Were Eve and Adam Created Immortal?

July 9, 2011 By 22 Comments

Genesis 2–3 recounts the famous creation story, dubbed by modern scholars the J account, of the human (adam), his wife, and their interactions with the Israelite deity YHWH god.  To summarize: YHWH god forms the man from clay (adamah) and then places him in a garden that contains, apparently, two special trees, among others, one called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the other the tree of life.  He then fashions a woman.  The humans are commanded by the deity not to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (actually, if you read the story carefully, only the man is given this command), although they are free to eat from the other trees in the garden.  If they should eat from the forbidden tree’s fruit, however, they will surely die, for reasons left unexplained.  However, the wise serpent is also resident in this divine garden sanctuary and he informs the woman that should she eat from the forbidden tree she will not die but become wise like the gods.  She eats some of the fruit and gives it to the man, her husband.  The serpent, as it turns out, was right–the fruit of said tree does bring divine wisdom.  However, YHWH god is none to pleased with the humans’ actions and banishes them from the garden.  The text then states that YHWH god put a heavenly guardian to block access to the tree of life so as to prevent the humans from eating of it and living forever.

This fascinating text has elicited numerous interpretations by readers over the centuries.  I briefly want to highlight one interpretational possibility, and then I invite your comments and your own personal views on the text.

It is commonly assumed that the man and the woman were created immortal or became so when they resided in the garden. However, the text never states that they are immortal.  Indeed, they can certainly die, as YHWH god informs them when he tells the man not to eat from the tree.  Additionally, it never says that they ate from the tree of life; in fact, it says just the opposite–YHWH god prevented them from doing so. Further, it is particularly striking that this account, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, connects the failure of humanity to obtain immortality by means of a life-giving plant with the actions of a serpent (serpents shed their skin and thus were considered by some in the ancient world to be a symbol for immortality; cf. the story of Moses raising a serpent image before the Israelites to heal any who should look upon it).  This parallel may suggest that the humans, like the mortal hero Gilgamesh, were never supposed to acquire immortality like the gods.  Further, the J source is very interested in maintaining strict boundaries between the divine and human worlds (cf. the Tower of Babel story).  It might make sense, therefore, that YHWH god doesn’t want them to have immortality via the tree of life, just as he did not want them to be wise by eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Indeed, it was commonly understood in the ancient world, including among the ancient Israelites, that a primary difference between humans and gods was mortality versus eternal life.  According to Gen 2–3, then, the humans bridged one gap but could not close the other.  Finally, we know that these two characters do in fact die later on.  For more on this way of looking at the text, see John Day, “The Development of Belief in Life after Death in Ancient Israel,” in After the Exile, 1996, pgs. 236–237.

Although this story is clearly a myth (in the scholarly sense of the term, not in the popular sense that it is the opposite of what is “true”) and simply cannot be taken as an actual accounting of how God made the cosmos and humanity, I don’t believe that makes it a religiously or spiritually useless text.  Many insightful and creative spiritual and theological readings of the text have been produced by scholars, theologians, and religious persons since the text’s composition.  2 Nephi 2 is a particularly good example for the Mormon audience. Of course, there are views in the text that are scientifically, ethically, or historically wrong or incorrect.  However, I do think there is value in this text for Mormon theologizing and that it still has more “fruit” to yield in that endeavor if read with new eyes.  Hence I am not claiming that any one  particular reading of the text is the only “right” one.  Indeed, its ability to be read in a multitude of ways is at least one reason, in my opinion, that it is such an engaging and timeless story.

So do you see any benefits from reading the text in this manner?  How do you like to read this story, and why?

 

 

Filed Under: Bible, Doctrine, History, Mormon Culture, Mormon Studies, Personal Issues, Scripture, Speculation, Studying Religion, Theology, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , 22 Comments
  • http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/ TYD

    F.Y.I., I think there are some serious theological problems if the text is read in the manner described in the post. However, I will wait to list all of those.

    Best wishes,

    TYD

  • http://blakeostler.com Blake

    Three problems. If the tree of life is parallel to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then why doesn’t god YHWH-Elohim command them not to eat of the tree of life? They are only prohibited from the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Second, they are cast out of the garden to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of life precisely so they won’t live forever — with the implication that if they stay in the garden they will live forever. Alma 42 adds the gloss that they would live forever in their sins – that is, with the results of their free choice to eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Third, penalizing someone by imposing death and mortality makes no sense unless one is immortal. In other words, what sense does it make to say to someone — “if you do it, you’ll be you.” The penalty only makes sense if the penalty is a change of prospects for their mortality — just as in Psalm 82 for the sons of God.

