Where was the Garden of Eden? Greek thinking and Hebrew thinking; Naming the animals; The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; Eve; Lilith; Exegete and Eisogete; Shame and Guilt.
Genesis 2:10-14
Gen 2:10- “A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
Here’s what the relationship between Adam and the Lord, his God may have looked like in Eden:
My God and I go in the field together;
We walk and talk as good friends should and do;
We clasp our hands, our voices ring with laughter;
My God and I walk through the meadow’s hue.
We clasp our hands, our voices ring with laughter;
My God and I walk through the meadow’s hue.
He tells me of the years that went before me
When heavenly plans were made for me to be;
When all was but a dream of dim reflection;
To come to life, earth’s verdant glory see.
When all was but a dream of dim reflection;
To come to life, earth’s verdant glory see.
My God and I will go for aye together,
We’ll walk and talk just as good friends do;
This earth will pass, and with it common trifles,
But God and I will go unendingly.
This earth will pass, and with it common trifles,
But God and I will go unendingly.
Where Was the Garden of Eden?
Turkey wants to claim the location of the Garden of Eden. Of course. Everyone wants to claim the location of the Garden of Eden, set up a tourist venue, and cash in. I’ve even heard that the real Garden of Eden is in the American state of Missouri. Turkey and Missouri’s problems is that they have no idea how to prove that the headwaters of the rivers Gishon, Pishon, Tigris, and Euphrates all come together at a particular geographic location within their geographic boundaries. I’ve recently read that the Garden was really located on the Israeli side of the Dead Sea. None of these guesses is correct.
The best guess I’ve heard comes from a lifetime of study of the Persian Gulf cultures, history, geography, topography, and even satellite imagery. All this information has been computerized and is available to you online, free, in your own home. Here’s the bottom line: The Eden of Genesis was probably a fertile area in south eastern Iraq/Iran, just north and east of the Persian Gulf. The Garden of Eden was probably located south of where the four rivers (two are now dry, but distinguishable as ancient river beds by satellite imaging) come together. The Garden is now under water at the northern end of the Persian Gulf.
The source of the discovery is Juris Zarins, an archaeologist and professor at Missouri State University. (Ph.D, from University of Chicago, 1974.) He makes a fascinating case and incorporates Bible, history, ancient cultures and languages, topography, and technology in arriving at his conclusion. In my opinion, Zarins’ theory is the best I’m aware of. You’ll find his research and theory online, free. Just look him up.
For a technical paper on the geology of Eden, see online: “The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape” by Carol A. Hill (17 El Arco Drive, Albuquerque, NM 87123 . )
From: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52 (March 2000): 31-46.
Genesis 2:15 “15 “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 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 die.’”
Notice that the command was given from The Lord, God to the man. Where’s Eve? In this sequence of events, Eve is not yet in the picture. We don’t know how long Adam lived alone in the garden. But time passed. Eve was not yet there when Adam named the animals. We have no reason to assume that Eve was there when God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God and the man had a relationship. Among the boundaries in that relationship is the idea that the man is not free to do as he pleases in the garden. There are some rules. The Big Rule is: Do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why not eat of that tree? Because on the day you eat from it, you will die.
There are lots of guesses as to what, exactly, was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I’ve heard people get carried away with the idea that all the knowledge of God, every detail of our cosmic past, present, and future was inherent in that fruit. This idea goes on to say that the reason Adam would die if he ate the fruit is that his head would explode because a human brain cannot comprehend the fullness of God. Interesting, but totally made up. It’s part of the story line in the movie, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls. But it’s not in Genesis, chapter two.
The word “you” in Genesis 2:16 and 17 is masculine inclusive plural. It’s tied into the idea of consuming. On the day anyone consumes the fruit of this tree, he (third person inclusive) will be consumed.
The tree of knowledge is the first particular item of vegetation mentioned in the Bible. Notice that God’s first action was to distinguish between light (God) and darkness (not-God). Now we hear that the first specific tree named has to do with knowledge. So, what knowledge? Adam is told what God’s will is: Do not eat from this tree. That’s the knowledge—it’s the knowledge of God’s will. The knowledge is light. To NOT eat from the tree is to know and do God’s will and do it. To NOT eat from the tree is to recognize the distinction between light (knowing and doing God’s will) and darkness (either not knowing, or knowing but not doing God’s will).
