What does it mean to be like God and know the difference between good and evil?

Explanation:

The serpent tells Eve that if she eats the fruit of the tree she will become like God, knowing good and evil. To help us understand what this means we can start by considering Genesis 3:6. There, the author explains that as Eve contemplates the serpent’s suggestion, she sees that the tree is desirable to make one wise.⁹ In other words, the serpent suggested to Eve that if she eats from the tree, she will know good and evil, and as she looks over the tree, she perceives that indeed the tree is desirable for wisdom. The author has introduced the serpent’s temptation with the phrase know good and evil in Genesis 3:5, and the meaning is refined when we learn that Eve took this to mean know wisdom. Thus, to know good and evil has to do with gaining knowledge in the sense of wisdom.

Counterargument:

In order to understand what it means to know good and evil we should simply consider the plain meaning of the two nouns, good and evil. The simplest meaning of good and evil is right and wrong. In other words, when Eve eats from the tree she will know the difference between right conduct and wrong conduct. Right and wrong conduct have to do with morals, so we should assume that Eve was tempted to know morality.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it fails to incorporate the insights of Genesis 3:6. There we learned that when Eve contemplated the temptation, she saw that the tree was desired for wisdom. Another way to translate the term wisdom might be with the term success.¹⁰ The idea here is not that the woman will gain knowledge concerning what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Rather, the knowledge she seeks is more encompassing, as it will endow her with wisdom. In other words, Eve is concerned to gain the type of knowledge that will contribute to existence.¹¹ In order to flourish in existence one needs to distinguish what is fruitful from what is harmful. Thus, the knowledge Eve is tempted to gain is functional.¹² By gaining insight into what is fruitful and what is harmful, Eve thinks she will gain self-mastery over her existence. What Eve fails to remember is that as a created being, she will never have complete mastery over her existence, although she can rely on God’s guidance for her flourishing. When she disobeys God’s command, she simply reinforces the fact that it is impossible for a created being to have mastery over its existence (on the definition that mastery entails flourishing).

Explanation:

When the serpent tempts Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he tells her that if she eats from the tree, her eyes will be opened and she will be like God (Genesis 3:5). Understanding what it means that her eyes will be opened can help us understand what it means that she will be like God, knowing good and evil.¹³

Interestingly, the phrase opening one’s eyes is used on two other occasions in the Old Testament, and in both instances the phrase is a metaphor for knowledge, gaining newfound awareness.¹⁴ First, in Genesis 21, Sarah is jealous that Hagar’s son plays with Isaac. Abraham sends Hagar away, but she runs out of water and fears that her son will die (Genesis 21:15–16). Then God comes to Hagar and opens her eyes and she sees that there is a well for her to draw water from (Genesis 21:19). After this she gives her son a drink (Genesis 21:20). The point is that Hagar overlooks the well until God opens her eyes, making her aware of new knowledge to rescue her from her situation.

The second time that we find someone’s eyes being opened is when Elisha prays to God that his servant would see that God is with them. Elisha asks God if he would open the eyes of the servant. God answers Elisha’s prayer by opening the servant’s eyes so that he sees that the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire who were meant to fight alongside Elisha (2 Kings 6:17). Once again, the phrase open his eyes is used when a recipient gains deeper insight on a matter.

When we combine the promise that Eve’s eyes will be opened with the notion that she will gain knowledge of good and evil, the suggestion is that Eve will gain insights that are normally only reserved for God.¹⁵

Counterargument:

It might be that to have one’s eyes opened has to do with gaining a new awareness. Still, the overall argument here is that to become like God, knowing good from evil, is to gain mastery over one’s existence. Since to have one’s eyes opened only entails gaining new awareness, the author might have in mind something other than mastery over one’s existence. For example, becoming like God, knowing good and evil, might have to do with gaining magical knowledge. This account takes place in the ancient Near East, where polytheism and knowledge associated with magic were common.¹⁶ It is possible that the author of Genesis is refuting the desire for such magical knowledge.¹⁷ It is also possible that the author has the Canaanite fertility cult in mind.¹⁸ When Israel entered Canaan, she was tempted to participate in the Canaanite traditions and practices, including the fertility cult, which promised life.¹⁹ The author of Genesis is polemical against such practices, and uses the symbolism of the serpent and the tree of knowledge of good and evil to make his case. In either case, that Eve’s eyes would be opened only implies newfound knowledge, and not necessarily the type of knowledge that offers mastery over her existence.

