learning from His own divine mistakes. Perhaps He realized that He was wrong to threaten immediate death as a consequence
for the desire to obtain knowledge. God should have realized that His test of Adam and Eve was really a “catch-22.” Had the
humans remained obedient, they would have been barely distinguishable from the beasts—hardly a fitting status for those created
in God’s image. By disobeying God’s unfair prohibition, however, they became the original sinners whose punishment would be
transmitted from generation to generation. God’s first command is an example of law without reason—
chok
. God never sought to explain to Adam why he had to refrain from eating the fruit of knowledge. On the contrary, His command
defies reason, since it is entirely natural for humans to seek knowledge, especially when it is so pleasant to taste and easy
to secure. It is not surprising, therefore, that God’s first command is disobeyed. Perhaps God learns an important lesson
from His initial failure as a lawgiver: Humans are more likely to obey reasoned rules consistent with their nature than arbitrary
dictates that fly in the face of everything human beings are about. Perhaps God’s initial command necessarily had to be a
chok
, since humans lacked the knowledge presumed by reasoned orders. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of knowledge they became
subject to rule by human reason. Similarly with young children who lack reason, a parent’s earliest commands must necessarily
be
chukim
, which gradually evolve into
mishpatim
as children develop their ability to understand rather than simply obey. Parents are sometimes slow to recognize that reasoned
orders, when age appropriate, tend to be more effective than authoritarian commands. Instead some become too comfortable with
the power to issue unreasoned dictates. Martinet judges never seem to understand this reality of human nature: They become
furious when people disobey their commands, even if the command itself is not substantively important. “Because
I
said so,” is the common refrain. Contempt of court is the sanction for disobeying even a trivial order of a judge. I have
seen judges impose harsh punishments for minor violations of their orders, citing the “majesty of the law” or “the dignity
of the court.” A wise judge often backs away from his initial threat, realizing that the violation does not really warrant
the threatened punishment.
If God Himself realized He was wrong to threaten the harsh punishment of immediate death, then perhaps He became more understanding
of the sin of Adam and Eve. I offer a contemporary midrash on this issue. A friend of mine who is a federal judge had to sentence
a woman to prison on a Monday. He was bound by the sentencing guidelines that mandated imprisonment, despite the fact that
she was a first-time offender whose boyfriend had enticed her to transport his drugs. On Sunday the judge was home taking
care of his toddler. The judge inadvertently forgot to lock his front door and the child wandered into the street, where a
truck barely missed running him over. The judge realized that he had made a terrible mistake and that he had been given a
second chance. The next day he refused to sentence the woman to prison, saying that she too had made a mistake and was entitled
to a second chance. Perhaps I ought not to analogize a federal judge to God, although lawyers have long joked that when God
has delusions of grandeur, he sometimes acts as if He were a federal judge.
God, like some parents and judges, finds it less difficult to threaten than to carry out His threats, especially one that
would destroy what He created. Moreover, in the case of Adam and Eve, there was a mitigating circumstance: The serpent did,
after all, beguile Eve, who in turn enticed Adam. We see here the first excuse in the Bible. There are many more to come.
Finally, maybe God realized that He was acting
for the desire to obtain knowledge. God should have realized that His test of Adam and Eve was really a “catch-22.” Had the
humans remained obedient, they would have been barely distinguishable from the beasts—hardly a fitting status for those created
in God’s image. By disobeying God’s unfair prohibition, however, they became the original sinners whose punishment would be
transmitted from generation to generation. God’s first command is an example of law without reason—
chok
. God never sought to explain to Adam why he had to refrain from eating the fruit of knowledge. On the contrary, His command
defies reason, since it is entirely natural for humans to seek knowledge, especially when it is so pleasant to taste and easy
to secure. It is not surprising, therefore, that God’s first command is disobeyed. Perhaps God learns an important lesson
from His initial failure as a lawgiver: Humans are more likely to obey reasoned rules consistent with their nature than arbitrary
dictates that fly in the face of everything human beings are about. Perhaps God’s initial command necessarily had to be a
chok
, since humans lacked the knowledge presumed by reasoned orders. Once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of knowledge they became
subject to rule by human reason. Similarly with young children who lack reason, a parent’s earliest commands must necessarily
be
chukim
, which gradually evolve into
mishpatim
as children develop their ability to understand rather than simply obey. Parents are sometimes slow to recognize that reasoned
orders, when age appropriate, tend to be more effective than authoritarian commands. Instead some become too comfortable with
the power to issue unreasoned dictates. Martinet judges never seem to understand this reality of human nature: They become
furious when people disobey their commands, even if the command itself is not substantively important. “Because
I
said so,” is the common refrain. Contempt of court is the sanction for disobeying even a trivial order of a judge. I have
seen judges impose harsh punishments for minor violations of their orders, citing the “majesty of the law” or “the dignity
of the court.” A wise judge often backs away from his initial threat, realizing that the violation does not really warrant
the threatened punishment.
If God Himself realized He was wrong to threaten the harsh punishment of immediate death, then perhaps He became more understanding
of the sin of Adam and Eve. I offer a contemporary midrash on this issue. A friend of mine who is a federal judge had to sentence
a woman to prison on a Monday. He was bound by the sentencing guidelines that mandated imprisonment, despite the fact that
she was a first-time offender whose boyfriend had enticed her to transport his drugs. On Sunday the judge was home taking
care of his toddler. The judge inadvertently forgot to lock his front door and the child wandered into the street, where a
truck barely missed running him over. The judge realized that he had made a terrible mistake and that he had been given a
second chance. The next day he refused to sentence the woman to prison, saying that she too had made a mistake and was entitled
to a second chance. Perhaps I ought not to analogize a federal judge to God, although lawyers have long joked that when God
has delusions of grandeur, he sometimes acts as if He were a federal judge.
God, like some parents and judges, finds it less difficult to threaten than to carry out His threats, especially one that
would destroy what He created. Moreover, in the case of Adam and Eve, there was a mitigating circumstance: The serpent did,
after all, beguile Eve, who in turn enticed Adam. We see here the first excuse in the Bible. There are many more to come.
Finally, maybe God realized that He was acting
Similar Books