The revised edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an interesting article about the Tree of Knowledge. Here’s some of it:
“The nature and meaning of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are not as clear as are those of the tree of life. Opinions differ widely as to its full significance Certain things are clear in the account: the knowledge of good and evil implied some kind of equality with God; it was forbidden to man; and it was secured by man. From these inferences it is necessary to hold that, in some sense, partaking of the tree imparted knowledge or at least symbolized the fact that those who partook of the tree were possessors of a knowledge they did not previously have. And this involved a change in relationship to God.”
What was the tree? We can be pretty sure the tree with forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was not an apple tree and the forbidden fruit was not an apple. That’s because we have evidence that apple trees didn’t grow in the neighborhood of the northern Persian Gulf. It’s more likely that a medieval monk added the idea of the apple because apples do grow wild in Europe and Britain. White people can relate to apples.
If the tree of knowledge wasn’t an apple tree, what was it?
“A number of interpretations suggest what the ‘good and evil’ was. That it was magical knowledge should be ruled out since this was not godlike knowledge and certainly was not universal to humanity in the OT. In some places, Scripture uses the idiom ‘good and evil’ as a way of expressing immaturity without a necessary reference to morality. Cf. Deut 1:39, ‘your children … have no knowledge of good or evil,’ and Isa 7:16, ‘before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.’ A similar use in Heb 5:14 clearly implies morality, where mature believers ‘have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.’ It is difficult to believe, however, that moving out of immaturity is all that the Genesis tree implies.
“Another view with some merit is that the tree is dealing with physical good and evil, i.e., happiness and misery: the experiential knowledge of the difference between the bliss they enjoyed in their innocent state and the misery that would become real through disobedience.
“The traditional view is that here the good and evil is moral good and evil. While on the surface this seems to be the simplest way to go, it might entail holding to the view that Adam did not originally have a moral nature and that his partaking of the tree simply awakened his moral nature. Why would God want to keep Adam from having a nature that would be able to distinguish between right and wrong? The terminology of Solomon’s prayer for a heart to ‘discern between good and evil’ supports the moral view (1 Kings 3:9).” (–International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, revised edition.)
Victor Paul Wierwille’s The Way International, an American fundamentalist cult, taught that the Tree of Knowledge was sexual. The tree was a phallic symbol, they claimed, probably a standing tree representing the male penis. The Way taught that the “original sin” was masturbation. (They also taught that the original sin was pride.) Eve masturbated first and liked it. Adam was there, saw the pleasure Eve experienced, then masturbated himself.
The Way went on to say that the reason masturbation was the sin in the Garden was that the woman was made for the man. Eve was made for Adam’s sexual pleasure. For her to find sexual pleasure within herself was to reject God’s man, made in the image of God. God gave Eve to Adam. For him to reject her and to find sexual pleasure alone was to reject a gift from God. Masturbation is not sex. Sex requires the presence of both a male and a female.
That, of course, is total nonsense. But the teaching that the fruit the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil became a basic, blasphemous building block for Wierwille’s bizarre doctrine of human sexuality. The Way doctrine on sex went on to say that sex between two women (lesbianism) is not sin because no male penis is involved. But sex between two men is sin because one male must assume a subordinated position, dominated by the other. Since man is made in the image of God, a man in a subordinated position to another man commits heresy in that his subordinate posture devalues the image of God. Gay men, as heretics, are therefore worthy of death. Lesbian women are worthy of watching. That was the doctrine.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia article continues:
“Another view maintains that the knowledge does not come through the cultural achievements but through nature. This view includes but is not limited to sexual knowledge. The point is that human beings moved from a primitive state of childlike ignorance and purity to knowledge involving total possession of their mental and physical powers. Those who hold this view like to refer to Christ’s saying in Matt 18:3, ‘unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’
“In 2 Sam 19:35, ‘Can I discern between good and evil?’ suggest that the idiom can refer to the capacity for physical pleasures. Following Ehrlich, Speiser thought that this text supports the view that the Genesis usage refers to the mystery of sex. He noted that Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nakedness only after partaking of the forbidden fruit. But again one must question why God would want to withhold from Adam and Eve full possession of their mental and physical powers.”
For what it’s worth, here’s my understanding of the Tree of Knowledge. The nature of the tree, itself, doesn’t matter. (It probably wasn’t an apple tree or a banana tree.) What matters is the act, the “eating”. God says to Adam, His companion, “Don’t eat that or you’ll die.”
