QUOTH (s)HE...

And YaHWeH-God commanded the ’Adarm,

“You certainly may eat of every tree

within the garden, they'll bring good, not harm;

but of the tree I've named (in prophecy):

‘Tree of the knowledge of good and evil’

you shall not eat, for in the day you eat

of it you’ll surely die (Great Down-Heaval),”

~this fruit-tree's benefit is more than sweet-

ness in the mouth, it brings much greater boons.

It brings it in an opposite way too,

to mechanisms that work for baboons

-  and as all other fruit trees do for you.

Way forward with this named tree (one of two)

is not to eat it (‘specially when you want),

for then you'll find it's work is done in you,

and both their names will then seem quite avant

guard your own heart - see that it’s true also

to Truth that's told, and what you know to be;

and take to heart the warnings that you know,

as well as namings - God's own prophecy.

Then snakey comes and treats her quite below

her station, while he's contradicting God;

and uses her desire to really know

and be like God; to help her lose the plot!

Some say throughout the Bible, one can note

o-be-di-ence and loy’lty by the ac-

cur-a-cy when a person gives a quote

of other's words, that's whether God, or Jack,

or Jill, or Fido, or someone in charge.

Though words hold meaning in community -

the message, or the word, that’s written large,

and also in the details, is the key!

And woman says to serpent, “We may eat

the fruit of trees within the garden; but

the God has said, ‘You shall not eat (unsweet?)

fruit from the tree that’s in the middle (gut)

or centre of the garden, nor shall you

just touch it, for all those who do shall die.’”

Thus she omits the name that God gave to

the tree, to help her see the diff'rent di-

e t  ree-quirements that bring on deep knowledge

[which might remind of who had sourced the good,

and saw that things were good, with no spoilage],

and adds a prohibition where she could:

“nor shall you even touch it.”... not, of course

from evil motives to increase the “slain”,

it's just these rules don't help, though they might “force”

the situation - trying to save pain.

They are too weak to make real changes in

a lifestyle, or behaviour at the core,

they only deal with surface level sin.

Extending prohibitions, can mean more

infringements, though this seems quite counter to

one's first impressions as to what would aid.

Thus here the woman could (wrongly) conclude,

if touching didn't bring God's promised state,

she might as well eat of this one ‘banned’ fruit.

Distinctions between “touch” and “eat” are big.

Encounters with reality are beaut

but intimate or surface ones can jig

or set directions for much future, hence

when she omits the time-frame for linking

the consequence of disobedience,

and death, this can effect ways of thinking.

Is God a rigid legalist who makes

his ar-bit-rar-y laws and then demands

conformity, with letter-perfect takes

at chor-e-o-graph-y of hands and arms?

And thus the prohibition left unheard,

with evidence of her senses, went she,

in mind, and body, 'gainst God's very Word.
And all the rest, they say, is hi’story."

---

"The encounter of the woman and the snake in Genesis 3 is one of the most remarkable episodes ever written, with each detail opening up possibilities but providing tantalizingly few “answers.” There is not the slightest concern over the incongruity of a talking snake or the fine-tuned ambiguity of the snake's words. The focus is on the woman's “mistake” in misquoting the divine command by making it more stringent.

Compare the command and its repetition: And YHWH God commanded the ’adam, “You certainly may eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (2:16-18)

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” (3:2-3)

Throughout the Bible, one can gauge obedience and loyalty by the accuracy of a person's quoting of another, whether of God or people. In this case, the woman both omits from and adds to the divine word, rendering the question of obedience to the command confused and risky.

First, she omits the divine emphasis on the availability of the tree-food.

Second, she omits the name of the one tree expressly prohibited, focusing on its relative location rather than its nature (but you can bet the snake didn't miss that one!).

Next, she adds a prohibition to God's command: “nor shall you touch it.”

Finally, she omits the link between the immediacy of the consequence of disobedience and death.

So what difference does this make? Is God a rigid legalist who issues seemingly arbitrary laws and demands letter-perfect conformity? The command is not arbitrary nor is the misquotation trivial.

By extending the prohibition, the woman runs the risk of concluding (wrongly) that since touching didn't have consequences, she might as well eat. The distinction between “touching” and “eating” is between a surface encounter with reality and an intimate one. What a different experience it is, after all, merely to touch something (or someone) and to take it (them) into one's body! It is the difference, for instance, between holding hands and sexual intercourse.

This is precisely the distinction that God was making that the woman failed to heed. Missing the nature of the tree, she miscalculated the degree of the risk.

Missing the boundary of prohibition, she went with the evidence of her senses and mind against the divine Word.

And the rest, as they say, is history."

From "Come Out, My People!" God's Call out of Empire in the Bible and Beyond" by Wes Howard-Brook.

---

Hmm.. got me thinking even more...

Considering Jesus' words to the Teachers of the Law... about maintaining their teaching, but missing God's clear commands... there could be a prima facie case put against such a practice (- & such a case would be wrong!) - though could all such practices have been innocent embellishments? or trying to help guarantee obedience?)


Could there be a similar logic (though of course a completely different situation) happening in Paul's communication to the Colossians (ch 2):

"See to it, then, that no one enslaves you by means of the worthless deceit of human wisdom, which comes from the teachings handed down by human beings .... (and not from Christ.  ... <<Who keeps looking at the heart, not just externals>>)

So let no one make rules about what you eat or drink or about holy days or the New Moon Festival or the Sabbath<<on top of God's clear command and now Christ's word on all food being acceptable>>. All such things are only a shadow of things in the future; the reality is Christ. Do not allow yourselves to be condemned by anyone who claims to be superior because of special visions and who insists on false humility and the worship of angels. For no reason at all, such people are all puffed up by their human way of thinking (and have stopped holding on to Christ, who is the head of the body.)
...
 “Don't handle this,” “Don't taste that,” “Don't touch the other”?
....they are only human rules and teachings. Of course such rules appear to be based on wisdom .... but they have no real value in controlling physical passions.  Colossians 2:8‭, ‬16‭-‬19‭, ‬21‭-‬23 GNTD

---