Fences
“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.’” Genesis 3:3 NASB
Touch it – So why did Eve (Havvah) misrepresent God’s command? Why did she add “or touch it”? The typical explanation suggests the Havvah took it upon herself to provide this extra restriction. She enlarged the commandment and was thus responsible for not accurately repeating what God said. The blame falls on her.
But maybe this approach is overly influenced by a predisposition for patriarchal exoneration. Maybe theologians have been too quick to pass sentence on women as the originators of sin. After all, Paul clearly blames Adam for deliberate violation but contends that Havvah was tricked (seduced) into disobedience. My friend Keith pointed me to Abraham Heschel’s comment on this verse. “The story as told in ARN A1 is that Adam, having been instructed by God not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, decided to make the prohibition more stringent and told Eve that they were not permitted even to touch the tree. This gave the serpent the opening he needed. He touched the tree, and of course nothing happened, and this discredited everything that Adam had told her.”[1]
Ah, this changes things. Adam was assigned the duty and responsibility of the commandment. Is it possible that Adam added a fence to God’s word? It seems more likely than the argument that Havvah usurped Adam’s instructional role on her own initiative. She simply repeated correctly what Adam added. The intention was good but the result was disastrous. If you don’t know exactly what God says, you open the door to sin’s attack. Good intentions are not the same as accurate understanding.
What do we learn from this peek into an alternative storyline? First, it is my observation that most people know “kinda” what Scripture says. They have the general idea but when they are asked to repeat the verse, they usually either miss words or add to them. They don’t know exactly what the text says and this usually leads to confusion and error. Every word is important – and so are the words that are not in the text. Exegesis begins with knowing precisely what the Scripture says. Obedience requires accuracy.
Secondly, I think we need another revision to our understanding of Havvah. The relationship between Adam and the woman is drastically revised when we see that it could be Adam’s addition that begins the problem. At this point in the story, the woman is doing what she is supposed to do. She is following the instructions of her man. The problem is that her man isn’t following God’s instructions. He is assisting God. This well-intentioned act is precisely what the woman repeats. She attempts to assist God by becoming a better ‘ezer for her man. One follows the other and disaster meets both. It all comes back to the same point. Do exactly what God asks. No more. No less.
Topical Index: touch it, Genesis 3:3, Havvah, commandment, fence around Torah
Skip,
You’ve got me curious.
If, as you suppose, Adam “assisted” God by adding to His words,
would that mean Adam was created with his own intentions and
motivations that were separate from fully existing under the will
and authority of God?
My assumption is, that since God originally gave Adam a firm
directive to obey, He knew of man’s creative propensity to be
self-engaging. Yes?
The rabbis teach that Adam was created with both yetzer ha’ra and yetzer ha’tov, as we all are, and that what makes us human are our choices, not our biology.
My first thought when I read this was “What about the fences the rabbis added (and others including Christian denominations that do the same)?” Were they causing more problems perhaps leading people to be deceived as Havvah was? I had always viewed the rabbi’s fences as basically a good thing, attempting to prevent people from violating the mitzvot. Just wondering about your thoughts on this.
Nothing wrong with a fence as long as everyone KNOWS IT’S A FENCE. But if you think it is the actual commandment, then there’s a problem. This is the direction of most TW explorations. We discover that what we usually thought about a verse is not really what it actually says.
So the originaln sin was Adam’s, and it had nothing to do with fruit?
It certainly has nothing to do with fruit. And when we investigate the story more and more, we find lots of other actions buried in it. Maybe that’s why Paul says that Adam sinned deliberately but Havvah was deceived.
“It certainly has nothing to do with fruit.”
Hi Skip,
I was recently talking to my daughter about a story by Katherine Anne Porter
She was arguing that the mother in the story was completely in the wrong
Because of the way she treated her very retarded child
It is a great story and I was sympathizing with the poverty stricken mother
As my daughter was leaving I noted that the child had no name in the story
That the child was always referred to as He
She said she knew, and that she knew He had some relationship to God
After my daughter left, I called her to say I thought her interpretation was valid
And recommended that she think in terms of different “levels” of interpretation
On the literal level, the child is impossible and a threat to the family’s existence
But at the end we learn that He actually understands what is happening to him
And leaves his family broken-hearted on his way to a “home” for burdens to society
So on this “level” the text becomes a commentary on the individual and society
On the theological level, I realized that my daughter’s harsh criticism was correct
That the mother and father had been given a gift from God in the form of the character He
So they should not have worried so much about what the others in society were thinking
Orabout their hardships with their problem Child
Certainly the original sin was Adams’ as he was commanded to guard the garden, yet allowed the serpent in, and even worse to approach his wife.
The Word is silent on whose idea it was to not touch the fruit (a fence), so to come up with conclusions, theology or dogma based on whose idea it was is akin to “adding to the Word of GOD”, and is most likely based on our own biases (since the idea could have come from either one).
It is totally likely that the Holy One left that detail out so that it would be a lesson to both faulty practices of: “adding to”; and of not verifying the actual word. O:-)
Deut 12:32 Everything I am commanding you, you are to take care to do. Do not add to it or subtract from it.
I think “fences” are really good intentions but Sanja captures it with Deut 12:32. I know more people who get in trouble within their religions because they disobey a fence law rather than Torah. Everyone knows about the fence laws but not Torah.
My example are the Amish folks. I grew up with them and still love being around them but they are people too and do they ever have fence laws! They miss the mark quite often and I get opportunities to learn a lot. They are not so much different from the English folks. Y-H loves them no more than He loves me.
Obedience requires accuracy—something to give serious thought and engage!
This is complicated by those pesky paradigms in place in our lives.
A Close Call?
