Genesis 3:1-7 & Matthew 7:15-20
For our journey through Lent we’re starting with the second creation story (Genesis 2). We’re taking it in small bites – three sermons instead of one – and today we bite off the bit about what gets eaten. Traditionally, this is an apple, although that’s not identified here. Interesting that although the apple features as the bad idea in the way we remember the story, we still believe that “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”
Last week there were lots of word plays in the scripture and we begin this week with one. We ended last week with the idea that the humans were naked and unashamed and we begin this week with the note that the serpent had “naked” intelligence. Interesting that the same word is used for both. We have been taught that the serpent is the bad guy in this because he’s crafty, but the word used to describe his intelligence isn’t a negative word.
At issue this week is the matter of eating of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” God has instructed the humans not to eat its fruit, but there it is in the middle of the garden. If it’s so bad, why is it there? The simple answer is that this is an origin story, one that explains why things are, and the author needs it for the story to work. But it seems odd that God would intentionally set humans up for failure at the very beginning of this human experiment. We’re told that those who eat this fruit know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. Over the centuries this story has been explained as testing humans’ ability to follow directions. God says don’t eat it, so don’t. Disobedience is bad and has disastrous consequences. God says you’ll die. The serpent says no, you won’t die, you’ll become like God (who knows the difference between good and evil). Which one was right? Interpreters have told us that this disobedience is the reason humans are mortal and eventually die, but there’s nothing in the story ahead of this action which says humans were immortal. In fact we know we aren’t and never have been.
So what’s at stake in this story? First of all it’s a very ancient story that shows us how people were trying to make sense of their world. As such it functions more as a snapshot of what ancient people might have been thinking than as a definitive explanation for all times. They were wondering why there is both good and bad in life and this is a way to explain that.
Second, let’s think about what it means to be able to make decisions about what’s good and what’s bad. Humans begin life without that ability. Infants and small children are innocent – a word we use to say they don’t have a framework for making choices about good and evil. Hopefully they have only positive experiences (although that changes the minute they are first hungry or need a diaper change), and so they see the world through eyes which expect good. Slowly, they learn that some things are acceptable and others not – they acquire the knowledge of good and evil. It’s good to share your cookie with a friend and bad to run away from Dad in a parking lot. The norms of culture and family shape a child’s understanding of morality, starting with simple rules and growing into complex issues. Children who don’t develop this ability to understand right and wrong and make positive choices are diagnosed with personality disorders and become a menace to society.
So why would it be better for humanity not to develop this ability? What happens if the humans remain innocent forever? First of all, that simply wasn’t possible. Simply by living they are going to encounter the joys and difficulties of life. Second, the shaping of what we call civilization requires that people make choices about what’s good and what’s not. We have to agree on the rules in order to live in community. Yuval Noah Harari is a popular author whose books Sapiens and Homo Deus are rising on the best-seller lists. They are books about how humanity evolved, particularly in our thought processes. He suggests that stories like the one we consider today teach us that God is the one who establishes what’s right and what’s wrong and has the authority to tell us what to do based on that criterion. We’re familiar with that idea – think the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule. In Jesus’ day the Law was the criteria by which life was governed – the Jewish law or Torah for religious rules in his circle and Roman law in political circles. People followed God by following the rules.
But it’s instructive to ask who benefited when people followed the law. Surely the common folks weren’t getting much help from it. Roman law was oppressive and violent. Religious law was expensive and divided the people in power who could afford to follow it from the peasants who couldn’t. If you were poor or enslaved, the law separated you from God. Interesting that these stories are preserved and promoted by the folks who hold power and get to say what God wants.
Then let’s put Jesus’ teaching into this mix. First Jesus simplifies the law by suggesting that it’s just Love – love God and love your neighbor. Then in today’s reading he reminds folks that you can judge the quality of a person by watching what she or he does. You will be known by the fruit you produce. (Notice that centuries later, we’re still talking about fruit.) People can be known as generous, kind, and just or they can be known as stingy, mean and self-serving. You can tell by what they say and what they do. It’s possible to follow the written law and be a bad person and to break the law and make the world a better place. Everything is complicated and there aren’t always (or often) easy answers. Because we know what’s good, we become responsible for how we use that knowledge and for what we choose to do.
Responsibility for making choices is harder than just following rules. The rule says “don’t kill.” Tell that to a Ukrainian solder defending a city. An old rule says “women should be quiet.” We’ve decided as a community that rule isn’t useful and should be changed. It’s hard for us a groups of people to work out what it means to live in community and care for each other. But the effort is part of what makes us human and what allows us to evolve as a society.
It seems to me that it’s not possible for humanity to exist without knowing good and bad – that some things work for good and others cause harm. The suggestion that we could have been human without this is a pipe dream. Humans know right and wrong as they experience life. Whether or not this makes us “like God” depends on what we do about it. If we define God as what is good, then when we use our knowledge for good, we are showing God’s image. If we use it for ill, then everyone suffers, including ourselves. Jesus assumes that we can tell the difference and encourages us to work together for those things that lift everyone up – food, clothing, shelter, dignity, compassion. No matter what the story says, this is knowledge that we all have. The question is, what will we do with it? How will we form a community that blesses everyone? What fruit will we bear individually and together? And how will we know when we’re making progress?