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is not that for Eve to have her eyes opened necessarily entails a certain type of knowledge. Rather, the point is that in other cases when one’s eyes are opened, the newfound knowledge is revealed by God. In both Genesis 21:19 and 2 Kings 6:17, God is the one who opens the eyes of the characters. This implies that the knowledge is a high-level knowledge, not impossible for humans to grasp, but that without the intervention of God, the human would not gain such knowledge. The serpent suggests to Eve that she can gain a new awareness, normally imparted through divine means, by her own effort. Whereas God voluntarily revealed such knowledge to Hager, and whereas Elisha prayed to God for it to be revealed to his servant, Eve is tempted to take hold of it by her own accord. Thus, the author has in view a much broader vision than cultural polemics. Eve is tempted by the notion that she can have mastery over her own existence by eating of the tree that is supposed to open her eyes.

Explanation:

The serpent states that by eating of the tree Eve will become like God, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:5). Eve does eat from the tree, and so does Adam. After this, God finds them in the garden, and for their disobedience to his command he lays burdens on them. Then, in his kindness he makes them garments of skin so that they can clothe themselves (Genesis 3:21). We then read in Genesis 3:22 that God says to himself that the man has become like him, knowing good and evil. This statement helps us see that there is a correlation between becoming like God and knowing good and evil. In other words, to become like God is to know good and evil, and to know good and evil is to become like God. In the context of Genesis 3:5 the phrases are synonymous, and this is confirmed in Genesis 3:22 when God says, The man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.²⁰

Counterargument:

If the phrases becoming like God and knowing good and evil are synonymous, and God says that Adam and Eve have become like God (Genesis 3:22), why would they be expelled from the garden? It is much more likely that to know good and evil has to do with content that God knows but humans do not. By eating from the tree, Eve will know something that was previously known only to God, and thus become like God. If we take good and evil in a moral sense, then we could say that God knew right from wrong, but Eve did not know good and evil at this deeper level because she had never sinned. Now that she has sinned, she knows right from wrong, and thus the content of her knowledge has grown, albeit in a negative way.

Response to counterargument:

The notions that the knowledge of good and evil is moral knowledge and that becoming like God means growing in one’s knowledge will not work. The argument is that God knows right from wrong and that Eve gains this knowledge by sinning. This argument implies that the only way to gain knowledge of good and evil is through sinning, and since God has such knowledge, he must have previously sinned. Such a thought is anathema. One might try to get around this objection by saying that on the one hand, God is omniscient, and so has knowledge of what is right and wrong without ever sinning, but Eve is not omniscient so she does not have such knowledge until she sins. This argument will not do either because God expects Adam and Eve to understand that to disobey his command and eat from the tree is wrong. This implies that moral knowledge is possible for humans even without sinning.

This leads us to the first part of the counterargument, which wonders why Adam and Eve would be expelled from the garden if they became like God. The idea behind this argument is that God admits in Genesis 3:22 that in fact, eating from the tree produced the desired effect, and now that Adam and Eve are wise like God, why should they be driven away from the tree of life? The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is absurd to suggest that humans have actually become like God in any positive manner. So we must press for a more refined interpretation, for what Eve understood the serpent to mean in Genesis 3:5 and what God means in Genesis 3:22 are not identical. Of course, we can explain the difference between Eve’s understanding of what it means to be like God and God’s understanding when we hold that to become like God, knowing good and evil has to do with gaining mastery over one’s existence. If becoming like God by knowing good and evil means gaining mastery over one’s existence, then it is true that Adam and Eve have become like God in the sense that they have taken hold of their existence. God had given them an order not to disobey (Genesis 2:17). Instead, they took mastery over their existence and decided to disobey by taking from the tree. The problem here is that when creatures become masters of their existence, the result is inevitable destruction due to the infallibility of their nature. Thus, maximal human flourishing is not in becoming like God, which leads to destruction, but in submitting to God’s authority, because only he has true mastery over existence according to the perfection of his nature.

