Where’s Waldo?

And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” Genesis 3:11 NASB

Have you eaten – God asks Adam two questions. Neither one of them makes any sense. “Who told you that you were naked?” But no one told him he was naked. In fact, the subject of nakedness never even comes up. Adam should have been nonplussed. What kind of question is this? There isn’t any answer. The second question is even more shocking. Can you imagine that God didn’t know if Adam had eaten from the Tree? Isn’t it obvious? Furthermore, is God suggesting that He is clueless as to the events that occurred while He was off tending to the Pleiades? If by some exegetical miracle we can find a way to address these two seemingly absurd questions, we are still left with the unasked biggest one. “What about sin?”

The word for sin never occurs in this story. In fact, the story seems to be more about punishment than about transgression. The majority of the dialogue is about the curses on the serpent and the land and the results for the man and the woman. Following God’s prescriptive and descriptive announcements, the story seems completely disjointed since the very next action is Adam’s naming the woman. Something seems to be implied but never spoken, that is, a consciousness of sin. Why doesn’t the story ever actually address this?

The answer might be that sin as transgression of divine commandment was already part of ancient thought. Consider the following:

“Who is there who has not sinned against his god, who has constantly obeyed the commandments? Every man who lives is sinful.”

“A sinless child was never born or its mother.”

“”Forgive my sin, my iniquity, my wickedness and my offence. Loose my fetters, secure my deliverance. Let my prayers and my supplications come to you (and) may all your grace be with me. Those who see me in the street will glorify your name.”

“It is the nature of the servant to commit sin, it is the nature of the Lord to be gracious.”[1]

All of these are Sumerian or Egyptian texts. Clearly the idea of sin existed long before Moses and the people left Egypt. Perhaps the Genesis account of the “fall” doesn’t mention sin because it was already part of the assumptions of the people. Perhaps the story is important for its explanation of the relationship between God, man and woman rather than its account for the origin of something unnamed.

It’s fairly common among believers to think that the Genesis story is the beginning of God’s interaction with men. The story purports to be just that. But the story relies on unwritten assumptions; assumptions that were already in place when the story was developed. Making sense of the story requires prior understanding of these concepts. This is but one more reason for viewing this story as it would have been understood by the children of Israel after Egypt. As a standalone, the story just doesn’t make sense, but coupled with centuries of cultural assimilation, the story fills in what other legends leave out.

God has been at work among men for a very long time. We might not always see His hand in the development of spiritual awareness in pagan cultures, but it seems to be there nonetheless. Consciousness of trespass and sin is much older than the writing of the Genesis text even if the text casts its explanation back to the beginning. Can you deal with that? Can you allow God to be at work in cultures far older than the Hebrews? Can you reconcile Sumerian and Egyptian texts with Hebrew explanations? Or do you need to insist that everything had to begin with “In the beginning?”

Topical Index: sin, Genesis 3:11, beginning

[1] Terrence Fretheim, God and the World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Abingdon Press, 2005), p. 72.

TRAVEL:  As you read this, I will be heading for the airport (again) to fly to Athens and pick up the Azamara Journey for a three week lecture series.  As a result, internet access will be severely limited until I return.  Have fun without my comments.