What Genesis 3 Teaches About Knowledge, Wisdom, and Education
The story of Adam and Eve offers more than an account of temptation and disobedience. Genesis 3 also raises important questions about curiosity, teaching, truth, community, critical thinking, and the responsible pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.
- Curiosity and openness can encourage learning while also creating vulnerability to deception.
- Good teaching requires accuracy, honest consideration of costs and benefits, and respect for the learner.
- Questions, community, accountability, and appropriate knowledge all play important roles in education.
By Eric Schansberg
Eve was the center of attention in a recent issue of Inquisitive—a journal/magazine devoted to championing free expression in universities. Eight professors mined the depths of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis, exploring its implications for the proper pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, especially in college. But they missed some relevant points that are worth revisiting.
Adam, Eve, and the Question of Gender
To start, using jargon that’s prominent on the secular Left: it’s worth wrestling with the question of whether the story of Adam and Eve is a “man-centered” narrative—an attack on feminism that “promotes the patriarchy.” At first blush, the answer might be yes. Nothing is recorded from the woman’s perspective. Man is created first—and the woman is derived from, dependent on, and (wonderfully) named by the man at the end of the Garden of Eden narrative.
That said, Adam and Eve are also described as co-equals in Genesis 1:26. But Adam’s origin is lower—from the dust of the earth—while Eve is created from a bone near his heart and lungs. In Eve’s creation, Adam becomes less than a whole being (missing a rib), while Eve is presumably not deformed or incomplete. And prior to her creation, it is clear that Adam cannot stand on his own and understands himself more fully when Eve shows up.
There are many contexts where inserting some form of gender ideology may seem reasonable enough on the surface—but with more careful introspection, it turns out to be an unnecessary intrusion here. Although it’s easy enough to foist a hierarchical angle onto the narrative in Genesis 1-3, this turns out to be facile (especially for the cultural context in which it was written, relying on liberal sentiments, it might be easier to argue that it’s a “feminist” text!).
Curiosity, Deception, and the Responsibility of Teachers
Second, it’s worth considering why the serpent approached Eve. If you want to risk the wrath of cancel culture, you might insert your own gender-based or age-based joke here (after all, she is a bit younger than Adam!). In any case, we can infer that the serpent perceived this as his best strategy, assuming that Adam and Eve would be more vulnerable to this strategy. But why did he assume this?
I enjoy what Leon Kass says here, pointing to the openness and inquisitiveness of Eve’s personality: This episode “shows that it is she, not the man, who is open to conversation, who imagines new possibilities, who reaches for improvement. Unlike the man, with his desires sexually fixated upon the woman, the woman is more open to the world—to beauty and to the possibility of wisdom. She, in short, has more than sex on her brain” (The Beginning of Wisdom, 106).
Such curiosity is a beautiful thing that also presents risks. Likewise, in learning, there is something wonderful but also potentially dangerous about having “an open mind” that may be too open. The same is true with education, learning, and wisdom. There is a spectrum that ranges from “too closed” to “too open”—and we should avoid the ditch on each side of the road.
Third, the serpent’s strategy turns out to be effective, with Eve unable to fend off the cunning rhetoric. Eve engages the serpent in conversation and in argument. In terms of style, a lawyer would counsel that her answer in Genesis 3:2 was unnecessarily long. Especially when dealing with someone who may be adversarial, it’s better to avoid engagement or at least to keep your answers tight.
As to the substance of Eve’s reply, we might have quibbles, but the most obvious problem is that she misquotes God (Genesis 2:16-17), saying humans were not even allowed to touch the tree. Some obvious lessons follow here. If Adam failed to communicate God’s word properly to Eve, his error underlines the vital responsibility of teachers. At the least, this illustrates the gap between teaching and learning: just because I teach X doesn’t mean that X will be learned by my students.
The move from “do not eat” to “do not touch” (whether taught by Adam or applied by Eve) was a legalism, separating truth (what God actually said) from a reasonable rule for staying out of trouble. It was a well-intentioned self-control mechanism, but not an edict mandated by God. Similarly, when we teach something without adequately explaining the reasoning behind it, teaching can devolve into propaganda and often results in unexpected failures. Here, the serpent takes advantage of her error. In fact, paintings of this scene often depict Satan touching the tree or even in the tree, providing evidence against her legalism.
Community, Accountability, and the Ideal Teacher
Fourth and related: Eve gets in over her head with the serpent. Meanwhile, Adam and God are no help. Eve didn’t ask for assistance. Adam is standing there like a dope (Genesis 3:6b) and doesn’t proactively offer counsel (in fact, although we can read the dialogue between the woman and the serpent, we have no recorded words between her and Adam in the Bible).
Meanwhile, God allows free will to play out and does not interfere. More broadly, given the stakes, one might ask why God didn’t build a wall or an electric fence around the tree. But that would forbid the pursuit of this knowledge—and thus, squelch free will and reduce the potential exercise of faith and virtue. God is not interested in this trade-off, placing a high value on our freedom.
