That was the question that Toby, my 4½ year old son, asked a few nights ago, as he was feeling a little off colour. Ah, I know the answer to that one, I thought.
"God doesn’t make you ill. In fact, God is very sad that people get ill." I said. I wish I had left it there. "When he first made the world, no-body got ill".
My first mistake. Big mistake.
"So how did people start getting ill?" said Toby. Good question, Toby. Very good question.
So how would you describe to a 4½ year old about the origins of illness?
For my response … click on "read the rest" …
Mind working fast: How do you tell a small person about sin, and rebellion, and how sin brings in death and decay?
"Would you like me to tell you a story Toby?" "Oh yes Dad, please".
"Well, a long long time ago, when God made the world, it was a very good place to live. For all the people who lived there, no-one got ill, no-one would die, and nothing would break"
"What ‘nothing’?" exclaimed Toby. "not even toys". (you can see what is important to him!)
"No, net even toys! Now there was a man called Adam and woman called Eve, and they were husband and wife, like Mummy and Daddy. And they lived in a beautiful garden, with lots of lovely places to explore and different things to eat. But there was one tree that God said you must not eat from: it would make them sick. You know the plant in our garden, Toby, with red berries on that Mummy and Daddy say that you mustn’t eat because you would be ill? Well it was like that. If Adam and Eve ate the fruit from this tree, they would be sick."
"And guess what Adam and Eve did? Well they ate the fruit from that tree, and they got sick. And that is how people started getting ill. But God is working very hard to make the world a better place, where people don’t get sick or die, and things don’t break."
"Oh that would be wonderful" grinned Toby. Yes it would!
And here is my thought that emerged from this interaction with Toby: that "story" moves beyond the questions of a literal (or otherwise) interpretation of Gen 1 – 3, because story connects profoundly with our human experience. We find our own lives and experience mirrored in the story, and somehow it really doesn’t matter if it was 6 days or not etc., because we find at a much deeper level that the story is true, shedding light on God, ourselves, our experience and longings as we navigate our way in this world.
you mean the red berries are not good???
never give kids too much info, lol, now if only God had thought of that and not mentioned the tree they couldn’t eat
Not these kind of red berries!
It’s always worse when you are told you can’t do something – you just want to go and do it …
Hi Rupert,
I really liked your story and think you captured the essence of the Genesis 2-3 narrative really well, especially for a four year old!
As a small aside, I do wonder if we go too far when we ascribe perfection to the Edenic State. I’ve heard someone say once that in the garden of Eden you couldn’t even stub your toe!
But this calls into question the nature of free will in the garden, or the reality of the environment lived in. I just can’t see why it would be impossible to stub your toe before sin entered into the world. Likewise, I’m not sure I see the connection between sin entering the world, and something breaking.
So I wonder if the garden was “very good” without being “perfect”. Perhaps if you tripped on a rock in Eden an angel would attend and steady you, as the Psalms themselves promise for a fallen world, let alone a pre-fall world.
Anyway, not really anything to do with your main point, just I started thinking about this when I read the story.
BTW I agree, disputes about days, dinosaurs, and even design can miss the point entirely with these ancient (true) stories.
Thanks Alastair. My thought about brokenness comes from “decay” in Romans 8. It seems that from the story of Genesis, decay has been brought into creation system. Bodies decay. Creation decays. Things grow old. Perhaps it is too far to say that things didn’t break – but there is something about the world just now that means that we do need new clothes, new things, and new bodies, because of decay.
It also seems that the end of the story has a new city, with no pain. So does that mean there wasn’t pain in the first garden?
For me the story of Gen 1-3 is about God’s original intention, regardless of how literal the story is. It connects with our longings, which should propel us forward (rather than back) to the hope of the new Jerusalem.
Thanks Rupert for your reply. I think you are definitely onto something there with the theme of decay. Interestingly though, did you know that there is no conceivable way the current world can work without decay? Everything from the cosmos, to the ecosystem, to our own bodies needs decay/entropy to function. Its very hard to picture a world without this. Although this affirms the new creation (as you need a new creation to get rid of decay), it makes the pre-fall Edenic state very hard to comprehend.
I find Gen 2-4 one of the most interesting passages in the entire bible. Its a fascinating and incredibly complex text, which seems to defy most analysis…to me, there is clearly a “mythic” slant to the entire text…yet I believe its veracity to be beyond question. As you say, to literally read it is often to miss the point entirely. Yet to dismiss is mythology or parable is I believe an equal mistake.
Oh one more thing…your point about no more pain in the garden. I would say that the garden is the prototype of the City-Garden we see in Revelation. So whilst the garden shares many themes with the City-Garden, there are clearly differences, most of which involve the City-Garden being superior to the first garden. There are many examples, but to take just one: in the garden God seems to drift through, but his throne appears to be outside of the actual garden (quite possibly at the source of the 4 rivers, which if you read carefully don’t originate in the garden itself). In the City-Garden, we have the Throne of God/Jesus at the very center, by the source of the living water.
So in other words, we can’t really safely infer back from the City-Garden to the original garden.
BTW this is mostly from a brilliant book by G K Beale (The Temple and the Church’s Mission)
Good comment Alastair. I didn’t know about the need for decay. I don’t know how it works, but i do think that decay is something God is reversing and stopping. Any thoughts on how all that might work?
So Gen 1-3 (or did you mean 2-4 ??). I do see them as myth, but i use that term in a theological sense. I make no claims about the historical veracity of the story or not – and it is pretty unimportant to me. Myth for me describes the type of genre … it is story … perhaps not unlike Aesop’s fables (of hare and tortoise fame). If you take the “lesson” away from the story, you are left with something so pale in comparison to the original.
so it is true in a theological sense … and i don’t think it makes any claims about true in a historical sense.
I really agree with you statement here, and in the next comment about the city being like, but also unlike the garden. i don’t think we can necessarily read back from the city to the garden. I would also add that one thing has changed is human. Adam and the new man, in his resurrection body, are different. God has done something even better, through the sinfulness of human being. Amazing.
No thoughts at the moment and how new creation might work! Rather ironically, at this time of year I really excited because Autumn is my favourite season. Yet Autumn is basically all about death! Surely without decay, entropy and death, Autumn would not exist. This is why I am not sure that we can call everything which involves decay and entropy as evil, or as an undesireble part of the world. Alcohol would be another example I think (as fermentation is a decay process). This is where my theology runs out of steam…I am not sure how to explain the beauty and wonder of the natural world as it is in the midst of death and decay! I’m not aware of any Christian theologian or author that has explained this either (can anyone help out?)
One small pushback. I hear what you are saying about the mythic or even mythical message of the Genesis creation narrative. But to say it makes no claims as to historicity raises some very awkward questions, as surely key sections of later texts do assume its historicity. Paul, for example, develops a theology of being in Adam or in Christ. If the Genesis creation narratives are not true historically (as in, Adam was not the first human being), then surely Paul’s theology falls flat, don’t you think? Likewise the genelogies, clearly in historical sections of scripture, would have the veracity questioned…and the string would keep on unravelling.
Therefore, although I share with you a mythic interpretation of the creation narratives, they must be in substance also in some way historical.
Pingback: Rupert’s Blog » Why does God make me ill? - part 2