  • http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/ TYD

    Blake,

    Thanks for your comment. I think you make some great points.

    If, however, I were forced to defend the interpretation presented above as the one intended by the person(s) primarily responsible for this story in the relatively fixed literary form as we now possess it (whether or not you take it as the independent source J or as a redacted component of the larger Pentateuchal composition, or simply as an independent literary unit), I would say that the fact that YHWH god doesn’t tell them specifically not to eat from the fruit of the tree of life is not a make or break argument against the above interpretation–there are a lot of narrative/plot gaps in this story. I might also suggest that it was presumed in the ancient Near East in general, and ancient Israel in particular, that humans simply do not have eternal life/immortality. Thus perhaps in the “author’s” mind there may be no reason for YHWH god to make the command explicit; that is, in the author’s socio-historical context, the idea that they weren’t immortal–for humans always eventually die–may be implicit. Moreover, according to this line of reasoning, obviously they hadn’t ate from the tree of life for they do in fact die later on (and the text never mentions that they did eat from the tree of life either). Additionally, the J source seems interested in maintaining distinctions between the divine and human realm; if the first couple had immortality in the garden that would be a serious collapse of the divine/human boundary. As the Psalmist says, God created them a little lower than the (immortal) gods.

    As for your second argument, without engaging in Alma 42′s fascinating interpretation of the story (I enjoyed your exegesis of this passage in your book, by the way), I could say that the fact that “they are cast out of the garden to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of life precisely so they won’t live forever” is exactly the point–they are prevented, according to J’s theology, from ever having immortality, of ever bridging that divine-human gap.

    As for your third argument, the original commandment to the man never says that he will live forever if he doesn’t eat from the fruit of the forbidden tree; only that if he does eat from it he will die in that day. Moreover, you seem to think that the later statement of consequences to the couple is a “curse.” I think I actually agree with you (for grammatical, theological, and narrative reasons), and I think that is one of the main problems with this interpretation of the story. However, not all scholars see it as a “curse.” Some see it as merely a statement of the consequences that the couple will now experience/realize for having received (divine) wisdom (e.g., Carol Newsom, IIRC).

    Finally, my point in the above post was not to make the claim that this is the original or correct meaning of the story. I only wanted to see if there might be positive theological results of reading the text if viewed from this perspective. I have some theological problems with it (although I also have theological problems with the more standard interpretations), but I thought it would be an interesting exercise, if nothing else, nonetheless.

    Best wishes,

    TYD

  • Howard

    I read it as a metaphor of two paths the easy blissful one that we are admonished to take by church leadership abstinence which preserves innocence in the form of naivete and the more difficult path of enlightenment indulgence which is of course the path that leads to personal knowledge of both good and evil.

  • http://blakeostler.com Blake

    YTD – you’re certainly right that there is a lot of play in the text — and I’m convinced that it was a drama and not merely a text. Regardless, if God was so concerned about the immortality that would be conferred by the Tree of Life, then why does he expressly state that they can eat the fruit of every tree except of good and evil? It seems that the express permission to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life belies the view that God was concerned about their immortality. The concern about the Tree of Life arises only after their eyes are opened. It seems to be the combination of capacity for evil and immortality that is the problem — like Alma says.

  • http://jettboy.blogspot.com Jettboy

    He didn’t care if they ate of the Tree of Life at first because they were immortal at the start. Once they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then they became mortal (as sin is scripturally linked with death). In order to keep them from forever remaining in their sins, the Tree of Life was guarded and Adam and Eve kicked out into a mortal planet.

  • Clark

    I think the problem with that reading (which I’ve considered myself in the past) is that no opposition to eating the tree of life is ever given. It’s only after eating the tree of knowledge that an angel starts guarding that. The idea seems to be less that of immortality than immortality while fallen. At least in the structure of the narrative. Indeed I think the narrative can easily be seen as presupposing that the fruit of the tree of life is their normal diet and that’s why they are immortal.

  • http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/ TYD

    Jettboy,

    Thanks for sharing your views. I appreciate your raising the issue of the connection between sin and death, and it is worth considering further. I will think about that some more today. Although, I might point out, Genesis nowhere calls their defiant action a “sin.”