When the Lord, God gave the Hebrew people dietary laws in the time of Moses, the people asked about them. There were rules about planting, rules about harvesting, rules about storing and cooking and serving and there were foods the Hebrews weren’t allowed to eat at all. (See: Dietary laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy).
When the people asked why they couldn’t eat particular foods, God’s reply was basically: ‘There’s nothing inherently bad in those foods. The reason you’re not supposed to eat a Shrimp cocktail or a lobster tail is that I told you not to. It’s got nothing to do with the food. The reason your hair is long on either side of a man’s forehead is that I told you not to cut it. People will ask why you look weird and why you don’t eat certain things or cook a certain way. When they ask, the correct answer is: ‘We do it because the Lord our God told us to do it.’ Then, they’ll ask you about Me, and you’ll tell them.”
It might be an interesting project for you to look at some of those long, involved dietary laws. Keep going through them until you find where the people ask, “Why?” and the Lord, God answers: “Because I said so.” That is reason enough. The dietary rules for Israel are an object lesson for obeying God. “I told you not to eat that. You ate it. Bye-bye.” In that moment the relationship between God and man changed.
When I was a kid our mom would tell us not to do something and we’d ask, “Why?” Her most common answer was, “Because I am The Mother.” Why can’t I have a lobster bisque? “Because I am God.” That’s all there is to it. In the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, God makes the point with Israel: If your children don’t obey you, whom they can see, they will never obey Me, Whom they cannot see. Yes, there are some things in the Bible that are lessons in obedience.
We don’t know exactly what the Tree of Knowledge was. Maybe it was a jumbo shrimp prawn tree. We don’t know. But it doesn’t really matter. What we do know, what matters, is that God told Adam NOT to eat from it, but Adam did. That changed the relationship between the Lord, God and human beings for the next four and a half millennia.
Genesis, Chapter 2:18-25
There are several firsts in chapter 2 of Genesis. It’s the first identification of a Sabbath for rest; the first identification of a specific place; the first mention of the name Jehovah; the first time we see an individual human being; the first time God communicates with an individual person; the first mention of death; the first conversation/relationship between the Lord God and a human being; and, the first recognition of the human experience of loneliness.
Has death occurred on earth before this? Sure. Something happened and the result was that the earth became a dark, flooded waste, remember? Has death occurred on the new earth before? We don’t know. The fact that the text says Adam shall die if he eats of the wrong tree doesn’t necessarily mean that no life form has ever died on this planet.
In order to better understand the Bible it can be helpful to realize that Hebrew thinking doesn’t work the same way as Greek or Euro-American thinking. Greek or Western thinking is linear and sequential. It’s a series of opposites: Up/down; Good/bad; male/female; A + B = C. Therefore, A is not equal to B; A is not equal to C. It’s the intellectual framework for mathematical and scientific thought.
But Hebrew thinking works in block logic. The Hebrew simply makes a statement, and that statement stands alone. Here’s an example: A Hebrew man says, “We are the chosen people of God”. He knows that what he means is that Israel is chosen by God for a particular purpose or function—to be priests in God’s house.
But a Greek hears the statement and says, “Hey! You’re God’s chosen people? What about me? Are you saying you’re better than me? Are you saying God hates me? And what about my wife?! She’s a friggin’ saint! Are you saying she’s not good enough for God?!”
The Hebrew replies, “I don’t know about you. I wasn’t talking about you. I’m talking about Israel. We are chosen by God.”
The Hebrew knows what he means. But the Greek hears it and, by his linear sequential thinking thinks it’s an exclusive statement. Israel is chosen, therefore my wife and I are not chosen because we are not Hebrew.
When you’re engaged in a logical conversation, it’s a good idea to avoid drawing evidence from silence. The fact that death isn’t mentioned before Genesis 2:17 doesn’t necessarily mean that no living thing has ever died. It just means death hasn’t been mentioned.
Your understanding of Scripture deepens when you don’t feel compelled to come up with an answer to every question. Maybe there is no answer to that question. Maybe there is an answer, but you don’t yet know it. Relax.
Verse 18 gives us another first. For the first time, the Lord God looks at something He has done and says it’s not good. Adam is alone. There is only one human being in the flesh. When you’re alone, you’re not with anyone like yourself. The loneliness of Adam is recognized in the presence of Jehovah. Now, we begin to notice that the meaning of the name Jehovah may have something to do with the relationship between God and humankind.
