The Knowledge of Evil

The Knowledge of Evil Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-7 Now that our new little grandson, Clark, has arrived, I will welcome into our life and world the blessed gift that he surely is—a precious jewel in a state of innocence. For me, a newborn is a brief glimpse into paradise in the unblemished soul of a child such as he. This is not because little Clark will be flawless in every sense of the word, but in our eyes, he is perfect in every sense of love and life. As the poet, William Blake, eloquently posed in his Songs of Innocence, there is more than human life being revealed at birth: Little lamb, who made thee? Dost thou know who made thee? 1 The innocence that I speak of seems to be the natural-born state of humans, regardless of how anyone eventually turns out. Untarnished in the womb, an infant does not come into life corrupted in his mind or behavior; a newborn makes no choice between good or evil. He or she exists only in the caring love of a parent; she receives the first gasps of breath as the gift of life from the ones for whom she, in turn, represents the same. The immediate bonds are pure and uncomplicated—unconditional, no corrupting influence—even if the intimacy shared between the biological father and mother can be messy. Human birth is unique; it’s as close as we can be to the divine experience of creation, where the amazing complexity of life emerges in its most perfect, pure, and paradisiacal form. Perhaps that’s why it is hard for me to appreciate the Christian notion of original sin, i.e., a theological dogma developed by Augustine in the 4th century which claims human beings have an innate predisposition to be evil —even newborns—morally stained and naturally impure due to the Fall of Adam and Eve. Yet, aside from the biblical tale itself, where does this even 1 From William Blake, “The Lamb”, in “Songs of Innocence”. 1 come from? On what basis is this claim true? What evidence would there be of it? What sign of sin is found in such a state of innocence? Theologians have debated this for centuries, yet the doctrine of “original sin” has survived to this day, defining in large part Christian rhetoric and beliefs, fostering Catholic guilt and Protestant shame, including the hardened Calvinist claim of total human depravity, with little distinction made between what is truly good or evil in our nature. Philosophically, it’s always seemed to me a dubious premise. If every human being is inherently imprinted with evil from conception, then where lies the image of God (imago Dei)? How does “good” arise from within us if we are inherently predisposed to do evil? Or let me put it this way: if God is love, and if we believe this little life emerging from the womb is a gift from God, then how can it not be a blessing? Does a mother merely give birth to one who is evil? If so, wouldn’t you think it should serve the purposes of God more if children were never born? It doesn’t add up. For me, the argument for original sin gets squirrelly. Besides, doesn’t it seem truer to our experience and sensibility to believe a newborn’s soul is imprinted, not with original sin, but rather with original love? That’s what is evoked in us, isn’t it? If I, as a father or grandfather (with my limited and imperfect capacity to know and express love in its fulness) can witness and embrace the beautiful and utter inculpability of a child, how can we believe God won’t as the Source of life and love for us all? You see, if we begin with the premise of love (which is most natural), it then gets easier for us to reframe our notion of human nature and our relationship with God and how evil may enter and impede things. It requires a relationship of love to be able to recognize evidence of innocence 2 —signs that lie not only within a child, but remarkably within us as well— discovered in the unadulterated yearning to love and selflessly care for a fragile and vulnerable infant. Holding this gift of God close to our own heart is a sign of grace and generosity, not one meant to provoke scorn or despair. There are few things in human experience that are more beautiful and perfect than a babe who arises out of the womb and is placed onto a mother’s breast. For that, and many other reasons, the story of Eden and the Fall from Paradise is, for me, less about original sin and more about original love. Metaphorically understood (as it should be), God placed the original couple in the innocent bliss of Eden, naked without shame, providing for their every need. This was the portrait of Edenlike perfection. Yet, at the center of their world was the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were not allowed to eat of this, lest they lose their state of innocence. Then, at some point, temptation rises up in the figure of a serpent. First, Eve is tempted and then she, as tradition interprets it, tempts Adam. Their eyes are opened and they lose their innocence and when found out, God casts them out of Paradise. For centuries, Christianity has presented this as the moment human beings became sinful, literally or metaphorically. Everything ugly about humanity (and all that’s redemptive) follows from that. That said, what if the storyteller was conveying another message—a different truth? Traditional interpretations make it sound as if God’s plans went awry—even haywire—that had Eve not fallen to temptation, humanity would remain in Eden. But what if this exit from Paradise was part of the plan all along? What if the loss of innocence is not an indication of Adam and Eve’s moral failure, but rather, an intended consequence of their 3 natural human development as mortal beings—physically, spiritually, emotionally, and relationally. What if the “act of disobedience” was actually signifying when humans invariably leave the state of innocence to acquire wisdom through the knowledge of evil. “Eating” of the tree, then, is an invitation to acquiring the necessary knowledge for life, i.e. knowledge that is considered “wisdom.” Yes, it may appear to be divine damnation that casts them from Paradise, but what if it isn’t? What if they had to depart Eden simply to live out the fullness of their lives? What if Paradise is never truly lost, but rediscovered in the births of succeeding generations—in their initial states of innocence? What would be the proof of my claim? The innocence and bliss of every newborn who is loved and cradled in a mother’s or father’s arms. Let’s look at the story, even in its abbreviated form. What does it represent? Initially, it reflects a state of innocence. As I’ve said, when does that occur? In our most primitive estate in infancy. It is the initial stage of life immediate from the womb where we are taken care of, with no sense of responsibility placed upon a child. It’s a state of blissful and utter dependence, where everything needed is provided in a loving, nurturing environment. Nakedness is natural for an infant—there is no shame or self- consciousness; it knows of no other way. If anything, life consists of child- play and emotional bonds of trust and love. This is a pristine state of life to experience, but only when it’s appropriate to the age. If a child were to remain this way for 10, 20, or 30 years, then it would indicate something was wrong or hadn’t properly developed. The normal stages of development—physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually—had not unfolded as they should. Childhood, 4 as we know, has its appropriate timespan, until it gives way to adolescence and eventual adulthood. That is the point of the forbidden fruit in the center of the Garden; there is an appropriate time for a child to taste from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Hebrew word for knowledge—yada— refers to many kinds of knowledge: wisdom, intellectual comprehension, practical skill development, a conscious awareness of God and, of course, carnal knowledge. So the acquisition of knowledge is not a bad thing; it is something that naturally occurs in a graduated way throughout childhood and youth and must be encouraged, prepared for, and fostered. When does this change of life occur—this significant awakening to enlightenment normally unfold? Around the time of puberty. Hormones begin to explode and the body changes; an adult physique and awareness of the world begins to develop, along with a growth in intellect and emotions. A carnal knowledge emerges for the first time—appropriate to the age (as this story depicts, sexual awareness usually comes first to girls before boys), with a growing sense of the meaning of one’s body and sexuality, erotic desires, and a more mature identity. In the Bible, sexual intercourse itself is referred to as possessing “knowledge” of one’s partner (e.g., Genesis 4:1: “Now Adam knew his wife, Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain…”). With the developing complexity of human emotions and physiological changes that occur from puberty on through adolescence, all of this requires moral constraint and awareness of what would be right and what would be wrong.

Load more