    Blake,

    1) It seems, then, that, technically speaking, the first humans were not created immortal but “amortal” (if that is a word), because they in fact could die under certain circumstances, for instance, if they were to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    2) If I were to continue to make points in favor of the idea that the first couple were not created immortal, I might suggest again re-reading Gen 3:22ff., where YHWH god specifically says that in order to prevent the humans from fully bridging the divine-human gap (which they partially did by becoming wise) the tree of life be guarded by a divine watchman–suggesting, perhaps, that the first couple were not immortal when they ate from the forbidden fruit, for why would they need to eat from the tree of life if they were already immortal? The Hebrew word pen (“lest”) in Gen 3:22 may support this kind of interpretation. Therefore, I might question your statement that “[i]t seems that the express permission to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life belies the view that God was concerned about their immortality,” because the text itself never says that they did eat from the tree of life nor does God give them express permission; at best, it is only implied permission. But I do agree with you that, one way or another, YHWH god was concerned with their immortality.

    3) You also said, “[t]he concern about the Tree of Life arises only after their eyes are opened,” and that is an interesting point. But from the viewpoint that the first couple were created mortal and didn’t eat from the fruit of the tree of life, perhaps it was only a concern for them after they ate the forbidden fruit because it was only then they had come to understand what their mortal state entailed (i.e., death), something that they couldn’t realize before they had become wise like the gods (Gen 3:22). This way of looking at the text also seems to harmonize fairly well with the ancient motif of humans coming close, but never actually attaining immortality (e.g., in Gilgamesh and [probably] Etana).

    Again, my point is not that this is the “original” or only “correct” interpretation of the text. But it strikes me as a plausible way to read the text. If that is the case, I wonder (again) what sort of positive theological readings we might draw from the text from this perspective. Perhaps there is nothing (I certainly have some theological problems with this perspective and I will list those later), but maybe there is something worthwhile in it for Mormon theologizing. What do you think?

    Best wishes,

    TYD

  • http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/ TYD

    Clark,

    See my comment just above in response to Blake. I touch on some points related to your arguments.

    One problem is that the assumption that their normal diet was the fruit of the tree of life is that that is never actually specified. It may be implied, but, if nothing else, it is worth recognizing that that can only be assumed since it is never made explicit.

    Finally, you said: “The idea seems to be less that of immortality than immortality while fallen. At least in the structure of the narrative.” I agree that this is a valuable and coherent way of reading the text. I think Blake has done a good job expounding this viewpoint in his books on Mormon thought, and I particularly appreciated his exegesis of Alma 42, etc. But again, I am not looking to prove that the interpretation in the OP is the “original” or “correct” one (indeed the points both you and Blake raise are significant), only what positive and negative theological implications it might have for Mormon theologizing.

    Best wishes,

    TYD

  • Clark

    TYD, I agree that the story is vague. I think the diet doesn’t matter too much until the conflict between sin and immortality arises. (This is a big deal in Lehi’s reading too) However don’t you think that the fact it isn’t specified means it’s not a big deal in the story? That is to claim they are mortal within the story (which I think would be significant) requires something to point at.

    It is interesting though that the bit about death is more about immediate death rather than necessarily introducing death.

    To me the more interesting part of this way of reading things is the question about the non-humans and whether they were immortal.

  • chris

    Adam and Even were flesh and bone.

    I think the more important question out of this, is when you are resurrected are you immortal?

    Yes, but I’d also wonder if No is also a possibility. Is it possible to disobey after the resurrection? I would hope so, otherwise we’d have no agency. Now, I understand some would say, “But you’d never be placed in an experience where your disobedience would merit expulsion after the resurrection if you were of the mindset to disobey anyway.” That reasoning doesn’t measure up to life, so I don’t know why it would measure up to the afterlife. God places us in situations now where we can obey or disobey, so I would assume disobedience would always be a real option then as well.

    And then I’ll come full circle on this thought, and suggest that if one can disobey when resurrected, it sure would have some interesting concepts for what it means to “fall from grace”.

    I’ll leave the rest to you!

  • Mark D.

    I tend to think that this whole account, read in anything resembling a literal manner, is far and away the most ridiculous passage of scripture ever recorded. So I just can’t bring myself to care whether the text says they were immortal or not.

    Everything useful about the doctrines of the creation and the fall must be gathered from the implications referred to in other passages of scripture, consistency, and general common sense.

  • CEF

    I would be greatly interested in what you mean Mark. I do not believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal story in every way, but to me, if there was not an A&E, then I think Christianity breaks down completely. What do you think?

  • chris

    CEF – Think there was an Adam and Eve, but I think it’s pretty easy to look at the temple where we each consider ourselves Adam and Eve, and then look at life and we can view each of ourselves as Adam and Eve, each transgressing as a necessary part of life, each falling at some point from innocence into sin, so we can experience pain and suffering, and the miracle of redemption. The story and concept of Adam and Eve would still be illustrative in the “parable” form its told in the Temple and in the scriptures in multiple places because you can look at your life through the lens of that parable.