Genesis 2:18 “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.'” (–NRSV)
To be alone in the sense of Adam’s situation means to be isolated. There is no other human being. The phrase “not good” here acknowledges that something, some quality of life, is missing for Adam. There are no birthday parties, there’s no harmony when he sings. Here, the phrase “not good” means there’s something else, something better, something with additional benefit, something pleasant, agreeable, and festive—something more could be done.
I read an article recently about this verse that included some of the old, unfortunate linear thinking. The writer said Adam was incomplete because he had no wife. He said that, because there was no wife, Adam could not procreate. Adam needed a woman, the author said, to be his sexual partner, have babies, and be his helper. I thought Adam could’ve trained a chimp.
It might be helpful to know that, according to science, there are forms of life that can reproduce within themselves. A distinct male and separate female are not always necessary for procreation. If there were no woman ever, I’m sure God would come up with some way Adam could reproduce.
A “helper” in the sense of Genesis 2:18 means a counterbalance, an opposite weight, not a “servant”. This is someone in front of him, someone to face. It’s someone with whom Adam can talk and ponder, laugh– someone with whom he can celebrate. This is a human being, other than himself, but equal to him as being created in God’s image. Eve is not an after-thought. Eve is not Adam’s subordinate or inferior.
The word helper (`ezrah OT:5833) means to rescue or save, often in the sense of military assistance. It’s someone strong, who can be relied upon (See: The Lord as helper in: Ps. 10:14; 72:12; 107:12). For strength, courage, compassion, loyalty, willingness, encouragement, Adam would benefit from being with someone else who, too, is created in the image of God.
By the way, I don’t see anything in this verse that inclines me to think it has anything to do with marriage, monogamy, or sexuality. I read it as having to do with the Lord God’s interest in improving the quality of Adam’s life by adding another, like himself. The benefit to Adam comes in companionship. Of course there’s a sexual implication, but since the “Sexual Revolution” in American in the 1960s, sex has become the primary measure of self- identification: I am a sexual being. But, in my opinion, it’s gone way too far. Human beings are much, much more than mere sexual beings. The benefit to God is that now, with two created in His image, there are two who can appreciate what God has done, two who can both display the character of God in creation.
I am aware that several commentaries and dictionaries don’t entirely agree with what I’ve just said. It’s alright. We just disagree. Adults can disagree. It’s allowed.
By now the Lord God has decided to make a partner for Adam, but hasn’t yet done it. Verses 19 and 20 are pointed to as part of that “second creation myth” I mentioned before. The other possibility is that these verses are detail which clarifies the information in chapter 1.
Genesis 2:19-20 “19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.”
We know from chapter 1 that God created and called all living things into being during days five and six. Here, the Lord God brings all the living things to Adam, so that Adam can name them.
In that part of the world and in those days a name was more than a label. A name described the content, the character of the person. God has made, formed, and created all living things and brings them to Adam. Why?
Here’s my take on it, for what it’s worth. It seems to me The Lord brought everything to Adam so that Adam would notice it. To notice or appreciate something God has done means you’ve ascribed worth to it. To ascribe worth to something is to worship it. This is the crux of God’s relationship with Adam: God does something; Adam notices and admires it. He worships God.
When little Dicky races home after school waving a piece of construction paper in his hand and crashes through the front door, it’s a pretty good guess that he wants to show you something. You look at it and smile and say how clever he is and, with great flourish, you post it on the refrigerator door. You praise your son. You adore him.
A few years later your son, Richard, who is an accomplished artist, walks slowly through the screen door. It’s the day after his graduation from graduate school and he’s carrying his portfolio. You sit with him in the living room and piece by piece, he shows you his work. You are moved to tears, speechless at the magnificence of his labor.
Why did the Lord, God bring all living things to Adam? My guess is he did it so Adam would appreciate, speechless and moved to tears, the magnificence of God’s work. To see and appreciate what God does is to worship God. You praise Him. You adore Him.
How did The Lord God bring all the living things to Adam? Was it the work of Jehovah-buckaroo, the Lord Who is a cowboy? The Lord God might have physically brought each sentient being to Adam. That’s possible. Or, the Lord God might have brought just a sampling of each; or, seven of each; or, just two of each. I suppose it’s possible. But, what a mess!
Maybe the Lord just had the idea of sentient life in chapter 1, but actually made it from the dirt while Adam watched. That’s possible, although I’m pretty sure it would take an incredibly long time.
