IN THE GARDEN

-- by Dan J. McDonald



This item was formerly included in my journal ("On the Road Again") and titled MATTERS OF THE SPIRIT I -- IN THE GARDEN. I have discontinued the journal and moved items there to other appropriate folders.



What exactly would something called The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil look like, and what would a fruit look like that contained this knowledge? Of course, such questions are only a problem if one insists that the Biblical story of creation and its aftermath must be interpreted literally. Personally, however, I find such a faith limiting -- my God is big enough to include both metaphor and myth. Except perhaps for my youngest days, I have never believed the Bible to have been intended as a science textbook, and thus have no concern about whether the creation story recorded there is literally true or not. The evidence seems to indicate to me that it is not. What I find important is that God created and is in control.

To anyone with at least some acquaintance with the Genesis account of creation, it is well known that there are in fact two creation stories there, and they strongly contradict one another. I have heard numerous efforts to reconcile these stories and make them one, but that is like saying an elephant and a monkey are the same thing because they are both animals.

And to the literalist who understands that the Moon was created to rule the night, I wonder how one explains the fact that the Moon rises later each night during its cycle, and some nights are moonless. The moon is out only during the day on these occasions.

To me, the weakness of literalism shows most strongly in the tale of the fall. I doubt strongly that the literal eating of any fruit from any tree had anything whatsoever to do with the separation of humankind from God brought about by an act of disobedience. First, unless we are talking about the first bad drug trip here, it is obvious to me that the fruit of the trees is metaphor. I think it to be blatantly obvious that trees with names like "the knowledge of good and evil" and "tree of life" are metaphorical in nature.

Then comes the question: "What is the consequence of knowing the difference between good and evil?" Does this mean that good and evil existed, but humankind was not able to tell the difference between them? I rather think that the meaning here conveyed is that the act of disobedience has opened the door to the presence of evil in the world. There has been much speculation, scholarly and otherwise, about what that specific act may have been, but it is not my intention to discuss that here.

Finally, the Biblical story records that angelic guards were placed around the Tree of Life to prevent Adam and Eve from partaking of the fruit of that tree and living forever, even after they had partaken of the fruit that brought about death. Interpreting that metaphor in terms of the Christian myth, I believe that Tree of Life was Jesus the Christ, who was then far from the fullness of time regarding his role as Savior, and thus not to be made available to fulfill that role to those in the Garden. I do not insist upon this being the one absolutely correct interpretation, but it is the one I personally find most spiritually filling.

So what's the point of all this? The point is that a literal interpretation limits and defines God in such a way that God is contained in a box, unable to fully exercise the power of creation. I prefer an openness to spiritual learning and experience, allowing God to reveal God, able to open hearts and minds to spiritual understanding.