Man Is More Than A Mechanism
Genesis 2:15-17
Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and tend it. The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat [from it], for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die."
A couple of things are most notable to me in this passage, that set the eternal purpose for all mankind.
First off, work is given before the Fall of mankind, and it is good work. In fact the first vocation is something like a horticulturalist and arboriculturalist. The Lord God places the man there specifically "to cultivate it (dress it) and tend it (keep it)." Work is not a later penalty; it is the original assignment. The man is not set up in a finished, boring, static paradise to idly watch all the beauty of paradise pass by, but he is specifically placed in a living place in which he is expected to work and keep.
That the work is horticultural and arboricultural is no small detail, especially to me. God has already planted the garden (2:8). The man does not invent the place or the plants; he is given the task of serving and guarding what God has made grow. The job description describes an attentive stewardship; tending, pruning, protecting, ordering, rather than domination or mere consumption. Purposeful labor that serves and keeps, under the Lord’s command, and within the generous bounds He has set. Included in that vocation is a choice. A command is given to never take for food the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The man is commanded to tend, to keep, and to never take that fruit. He's obviously free to choose to disobey that command or there would be no need for these conditions. The assignment to cultivate and keep is not separate from the word about the tree; the prohibition is part of what "keeping" the garden requires. The man is not only to tend the plants God has already caused to grow, but to honor the boundary God has set within that living place. Stewardship therefore includes refusal. Refusal of the one fruit that would redefine the relationship between the man and the Lord who placed him there.
The Lord did not create man in His image as a robotic creature that has no choice but to love and honor Him. And God sets a boundary for Himself as well. By creating in man this choice, God is creating a condition for Himself. He is restraining Himself to respect the choice the man makes. When the man names the trees and the plants and all the creatures on the Earth, God respects those choices. And when the man chooses to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the Lord respects that choice as well.
Now, do not misunderstand my meaning. When I say the Lord respects the choice, I do not mean to say that he approves, or that He is forced to approve. I simply mean that he has afforded in the creation of man this ability to make that choice. And what follows is the consequences of that freedom to decide. Because included in that free will choice is the responsibility and ownership of what comes from that choice.
A choice and a law are created simultaneously. A free will and a guaranteed responsibility. So, in one sense, the freedom isn't really completely free. And this is the second most notable condition that I wanted to highlight today.
Not only is the man given responsibility to care for his physical environment, but his is always given the task of caring for and cultivating his spiritual, ethical, and moral values. The same man who is given the garden to cultivate and keep is also placed under a moral word that defines the terms of his life before God. The physical stewardship and the ethical boundaries are not two separate assignments; they belong to the one vocation. The refusal of the fruit is itself an act of tending; tending the relationship, the word, and the moral order God has established.
The capacity to choose is real. It is created into the man. And the command as well is real, and is addressed to him as one who can hear and respond to it. Likewise, the consequence is stated in advance so that the choice is not a blind one. The man, before women are created, is instructed in his responsibility as the moral decision maker. He is the one addressed, the one who receives both the broad permission and the specific prohibition with its stated consequence. In that sense the narrative presents him as the first recipient of the moral word that defines the boundary inside the garden. And that burden of responsibility is forever placed upon his shoulders.
Later, after the human couple decides to make the choice of rebellion, again the responsibility and consequences are firmly placed upon Adam's shoulders. The Lord addresses the man first when the time comes to fess up. The command is given to the man in 2:16–17 before the woman exists, and in 3:9 the Lord God calls first to the man ("Where are you?" ) after the fruit has been taken. Both moments place the man in the position of first address. And I believe this ultimate responsibility lies within the man because from the beginning it has been his vocation to tend to these matters. He is both the dominate entity and bears the ultimate responsibility for the execution of that given vocation.
The narrative presents both the man and the woman as capable of hearing, deciding, and answering. However, the man holds the ultimate responsibility and therefore authority in these matters.
The man receives the command and the assignment in the garden. The woman is then formed from him and brought to him. Both take the fruit. The Lord God calls first to the man. Consequences follow for the man, the woman, and the ground. The woman’s consequence includes the pain of childbearing and the relational word about desire and rule; the man’s includes toil and the curse on the ground from which he was taken. And ultimately death comes to both.
Both answer for their own acts, but the man carries the ultimate punishment in that he has the burden of enforcement. I believe this is a patriarchal pattern being applied.
This then begs the question; did the man (Adam) have a responsibility to protect the woman and prevent them both against being deceived? When the serpent speaks and the woman takes the fruit, the narrative records the event without reference to any neglected duty of protection or prevention on the man’s part. But when The Lord comes looking for answers, he comes looking to the man.
This perspective is a human interpretive move. The text of Genesis 2–3 supplies a sequence; the man is formed and instructed first, the woman is formed from him, both eating, both answering, distinct consequences, and the readers can arrange those elements into a doctrine of patriarchy. The obvious conclusion is the man is held to a higher standard of moral responsibility.
God summons the man for answers. He searches the garden for him when He desires to know what he has done with the freedom he was given. And for every generation to follow, until the birth of Jesus the Christ, the first man's curse has been the burden placed upon every human shoulder.
So, the man is addressed as one who can hear, who can choose, and who can answer, and he is therefore not a mechanism. The capacity to choose is created into him. The command is spoken to him as one able to respond. The consequence is declared in advance so the choice is not blind. When he eats, he is summoned and held accountable for what he has done with the freedom he was given. These elements establish his moral agency. A mechanism does not hear a word, weigh a stated outcome, decide, and then answer for the decision. The man does.
Later, the overarching cultural mechanical responsibility is installed through the inevitable patriarchy. And the rest of Scripture continues to assign these concrete responsibilities to men.
Amen. 🙏🏼