Here’s another possibility: Maybe the Lord God gave Adam a vision or dream. Remember, God is not limited to the laws of physics. God is spirit and can communicate with Adam in ways that by-pass rational, human understanding. There’s no time constraint in dreams and visions. That’s a satisfying possibility.
I’m giving my own opinion from my own imagination, as to how something may have happened. I can imagine the Lord God giving Adam a vision. A shared vision and a conversation make a relationship.
The Lord God shows Adam each living thing and Adam appreciates the thing for what it is. Maybe the Lord even tells Adam something about each. Then, based on the revelation-knowledge Adam has received, he names each. These names aren’t mere labels—they declare the content, the value that the Lord, God ascribes to each.
The names become prayers, expressions of worship and praise, a reminder for Adam to appreciate again what the Lord, God has done. God’s work with Adam is the first time we see the Lord, God form a relationship with a sentient being. It’s the first time we see a relationship at all.
Now, the Lord has shown every living thing to the man, and Adam has named them. In some sense this process of naming is like taking an inventory. But it’s more than that. It’s God showing Adam what God has done, and Adam noticing and appreciating it.
The process of naming also demonstrates to Adam (and to the heavenly host of spirit beings) that the Lord has searched but not found an equal companion for Adam. Adam is alone, one of a kind. We don’t know how long the time span was between the moment God breathed life into Adam and the moment God made Eve. We’re not told.
Three neighbors shared some iced tea one Saturday after- noon. One was a surgeon; one was an engineer; one was an attorney. Their conversation turned to a disagreement as to which of their three professions was the oldest.
The doctor pointed to these verses in Genesis and shouted, “God made Eve from Adam’s rib. That’s surgery!”
The engineer scanned back several verses and pointed to Genesis 1:6, slammed his hand on the table and shouted back, “God broke through the formless void and darkness and separated the waters by building a dome—that’s an engineering feat! Mine is the oldest profession!”
Slowly, quietly the lawyer took the Bible and read Genesis 1:2. Then he looked at his friends, leaned forward and whispered, “Where do you think the formless void and darkness came from?”
God slipped Adam a “mickie” after the animal naming party, and Adam passed out. Probably not. Without the use of chemicals, God caused a very deep sleep to fall upon Adam.
I’m a big believer in “better living through chemistry”. I believe God has been working with humankind for thousands of years and, in every generation, opens people’s understandings of health and healings. I thank God that so many people’s lives have been saved and improved by the proper medical prescription of an effective medication, and its proper use by patients.
But it seems to me that people who drink to get numb or take drugs to get high are trying to get to Eden without God. They are trying to reach that state of consciousness in which there are no arguments, no regrets, no unsolvable problems—these are people trying to grab the benefits of the Garden without its Maker. But it’s an empty quest. That’s because without God, there’s no real meaning.
A deep sleep falls upon Adam. God wraps him in a cosmic comforter, then takes one of Adam’s ribs and closes up its place with flesh.
Here’s some amazing recent news in medicine: There is now a medical procedure by which a burn patient can be sprayed with new, living skin. It looks like spray-painting skin. The new, living skin grows and replaces the burnt skin in a matter of hours and days. What a blessing for wounded military personnel, injured first responders, fire fighters—for everyone!
That’s what I think of lately when I read verse 21. How did the Lord God “close up its place with skin”? I don’t know. How did the Lord God get the rib out of Adam? I don’t know. Where did the Lord God take the rib? How long was the time span between when He removed the rib, and when he started cloning Eve? How old were Adam and Eve? Adam was older, right? Did Adam or Eve have belly buttons?
I don’t know. Yet.
What was the rib the Lord, God removed? Rib, here, is translated from the Hebrew tsela’ (OT:6763). In the King James Version the same word is translated beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, and side.
This “rib” can refer to a man’s side or the side of a hill. It can describe a ridge or terrace. It’s used as an architectural term for the side of an object (Ex 25:12,14), a location within a building (cf. Ex 26:35), or a chamber. It also describes wooden flooring, wall paneling, the leaves of a folding door, and molding.
When we do a word study of a particular word in Scripture, what we’re looking for is a range of meaning. The basic unit of meaning in the Bible is the paragraph. A paragraph is formed by joining particular words. We uncover the meaning of the paragraph by discovering a range of meaning for the particular words used in the paragraph.