    Of course, I could believe all the above is true, and even add some more good to it that there was an Adam and Eve and just add we clearly don’t understand everything about it, everything about the surrounding world, or even everything about the timeline. I wouldn’t see how someone would choose to swallow the camel of an idea that we can be raised from the dead because a book was written about a man named Jesus who claimed to do such and such 2000 years ago, but there’s no way there could ever be an Adam and Eve because DNA and Geology proves otherwise. (I’d assume DNA and Geology would have something to say about an infinite atonement too)

  • CEF

    Hello Chris, thank you for offering your thoughts. Here is where I am coming from with the Adam and Eve thing.

    If there is no such thing as our first parents, then just when and where did God first interact with man to give him commandments to keep, with penalties for breaking them? And how do we know about it?

    To me, for Christianity to work, God had to interact with man at some point, otherwise what is the atonement based on?

  • chris

    CEF – Like I said, I’m not arguing for it, but I’d be ok if it turned out that way. As far as your question, when did God interact with man, he interacts with all his children, we just don’t notice.

    “And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.”

    Everyone coming into the worlds receives the spirit to give them light to guide and direct them. In addition to that, through our experiences in the world, the spirit can and will enlighten us if we listen to it.

    Next verses..

    “And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father. And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you…”

    So as we let the spirit direct us, it will lead us to truths. Ultimately, that may or may not be to the Church, depending on the time and location we are born in, but where possible, we learn of the covenants, we learn of our role. We learn of our own individual falls, and we learn how to be redeemed from them.

  • Mark D.

    CEF, Clearly the doctrine of the Fall is one of the key doctrines of Christianity. But exactly who was involved in the original fall seems to be a matter of speculation. If I were to guess, the first fall represents the failure of a pre-mortal spiritual society who knows how many eons ago, and the plan of redemption was established as a consequence.

    That, for example, is practically a necessary implication of taking the whole idea of no death before the fall seriously. Death on this earth has been taking place for more than six hundred million years, and the death of humans or pre-humans for what, several hundred thousand?

    The whole idea that there was an actual garden with only two people in it, that there were two trees with fruit that had metaphysical consequences, and that the whole choice was a setup where the outcome was known in advance, and worst of all the idea that we would all have been worse off if Adam/Eve/whoever hadn’t ever sinned in the first place seems extremely dubious to me.

    If the Fall (however inevitable) doesn’t represent real sin, and real failure the idea of redemption from the fall is superficial at best. D&C 20:19-20 gives a better perspective, in my opinion:

    And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship. But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.

    That is something that makes perfect sense. I suspect that there were an Adam and Eve, who lived several thousand years ago, but I don’t know how to understand them as the parents of the human race.

    In general, I believe any attempt to understand Genesis 3 / Moses 4 in terms of the actions and choices of two individuals is of net negative doctrinal value – often so negative that sometimes I think we would be better if those two chapters were missing and the only thing we knew about the Fall was a summary from other sources. We are always trying to redeem Adam and Eve’s reputation in a way that gets the whole thing tied up in knots, and worse destroys rather than enhances the doctrine of the fall in terms of sin and the need for redemption and the atonement.

    The latter is the only truly important thing about the doctrine of the fall that I can see. The rest seems to be fodder for endless Sunday School debates that shed no light on anything, and given our present level of knowledge, makes Christianity look hopelessly out of touch with reality, and Mormonism (in that respect) even more so – ranking very high on the list of doctrines that draw intense skepticism and loss of testimony in young people. It is like the whole chapter needs a prominent disclaimer that says: Not to be taken literally, but rather as a guide to general principles.

  • CEF

    Thank you Chris. I am not sure if what you said works for me, but it does give me something to think about. I appreciate that.

    Mark, I appreciate your candor and brutal honesty. I guess I see things more along the same lines as you do. I have been working on an idea to try and make more sense out of the creation story, but I have found it very difficult to tie it all together.

    When I get more time, I will share it, hoping people smarter that I am can help work out more of the details that might help it flow better and poke holes in it, showing what might work and what will not work. But I will say this, much of what we have traditionally been taught to believe will have to be altered/changed/dropped to make any sense at all out of the story of Adam and Eve.

  • Mark D.

    Thanks, CEF.

  • Robert

    Why didn’t God just block access to the tree of knowledge in the first place.

  • chris

    Robert – are you LDS?
    Give 2 Nephi Ch. 2 a read…

    For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. …

    …it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

    Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

  • Robert

    Blocking the tree of life is not allowing man to act for himself