How close can I get to “sin,” without actually “sinning?” Where is the line, and how close can I get to the line without actually crossing it? How close can I get to the hot burner on the stove without actually getting burned? Is it “okay” to dabble in sin? You know.. -just a “little bit?” Surely, “He that sitteth in the Heavens” will understand.. so it’s “okay”- right?
Ye who think of sin but lightly,
Nor suppose the evil great,
Here may view its nature rightly,
Here its guilt may estimate.
Mark the Sacrifice appointed!
See Who bears the awful load!
’Tis the Word, the LORD’s Anointed,
Son of Man, and Son of God.
How “much” sin would it take to separate between “my soul and the Savior?” Can we “quantify” our sin? Do we (as dear children) “attempt” to justify our sin?
But…- it was only a minor infraction! Just a small amount of poison was added to the cup!- It was “only” a “small” cockroach in your coffee cup this morning!
Why did God strike Uzza dead for touching the ark of God when he was just trying to keep it from falling over?
God said to Moses, “speak to the rock..” – So what did Moses do? Did he speak to the rock? No, (he did not “heed” or “hearken” to the word of the LORD), instead he struck the rock! And the result (or consequence) of his disobedience? No crossing over into Canaan!
What may we “take away” from all of this?
God, (so “totally other” from us) says what He means and He means what He says!
And, – when it comes to sin, – God don’t play!
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
~ Fear God, and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man! ~ (Ecclesiastes 12.13)
How close can I get to “sin,” without actually “sinning?” Where is the line, and how close can I get to the line without actually crossing it? How close can I get to the hot burner on the stove without actually getting burned? Is it “okay” to dabble in sin? You know.. -just a “little bit?” Surely, He that sitteth in the Heavens will understand.. so it’s “okay”- right?
Ye who think of sin but lightly,
Nor suppose the evil great,
Here may view its nature rightly,
Here its guilt may estimate.
Mark the Sacrifice appointed!
See Who bears the awful load!
’Tis the Word, the Lord’s Anointed,
Son of Man, and Son of God.
How “much” sin would it take to separate between “my soul and the Savior?” Can we “quantify” our sin? Do we (children) “attempt” to justify our sin? But…- it was only a minor infraction! Just a small amount of poison was added to the cup!- It was “only” a “small” cockroach in your coffee cup this morning!
Why did God strike Uzza dead for touching the ark of God when he was just trying to keep it from falling over?
God said to Moses, “speak to the rock..” – So what did Moses do? Did he speak to the rock? No, (he did not “heed” or “hearken” to the word of the LORD), instead he struck the rock! And the result (or consequence) of his disobedience? No crossing over into Canaan!
What may we “take away” from all of this?
God, (so “totally other” from us) says what He means and He means what He says!
And, – when it comes to sin, – God don’t play!
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
~ Fear God, and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man! ~ (Ecclesiastes 12.13)
~ I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.…~ (from the book of Revelation chapter 22)
The fence of Torah kept people from the truth of the Word — it may have been done in love (good intentions) but it resulted in a focus on the fence rather than upon the behavior that missed the mark.
We build protective fences around the people we love all the time so they won’t have to face the truth of missing the mark. We make sure every kid on the team gets a trophy, we give evasive excuses rather than gently stating that we don’t agree, we make political policy to protect people from themselves and the consequences of their actions.
How many times do fences arise because we don’t trust God that the people we love can live with the truth? How often do I behave as if I need to be the Holy Spirit for others and “fence” them in? And how often do I then mislead them (albeit with good intentions)?
If what Heschel says is true – and I’ve no reason to doubt it – then Adam didn’t trust God when it came to Havvah being able to obey. And if we’re not trusting Him with the lives of those we love, are we trusting Him at all?
She attempts to assist God by becoming a better ‘ezer for her man. One follows the other and disaster meets both. It all comes back to the same point. Do exactly what God asks. No more. No less.
Hmmm
I think that this is a story that explains the origins of incest taboos
The forbidden fruit has a sexual subtext, and the fruit is absolutely forbidden
Eve adds the word touch, because it is difficult to resist forbidden fruit in the first place
But once you touch it, there is no way out; all Hell breaks loose
Michael-
True! Appealing to the five senses, first it looks desirable, then touching, then consuming….
I wonder if it smelt good too.
Except that…in ancient biblical texts, incest was all over the place. Sarai was Abram’s half-sister, was she not? And there are many other family members marrying – uncles marrying nieces, etc. Which is interesting, because Leviticus 18 goes on to forbid such practices. So, yes it’s forbidden fruit, but when did it become forbidden?
Moses was born on 1593 B.C.E. and Leviticus 18 goes on to forbid such practices
The modern form of Homo sapiens first appeared about 100,000 years ago
Hmmm
I’m no expert on this topic, but apparently incest taboos are relatively new
Natural man 97,500 vrs Cultural man 3.500 yrs
If my math is in the ballpark
Regarding Moses, an interesting quote….
From Moses and Monotheism (1939)
Part III, Section II, Chapter II
Sigmund Freud
“I venture to say this: it was one man, the man Moses, who created the Jews.”
Are we in a jam? 🙂
“Every word is important – and so are the words that are not in the text. Exegesis begins with knowing precisely what the Scripture says. Obedience requires accuracy.”
We struggle with accuracy in translations, so knowing the exact wording in the texts will seem quite impossible unless we have folks who are well versed in Greek, or Hebrew, with the guidance of the Ruach to set us on the right path!
And again the reliability of Scribes who did the writing and copying of the Scrolls. What a task and responsibility they had!
This should caution us whenever we quote Scriptures, unless we have a good understanding of what they mean to us, at least, and not be careless, nor refusing to accept another aspect of them.