deceived. That is how she confesses when confronted by God. In response to this confession, God promises the eternal death of the Seed that would come through her in order to restore her to His fellowship. Then, in the light of that promise, she can see again. Then, clothed with the fruit of sacrifice, she becomes the mother of all the living, that is, of all the faithful.

How different is that reading? Not that much. It is not as though the idea that Eve’s sin was adding to the Word of God rather than listening to the devil is off 180 degrees. Such a teaching is not false and is in fact necessary. We need to be warned that we must not make the laws or ceremonies of men equal to or supplanting the laws of God. God’s Word cannot be broken or added to. Nonetheless, I think reading this idea into this text, where it doesn’t quite belong, is caused by not reading deeply or carefully. It comes from a strange literalism that approaches Holy Scripture in a way that is largely lacking in sanctified, informed imagination. Such a reading misleads us into thinking that we are reading precisely and carefully and paying attention to every detail when, in fact, we are often not paying enough attention to the details or to what is actually being conveyed.

The antidote isn’t merely to study dogmatics or even to study the Scriptures, though those both need to be done. The antidote, I think, is in cultivating our imaginations and learning better how to read. Maybe there was a day and time when these things came naturally to us. Whether there was or not, I do not think they come naturally now.