Possible weaknesses:

This view casts a broad vision for the story of the fall into sin. It says that Eve’s motivation was autonomy over her existence, but because of the dependency of humanity, such autonomy is impossible. Although it was not mentioned in the above interpretation, it also allows one to see how the faculties of free will and human rationality are powerful gifts from God that can be used for evil. This explains how God could create all things good, but also that since humans have the good faculty of free will and conscious awareness, there is a possibility for evil. The one weakness of this view is that the term knowledge of good and evil does not sound much like mastery over one’s existence. If the author had stated that eating from the tree would make Eve like God, knowing wisdom for abundant living, this interpretation would be a given. This leaves open the possibility that the author has in mind something other than mastery over one’s existence, or general life wisdom. Still, given the analysis above, the interpretation that becoming like God, knowing good and evil means having mastery over one’s existence offers a more than plausible explanation.

Explanation:

There was a Solomonic tradition in Israel that sought to overcome mysteries and gain new knowledge because knowledge is power.²⁴ The general notion of the wisdom teachers is that knowledge has to do with freedom and control.²⁵ The author of this story is confronting this notion by asking his reader to consider whether there are boundaries to knowledge.²⁶ In other words, when is the cost of knowledge too high?

The author might have an aggressive royal context in mind.²⁷ We know from Israelite history that David knew enough to orchestrate a situation that allowed him to be with Bathsheba.²⁸ We also know from Isaiah that the king of Assyria was scolded for acting according to his own wisdom.²⁹ The point is, there is a limit to knowledge where trust in God takes its place.

Counterargument:

There are several problems with this interpretation. First, the narrative does not condemn knowledge in general but disobedience to God. In fact, the whole narrative revolves around this point. In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam not to eat from the tree of know of good and evil, and then in Genesis 3:5 the serpent temps Eve to eat from the tree and thereby disobey God. In what follows, God punishes Adam and Eve for their disobedience, expelling them from the garden. The whole affair explains much more than the notion that there are limits to knowledge. Rather, it explains that God is the majestic creator who is always to be obeyed (Genesis 1:1; Genesis 2:15–17). It explains how humans have alienated themselves from God (Genesis 3:8), why work is difficult (Genesis 3:17–19), and why childbirth is painful (Genesis 3:16). It explains mortality (Genesis 3:22–23) but also the graciousness of God that he would continue to provide and protect Adam and Eve, even after they disobeyed him (Genesis 3:21, Genesis 3:24).

Second, this interpretation posits that there is something detrimental about the Solomonic wisdom tradition. It is hard to take this contention seriously given the fact that the Solomonic tradition has been preserved for us as Scripture (Proverbs 1:1 – 31:31, Ecclesiastes 1:1 – 12:14, Song of Solomon 1:1 – 8:14). Further, it assumes that the narration of Genesis 3:1–24 was compiled after the wisdom tradition of Solomon was established, but without arguing for such a late date.

Third, this interpretation fails to consider the primeval genre of the narrative. The primeval genre is used to explain the broadest aspects of existence and humanity.³⁰ We see similar efforts from other ancient Near Eastern cultures who try use such narratives to explain the broadest features of existence. Thus, it is a mistake to think that primeval literature is a polemic against certain attitudes or institutions.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness with this view is that it does not take the genre of the account seriously. Genesis 3:1–24 is written not in the genre of poetry or prophecy, but in the genre of historical narrative. This means we ought to take seriously the historicity of the account. When we do this, and we pay attention to the details, we find that the narrative has to do with disobedience to God, not the boundaries of knowledge.