Once we find a range of meaning, we look for what the various usages of that word may have in common. Here, for example, we find that a “rib” has something to do with construction. This word isn’t used to describe the foundation of a structure, but in the extension and finishing of the structure. This can be thought of as a part of the original architectural plan, not a slapped together add-on.
Adam’s rib was something that had to do with form, not essence. The essence of humankind is created in chapter 1; the form of humankind comes in chapter 2.
One of the more intriguing suggestions I’ve heard is that Adam’s rib was homo sapiens sapiens DNA. All male DNA includes both X and Y chromosomes. Female DNA contains X chromosomes only. The idea is that the Lord, God cloned an X from Adam and produced Eve. I’d need to have someone in medicine or biology explain it to me, but the idea is fascinating.
People approach the Bible, it seems to me, with one of two possible mind sets. One is to ask, “If this is true, prove it.” That’s the healthy, objective, scientific mind set. The other approach comes to the Bible with a belief that it is true. Here, the question is, “How can this be true? When we search other Scripture, personal experience, science, and history, can we find a way to confirm what the Bible says? How can this be?”
Each of us comes to Scripture with an in-coming assumption rooted in one of the two key words, “If” or “How”. Which best describes your own in-coming assumption?
Genesis 2:22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (–NRSV)
For some, the fact that verse 22 says the Lord, God brought the woman to the man implies that He gave Adam the woman to keep as a possession. In that line of thinking, Eve is depersonalized and becomes an object rather than a human being. Another possibility is that the Lord, God introduced the woman to the man. Here, He distinguishes woman from all other sentient beings as a unique counter balance for Adam.
Genesis, chapters 1 through 3 give the woman three different names. The first name, given her by God, comes in 1:26-28. God names her, together with man, “humankind”. The second name comes in 2:23. Here, Adam names her “woman,” in recognition that she is an equal part of himself. The third will come from Adam again. In 3:20 Adam will name her Eve, meaning “to live, the mother of all living”.
Her first name, given by God, declares her rights, blessings and responsibilities in creation. Her second name declares her potential relationship with Adam as an equal partner in managing the fullness of the earth. Her third name, given again by Adam, describes her role in the redemption of the relationship between God and humankind. That relationship was broken by Adam. The hope of mending it resides in Eve.
Eve has had a ton of bad press over the past several thousand years. For example, did you know that Eve was Adam’s second wife? There was a belief in ancient times that Adam’s first wife was named, Lilith. Like Eve, she was made from Adam’s rib.
Like Eve, Lilith disobeyed God and her husband. She was exiled from the garden, and relegated to the number of fallen angels. Lilith became the night hag or screech owl.
The myth says that Adam remained in the garden because he didn’t fall for Lilith’s trickery.
Some claim the Lilith myth can be traced back as far as the ancient Mesopotamian cultures of Assyria and Babylonia, although there’s current debate about that.
Lilith’s Photo from High School Yearbook, Senior Year.
Lilith can be found in the Babylonian Talmud. She especially hated men and baby boys. Lilith, it was believed, was the cause of what we know as crib death. By the mid-6th Century Hebrew men in Europe were writing the names of three angels on bits of paper and tucking them into their infant’s crib at night. Along with the angels names was the declaration, “Lilith, be gone!” It has been said the word “lullaby” comes from, Lilith Be Gone. In mythology, Lilith is compared with Pandora.
It’s reasonable to think that attitudes toward women among Euro-American men and women have been shaped, at least in part, by the ancient Lilith myth. I suspect that some of the revulsion to the mythical Lilith has been projected onto women, collectively, and Eve, in particular. There’s no evidence in Genesis that Eve was Adam’s second wife.
Dr. Frasier Crane and his lovely wife, Lilith. 
Adam’s response when he saw Eve was emphatic. The phrase, “This at last is …” can also be rendered, “Now, that’s it!” He recognizes the woman as equal to himself, of the same bones and of the same flesh.
The word “now” has in its range of meaning the idea of hitting or striking something at exactly the right moment. If Adam were a contem- porary American he might have shouted, “My God, you hit that one right out of the park!” or, “You hit the nail on the head.” It’s an expression of emphatic approval.
I hesitate to get too carried away with the phrase, “out of Man this one was taken” because it sounds like Adam gave birth to Eve. That, of course, would make Adam the mature adult, and Eve the infant child. That hardly makes for an equal partnership.
