“And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden toward the East, and placed there the man whom He had formed.”
There is little or no difficulty in this sentence. When it is said that God planted a garden, by “garden” understand that He produced or planted the trees of the garden. Nor is the verb “to plant” always used to signify the planting of trees, for it is also said of the heavens (Isaiah) “that I might plant the heavens,” where “to plant” seems to mean to set or establish firmly. Hence here also it could be translated, “The Lord established a garden in Eden,” because, as we have said, it is not the garden itself that is planted but the trees of the garden; therefore it seems that He “planted” the garden in the same way as the heavens—that is, He brought it forth and established it.
“Garden” in my judgment comes from the root gana, which means to protect or to cover, and thus signifies not just any garden but one in which there are trees that protect and give shade—either because they are in great abundance and close together, or because it is protected and defended from the incursions of men or beasts. For below it is said that God placed the man in paradise to cultivate and guard it.
As for what follows, “in Eden,” note that Eden comes from the root ʿadan, which among the Hebrews means “to delight.” Hence some translate here “a garden of delights.” Yet it may also be a proper name of a place, which seems to me more likely, as I will show below.
Some translate the word as “from the East,” others differently; but I am more inclined to think it signifies the East, namely that the garden was planted toward the eastern region of the place where man was created. The sense therefore is: “The Lord God planted a garden in Eden,” that is, in a place so called, toward the East; or “in Eden,” that is, in a delightful place—but the former is better.
“And He placed there the man whom He had formed.”
Some ask where paradise was located on earth, and whether Eden is a proper place. Although many think various things, I hold that Eden is the proper name of the place where paradise was and that it was not far from Chaldea. That it is a place name is evident from Ezekiel (27), where are mentioned Charan, Canneh, and Eden, merchants of Assyria; likewise in Isaiah (37) where the “sons of Eden” are named; and in Ezekiel (28), where it is said of the king of Tyre that he was in Eden, the garden of God. From these it seems clear, first, that it is a proper place name associated with regions like Haran and Assyria; second, that it is not far from the Assyrians.
Moreover, Haran, from which Abraham departed, is mentioned together with Eden; therefore the place of paradise does not seem far from Haran. There is also a conjecture that it was in Chaldea or nearby, since the Euphrates—one of the four rivers of paradise—flows through Chaldea.
“He caused to spring up,” or “to grow.” For the Hebrew verb ṣāmaḥ signifies either. “Every tree pleasant to the sight,” that is, beautiful to behold, “and good for food.” This can be understood in two ways: either that He caused to grow trees beautiful in appearance and also fruit-bearing; or that all were both beautiful and fruitful—the latter seems intended.
“And the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
The tree of life was in the midst of the garden. It is called “of lives” because it preserved life for a long time, or perpetually, for those who ate of it. That its fruit had this power appears from the following chapter, where, after man’s expulsion, God set an angel to guard the way to the tree lest he live forever. This life-giving tree, as nobler and of greater power, was planted in the middle of paradise. It could also be called “of lives” because it could preserve the life of many who ate of it.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was so called because, when its fruit was tasted, man experienced the evils of this life. I believe that the first man and his wife were created in childlike simplicity, as two children who live together innocently, sharing the same bed without thinking or doing anything evil, and though naked are not ashamed. So also they—though I do not think they lacked reasoning as children do, but rather were like youths or certain men who do not know how to do evil or weave deceit but live in great simplicity, as Paul desires in 1 Corinthians 14: “Be infants in malice.”
It pleased me that blessed Maximus thought the first parents were created such, for some retain this simplicity even beyond youth. In my judgment, the Lord placed in the fruit of the tree this power: that when it was tasted, such holy simplicity would cease. Yet it could also be held that there was no such power in the fruit itself, but that it was the occasion of knowledge—just as when a simple youth is persuaded to commit sin, the forbidden act becomes his “knowledge of evil,” not because the act contains such power but because by breaking the command he learns evil by experience. Yet since the text calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the former opinion seems more probable.
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field.”
The Hebrew word nāḥāsh (serpent) properly signifies to practice divination or to interpret omens, especially by sound—whether of words, song, man, or bird. Hence the serpent is so called, perhaps because of whispering or muttering. Others derive it from a root meaning “to coil,” from which also come words for bronze, fetter, or entrails—though the exact meaning is uncertain.
The word translated “crafty” signifies properly “subtle” or “winding,” as something wrapped up so that you do not know what lies within. Some think it was not a real serpent, but the punishment imposed on the serpent refutes this, since even today the serpent crawls on its belly, eats dust, and is hostile to man. Therefore I judge it was a real animal; yet it did not speak by its own nature, since speech belongs to rational beings. Rather, it is credible that the demon entered and occupied the serpent’s body and moved its tongue to speak in human fashion, deceiving the woman with flattering speech. Nor is it strange that the woman was not astonished at hearing a serpent speak, since newly created she did not yet know what powers God had given to animals.
“Has God really said…?”
The passage is interpreted variously because the Hebrew particle is not fully clear; it can express addition, emphasis, or even anger. In my judgment, the serpent is suggesting that God is angry with them, since He has forbidden the tree—implying envy. Others understand it more simply as a question.
Why did the serpent seek to seduce the woman? The Hebrews say because it saw man placed in a higher rank; but the truth is that this was the work of the devil, moved by envy of human dignity.
The woman’s reply: “We eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but not of the fruit in the midst.” She adds, “neither shall you touch it,” perhaps exaggerating the prohibition, or perhaps because God wished to block even the beginnings of sin, as when in Exodus He commands a boundary around the mountain lest they touch it.
“Lest perhaps we die.” The woman thought God would not be so severe as to destroy them for eating one fruit; hence she says “perhaps.”
“For God knows that when you eat your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.” The serpent portrays God as envious, withholding knowledge. The woman, in her simplicity, judged such knowledge to be something great—though it would have been better never to have it, given the many deceits and frauds now in the world.
“The woman saw that the tree was good for food.”
She had not yet tasted but judged by appearance, unaware that many things look pleasant yet are tasteless. It was desirable to the eyes and to make one wise. The Hebrew suggests prudence or skill in acting. It seems God wished to conceal such cunning from the first parents, and this is what the woman desired and the serpent encouraged.
“She gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” Either she gave so that he might eat with her, or he ate from what she gave; the former seems simpler.
“They knew that they were naked.”
The best comparison is that of children who, though naked, feel no shame. So understand the first parents: they saw themselves before, but did not know their nakedness in a way that caused shame. Now they began to blush, as youths do when reason matures.
“They sewed fig leaves.” The Hebrew verb more properly means to join or fasten, not necessarily to sew, since tools had not yet been invented. They likely tied or fastened the leaves together and made girdles. The fig leaf, whose name may derive from “to ascend,” and the fig tree itself suggest the possibility that the forbidden fruit was a fig—or at least nearby.
“They made themselves girdles,” that is, coverings, to conceal their shame.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment