Our first parents fall. She blames the serpent; he blames "the woman whom thou gavest me..." (Gen. 3, 11) Each of them, instead of confessing his guilt and asking for pardon, blames another for the sin: the prototype of everything that ever went wrong between man and woman (and for every reality cop show).
"For Augustine and the medievals, it was the woman’s “proud presumption of herself,” her own power, her own mind, that led her to doubt the clear word of God."
For my part, I have always struggled to find clarity in the idea that "you will die today" could mean "you will die in 1000 years." There are a huge number of interpretations of what the "death" of the first humans could have meant, and not all of them have anything to do with a literal cessation of bodily function. Yet if we struggle to interpret these "clear" words of God through the "obviously literal" sense in which Augustine seems to maintain that they were given, why should we not also consider other parts of the narrative as stretching it? (For my part I do think the snake was meant to refer to a literal snake, but I am uneasy with how that comports with the rest of the narrative). Augustine and Aquinas have no problem supposing that creation was not over a period of time: Augustine, as I understand it, holds that the whole universe as created in an instant. How are we to sit comfortably with our interpretation, when we are squeezing six "days" into an instant, and yet stretching out another "day" into a millennia, and seemingly for nothing more than that it allows us to render the text more convenient to our preexisting views? Who knows, who knows.
Thank you for the thought-provoking article, though!
The fathers typically read "in the day... you shall die" as referring to the beginning of mortality, not necessarily its end. Remember, Adam hadn't seen anything die yet, and so he didn't have an exact frame of reference for what this cryptic punishment meant either, but he knew this much: it was a real punishment and it would be really bad.
Augustine came to his belief about instant creation due to his misreading of Sirach, so for him it was an attempt to harmonize Scripture with itself, and I agree it's not a great interpretation given Genesis 1 quite literally defines day and night as cycles of light and darkness.
Our first parents fall. She blames the serpent; he blames "the woman whom thou gavest me..." (Gen. 3, 11) Each of them, instead of confessing his guilt and asking for pardon, blames another for the sin: the prototype of everything that ever went wrong between man and woman (and for every reality cop show).
How did you stumble into such an obscure and erudite pursuit? Carry on, sir.
Haha I found these gems in preparation for a Bible study I led on Genesis 3.
"For Augustine and the medievals, it was the woman’s “proud presumption of herself,” her own power, her own mind, that led her to doubt the clear word of God."
For my part, I have always struggled to find clarity in the idea that "you will die today" could mean "you will die in 1000 years." There are a huge number of interpretations of what the "death" of the first humans could have meant, and not all of them have anything to do with a literal cessation of bodily function. Yet if we struggle to interpret these "clear" words of God through the "obviously literal" sense in which Augustine seems to maintain that they were given, why should we not also consider other parts of the narrative as stretching it? (For my part I do think the snake was meant to refer to a literal snake, but I am uneasy with how that comports with the rest of the narrative). Augustine and Aquinas have no problem supposing that creation was not over a period of time: Augustine, as I understand it, holds that the whole universe as created in an instant. How are we to sit comfortably with our interpretation, when we are squeezing six "days" into an instant, and yet stretching out another "day" into a millennia, and seemingly for nothing more than that it allows us to render the text more convenient to our preexisting views? Who knows, who knows.
Thank you for the thought-provoking article, though!
The fathers typically read "in the day... you shall die" as referring to the beginning of mortality, not necessarily its end. Remember, Adam hadn't seen anything die yet, and so he didn't have an exact frame of reference for what this cryptic punishment meant either, but he knew this much: it was a real punishment and it would be really bad.
Augustine came to his belief about instant creation due to his misreading of Sirach, so for him it was an attempt to harmonize Scripture with itself, and I agree it's not a great interpretation given Genesis 1 quite literally defines day and night as cycles of light and darkness.
It could be that "day" is like "world" which has multiple definitions.
"World" means anywhere where Humans are, the specific age one is in, or the specific mood / "zeitgeist."
Day would therefore mean that Adam would not live beyond his time, he would not be able to observe the time of Seth.
Possibly! Comparing this with the usage of the exact same phrase, “in the day,” בְּי֗וֹם, in Genesis 2:4 would be instructive.
Now Adam Lived here for 2000 years, but people since The Deluge have Lived for about 100 years give or take. Same as now.
In the ancient world, a “generation” means 20 years: 13 years to Adulthood plus 7 years for your child to reach the Age Of Reason.
Five generations is when things pass from Memory to History. This is when all the people who learned from first hand sources pass on.
Therefore the 100 years is “our day.”