Genesis 2:23-25 “Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.’ 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.” (–NRSV)
Verse 24 was probably not spoken by Adam. When he is supposed to have said it, the only two human beings incarnate were himself and Eve. Neither had a father or mother. There are two possibilities here. First, it’s possible Adam said it as a prophesy for future couples. The husband would leave his father’s house and set up his own household with his wife. A second possibility is that verse 24 was added by an early copyist, scribe, or priest. It may have been added in order to smooth out the flow of the scene or, it may have been added to undergird the importance of marriage.
I’ve read any number of ideas about this section and many of them strain, in my opinion, at making a case for marriage, monogamy, and heterosexual partnerships. I don’t understand how any of those ideas is legitimately a part of the meaning of these verses. I’m also tired of hearing that foolish business about, “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” It sounds childish.
In deepening our understanding of the Bible, we’re trying to exegete meaning. To exegete means to draw meaning out. The opposite of exegeting is to eisegete. To eiseete means to lay meaning you bring with you over the text.
The idea you bring to lay over the Scripture may be a good one. It might even be true. But it’s not part of the original, intended meaning of the text.
It seems to me that especially chapters 2 and 3 have endured a great deal of eisegetting over the years. The task is to scrape off the top couple layers of varnish and see what’s really there.
The man and the woman were naked, and not ashamed. That’s how chapter 2 ends. So I guess all human beings should run right out, marry the first member of the opposite sex they see, and go naked. Everywhere. Forever. Right?
Be very careful in choosing bits of Scripture to support your own social values. It you point to Adam and Eve as God’s mandate on heterosexual, monogamous marriage, then it stands to reason you’d also have to view it as a mandate for adult public nudity. If all polygamy violates God’s mandate; and all same sex marriage violates God’s mandate; then don’t all people who wear clothes violate God’s mandate? You can’t superimpose a doctrinal statement onto a non-doctrinal text and completely ignore the clear meaning of the textual statement right next to it.
All Scripture is not intended to serve as doctrine for all people in all times and places. Some of it is simply for our learning. The book of Genesis isn’t a book of science, math, or history. It’s a philosophic answer to a question a child might ask a parent: “Daddy, where’d we come from?” or, “Mommy, where did the ocean come from?” When I was about four years old I asked our mom why the sky is blue. She said, “Because it’s God’s cape. God sits on a throne and we know He’s there because we can see His cape.” That made total sense to me.
Genesis is a book of beginnings, of origins. It gives theocentric answers to the question most people ask at one time or another, “Why am I here”? The answer from Genesis is simple: “You are here to appreciate God.”
The final statement of the last verse of chapter 2 is exquisite. The man and the woman were naked and were not ashamed.
To be ashamed is to be humiliated, disgraced or shattered. In paradise the man and woman have no internal concern about their nudity raising public outrage. There was no “public”–just the two of them and God.
Shame is a negative emotion. It registers feelings of dishonor, unworthiness, and embarrassment. If guilt, an internal recognition of missing the goal, eats you up on the inside, it’s shame that wrecks social relationships. Shame causes human beings to believe that they aren’t worthy, aren’t good enough to be in the company of others.
Shame thrives on self-consciousness. It whispers into the very center of your being, “You don’t belong here. People are staring at you. Who do you think you are? You don’t deserve to be in the same room … What will people think?!”
Guilt eats away at us on the inside; shame eats up our capacity to enjoy relationships with others. Both these emotions can serve as correctives within human beings. There are times I’ve said or done something that I knew was wrong. Until I face my own wrong doing, confess to God I was wrong, and take corrective action I’ll be eaten alive by guilt.
Shame eats up the capacity or willingness to enter into relationships with others. There are times I’ve been ashamed, and rightly so. I’ve behaved in ways offensive to people around me. I’ve dishonored other people and given them reason to avoid me. Until I face my own wrong-doing, confess it to God as wrong, apologize and correct my behavior, I’ll be socially isolated by shame.
Shame and guilt are both good as correctives. But they become negative, destructive emotions when they are unwarranted. They become destructive when they’re allowed to multiply inside a Petri dish of self-consciousness in a dark room.
The great thing about the end of Genesis, chapter 2 is that Adam and Eve weren’t self-conscious. They were conscious of each other. They were conscious of the Lord, God. They were conscious of paradise. But they were not focused on themselves.
athomebiblestudycom 