Expert: Fr. Timothy Johnson - 12/10/2007

Question
QUESTION: When Adam partook of the Tree of Knowlege, G-d drove him out of the Garden of Eden, preventing him from taking of the Tree of Life.  He also "cursed the ground for his sake," stated that from then on he shalt eat of the ground "in pain" and "by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," and that the ground "shall bring forth "thorns and thistles."  To Eve, he said that He would "greatly multiply thy pain of thy conception," "for thy husband shall be thy desire, but he shall rule over thee."  To the snake, he commanded "upon thy belly thou shalt go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life."  

My questions are:

1. G-d stated that if Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, "on that day thou shalt surely die."  However, Adam went on to live a total of 930 years.  He didn't die "on that day."  Why not?

2. Part of the curse was that Adam would have to work the land from then on, and that it would bring forth "thorns and thistles." However, the original chore given to Man in the Garden was "to till the land, and to keep it."  So it seems like the only additional part added by the Curse is that Adam would till the land "by the sweat of his face." Is that your understanding? And since G-d created the ground, and saw that it was good, why would he then curse it?  What did the ground do that required a curse?  

3. G-d stated to Eve, "for your husband shall be your desire..."  Why is that a curse?  Shouldn't a wife's desire be for her husband?  

4. The snake was told that it would go on its belly from then on.  Did the original snakes NOT go on their bellies (did they have legs or some other form of motion)?  And to this day snakes or serpents are not known to eat dust. Why not?  

Thank you for your clarifications to these questions.

Bruce

*****

ANSWER: Hi, Bruce:
I hope that I can help shed some light on your questions.

1. I would say that the death "on that day" was the spiritual death of the relationship between man and G-d.  In other words, the original covenant was broken, and this brought death.  There would have to be forgiveness and atonement following upon this act of Adam "on that day."
The Apostle Paul writes of the "Day of Salvation."  This would be the antithesis to the day of curse of the fall of man in Adam...

2.  The ground became a curse to man by becoming "burden" to him.  Before the fall, man knew his relationship to God and the order of creation of which he was a part; after the fall, this knowledge, harmony, and balance was lost to man in his intellect, his will, his spirit...  You seem to observe rightly that curse and blessing strictly speaking pertain to rational natures, e.g. human beings, angels

3. This is the desire of concupiscence, or disordered desire - pertaining to lust.  It is unreasonable and irrational.  It is a movement of the will, the volition of spirit toward not just an object ot person itself, but even in those things that would be bad in it, or for the one desiring it.  St. Paul typifies this where he writes of doing the very things he wills not to do, and not doing the very things he ought to do.

4.  I would say that the language here is quite poetic, so that the description is more of the location and locomotion down and thru the dust, not the eating of the dust in the sense of sustenance and nourishment.  As for whether serpents possessed limbs prior to this, I really do not know.  Of course the serpent in the account is the devil in a form, not a natural creature, but a praeternatural apparition to Eve...

Fr. Timothy Johnson

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi, Fr. Johnson,

Thank you for those answers.  May I ask just a few follow-ups?

1. Your answers are poetic in themselves, and contain a beautiful sense of creativity.  But the language of Genesis is rather succinct and straightforward.  Your answers, although beautiful, seem to be your own interpretation; the stories in Genesis could be interpreted otherwise.  For instance, I could say that the correct belief is of exactly what is written.  For example, G-d says that Adam "will surely die on that day."  He doesn't say that it will be a spiritual death.  You interpret that it means a spiritual death, but that's not what it says.  Why would someone believe your interpretation rather than what's actually written?

2. The same can be said regarding the serpent.  G-d states that the serpent "will eat dust."  You interpret it to be poetic and figurative, but once again, the language is very clear.  If G-d wanted us to understand the "hidden meaning," why would he use such plain, clear language?  It would seem to open up the possibility of a multitude of different understandings.  Doesn't it seem more likely that the language is exactly what it says, and that perhaps the entire story is allegorical?  And if it's allegorical, that opens up a huge range of other possibilities, doesn't it?

3. In Genesis, Chapter 9, after the flood, it seems that G-d ends the Curse on Man by re-establishing his covenant, even sealing the deal with a rainbow.  Noah is said to be a perfect man who walked with G-d (without sin).  Why would the "original  sin" continue through this event?  It seems that G-d washed away the evil in the world with the flood, and now "gives man a fresh start."  Is that not so?

Thanks again for your help in understanding all this.

Bruce

*****

Answer
Hi, Bruce:

I would not say that the interpretations are entirely my own creativity or poetry in an arbitrary sense of my own inventions.  The Church Fathers and teachers throughout Catholic history have approached these matters from which I have gleaned my understanding.
I would have to disagree that the Covenant with Noah after the flood washed away absolutely all the evil in the world; rather, the Covenant points toward the whole thrust of Salvation History through the Covenants of the Old Testament into the New, in the Gospels.  The "fresh start" is the point and guide toward the saving power of G-d in the Savior, Jesus Christ, Who fulfills all of the previous "types" in the very being of His Person.
Catholic Tradition does not claim absolute, literal interpretation of the language of the Bible.  We must often times understand deeper underlying meanings beyod the literal sense.  Sacred Scripture is more than simply historical data.
There are parts of the Gospels where Jesus is asked why He teaches in Parables, and he quotes a Psalm that says: "I will open my mouth in Parables" (Ps 77 or 78; the numbering is varaiant according to the edition); so that one sees without seeing, and understands without understanding, etc.
I cannot impart the gift of Catholic Faith to you or anybody (this is the work of the Holy Spirit); but you need to understand that I am a Catholic Priest, and I present Theology, etc. from that perspective.  Obviously not all will agree with it, otherwise the whole world would be Catholic.  I am what I am; and I can only give what I have received from Tradition as a Catholic.

Fr. Timothy Johnson