Ultimately, Adam and Eve fail to be partners who help each other. They were “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24, but they don’t act like it here. More broadly, this points to the need for community and accountability within the learning process. Part of this is a multitude of sources for learning—a range of authors, a variety of teachers, and a community in which one can wrestle with provocative ideas. Participants and leaders are ideally honest and candid, willing to ask tough questions, consider risky answers, and courageously put aside previous beliefs to move to a higher level of truth.
Fifth, the text allows us to wrestle with what makes an ideal teacher. We’ve already described how Adam may have misled her with good intentions. But the serpent is clearly looking to cause trouble. He injects doubt about God’s word (3:1). He denies the truth about God’s judgment (3:4). And beyond the facts, he impugns God’s character and motives; he uses rhetoric to imply that God is lying and has hidden, evil motives.
Is God benevolent or a Cosmic Killjoy on occasion? Is God supremely effective at running the universe or a Cosmic Moron at times? This is a crucial concern in theology (paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, all of us are theologians; the question is whether our ideas about God are good or garbage). If God doesn’t always know what’s best for us—or want what’s best for us—then true wisdom would be to deviate from God’s will when his desires for us are not in our best interests.
After diminishing or denying the costs, the serpent promises additional benefits. In Genesis 3:5, he says “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.” In Genesis 3:7, their “eyes were opened,” but the serpent didn’t mention the other consequences, including guilt and death! The serpent had promised that they would be “like God,” but Genesis 1:26 tells us that they were already “made in the likeness of God.” The serpent offered half-truths and counterfeits more than bald-faced lies. Often, a bit of subtlety can be more persuasive than outright deceit.
As an economist, this piece of the story drives me crazy. Good economic analysis requires an accurate accounting of the costs and benefits of our options—whether personal choices, business decisions, or public policy. This is often more challenging than one would hope, since the benefits and costs can be complex, subtle, or long-term. A good teacher will help students assess complicated problems accurately, instead of conveniently leaving out factors to reach twisted inferences better suited to ideology and demagoguery. More broadly, a good teacher will help students become better at critical and creative thinking.
In the Bible, it’s noteworthy that Satan is portrayed as a snake (representing cleverness), a lion (representing power; I Peter 5:8), and a dragon (representing both; Revelation 12:9, 20:2). Cleverness in service of an ulterior agenda is the angle in Genesis 3. But misusing authority and power is equally troubling. Neither the use of deceit nor coercion is appropriate for a good teacher dealing with inquisitive minds.
Questions, Knowledge, and Wisdom in Genesis 3
Sixth, it’s telling that questions are so prominent in Genesis 3. They are the first recorded words in the Bible—from the serpent (3:1) and then from God (3:9). As Leon Kass puts it, questions “stir the soul”—and such stirring can be for good or for ill. Interestingly, the purpose of the questions in Genesis 3 is not to obtain information, but to foster introspection that aims at deception on the one hand and revelation on the other hand.
Again, Kass (82): The queries in Genesis 3 act “like any question … disturbing immediate participation in life and forcing introspection and reflection.” By my count, Jesus asked 301 questions in the Gospels—not surprising for someone who was a great teacher (along with his claims to be God). More broadly, we understand the power of questions—compared to statements—and thus, their value in teaching, counseling, parenting, and coaching. Effective questions encourage engagement, thought, and ultimately, ownership within the learning process. Good teachers know the power of the Socratic Method and discussions with students—over lecturing at students.
Seventh, what exactly was the problem with “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”? Adam and Eve already had some level of knowledge and moral culpability. So, it can’t be all knowledge—or even, all moral knowledge. What does the tree represent? Inappropriate knowledge for all time? Inappropriate knowledge for them at that point in time? The latter seems more likely, but both angles have implications for teaching and learning.
Are there bits of knowledge that are never good for the human mind and soul? Perhaps. Are there types of knowledge that are not good for certain people, especially at certain times in their lives? Certainly. There are obvious applications to different levels of schooling, from kindergarten through graduate studies. Similarly, the ideal college classroom will address the same topics differently in a lower-level course and an upper-level course. The same approach may result in confusion or may devolve into simplistic propaganda. The ideal strategy to develop knowledge, wisdom, and critical/creative thinking will vary with context.
Taking Ownership of What We Learn
Finally, it’s worth noting that when Adam and Eve are gently confronted by God in the aftermath, there is little ownership for their new knowledge—either what they learned or how they learned it. Instead, the dialogue is dominated by hiding, denials, guilt, excuses, and blame-shifting. If students are not proud of what they’re learning, that’s not a good sign. If teachers are not excited to have objective professionals in their classroom, it’s an indication that they’re not looking to improve their craft or they favor deceit and ideology over knowledge and wisdom. True knowledge, wisdom, and education should strive for far more.
Author: Rick Cherok
Rick Cherok serves as Managing Editor of Christian Standard, Executive Director of Celtic Christian Mission, and Minister of the Phillips Christian Church in Salem, Ohio.
