The title of today's lesson could also have been “The Fall”; in deed this is the title of the chapter in the NIV, while the RSV titled it as “The First Sin and it's Punishment”. However, without focusing on any one aspect we can in deed acknowledge that essentially man has committed a “sin” here, so to speak: he had disobeyed a commandment of God. God had said, in Genesis 2:16-17:

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”“Genesis 2:16-17 (KJV)

Therefore, on one hand the man “sinned” by disobeying God's command. However there is much more to this event than meets the eye. Also consider:

• The notion of temptation;
• The misrepresentation of God's Word (Eve did not know God's Word)
• Adam and Eve's intent (innocent intent – did not eat from the tree of Life before or after)
• God's words 'must not eat of it'' versus 'shall not eat of it' and 'for when you eat of it'… which is unique from every other commandment.
• Eve ate the fruit first and then gave some to Adam, presumably in full knowledge of what she was doing.
• It does not say that Adam ate the fruit in full knowledge of what he was doing.
• The context of Genesis 2:18 (verses before and after).

Ths ZSB, as I call it, has theologically incorrect commentary. It states, “When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they immediately became ashamed of their bodies and wanted to hide. Ever since, sinful human beings have been 'hiding' from each other and from God.” Further, it inserts words into God's mouth by stating that God asked '..(and are you ready to take responsibility for it?)”

As a result of this, and the general way in which the Zondervan NRSV student bible tends to color the passages and bring in an eisegesic understanding of the scriptures, we will drop commenting on the ZSB from now on. It should be evident by now that nothing we need to know will not be in the WSB or Artscrtoll. However, if the ZSB does make an interesting point as it is bound to from time to time, we may bring it up then.

The OACE as I call it, once again stuns and stings with it's “scholarly” commentary. It does correctly bring that the fall of man involved the damaging of the connections made by God in Genesis 2:4-25; however this point is made and then dropped as no specific such 'connections' are listed or discussed. And, the OACE does correctly point out that the 'snake' in the garden is not necessarily 'Satan' ala Christianity. Kudos to the OACE for making these points. It also stands largely in the light with it's comment that the primary means of deception used by the snake was the obfuscation of God's word; Eve's grasp of God's word was faulty – and thus separated from God's commandments by her own morality, she doubted God's commandments. Thus she was enabled to sin. There's a lot in this statement so perhaps looking at it from various angles can help explain what happened; here's one more. The snake realized that Even didn't know God's word very well. So he used this to cause doubt to arise in Eve; doubt in God's commandment because Eve believed she knew God's commandment although she did not. Therefore Eve's mistake was multiplied by her belief (v.6) that God had not given an accurate commandment. This is very different from a direct disobedience of God's commandment. So again credit where credit is due. However, where the OACE fails here is on a minor point. It emphasizes that this was a 'way' or a 'necessary step' for humans to become civilized. It counts their clothing as a mark of civilization. it remains to be seen whether the WSB and ASC agree with the OACE on these points; and while the OACE has largely made up for it's earlier idiocy we do now know that as valuable as the OACE can be one must keep a close eye on it and temper it with the widsom and knowledge gained from the source.

The WSB correctly characterizes this as the passage informing the Christian worldview, while at the same time noting that such a reading as “The Fall” is not directly supported by the text. We also see the notion of a connection, previously established, somehow being broken in the garden story. Interestingly Wesley also notes the very Jewish notion of man's reason and intelligence being as responsible for his fall as it could have been for his holiness: “Had he not been a free as well as an intelligent being, his understanding would have been of no service. For he would have been as incapable of holiness, or any kind of virtue, as a tree or a block of marble.” (Sermon 57, “On the Fall of Man”, P1). Wesley's notes read, “Having this power of freedom, mankind chooses evil over good, and sin enters into the world bringing with it pain of every kind.

The wording here seems to insinuate a dangerous idea; that free will itself is not “good”. However, a reading of Genesis 1:30-31 again should cure that heresy. It also may introduce the notion that the nature of free will is to choose evil over good; again, Genesis 1:26 and other will cure one of this heresy.

Finally we note that Wesley's comment ”…and sin enters into the world…“ has no scriptural support. The actual curse itself, we will read about later. But it does not say such a thing about sin!

commentary

Let's try the following format. A reading is given and then other readings it was checked against for comportment. In this case the KJV reading is given and the NASB and RSV were checked to make sure the stories all contained the same message. This is for saving space and only having to read one translation as a 'reference' translation for the passage in question. Maybe we can use this method to choose the best wording, should the KJV in those rare instances fail to word things as effectively as possible.

Note on this method. I don't like how God says “thee” in v. 11, and prefer the RSV's use of 'you', leaving archaic pronouns as an honorific for God alone. I'll use the RSV in future such.

Notes on method; I do not like the RSV's use of “garments of skins” and prefer WEB's “coats of animal skins”. It seems that out of this the obviousness of the NSB's project becomes obvious. I'll continue to experiment with different quoting styles.

to be continued