It's been popularly circulated that what Eve said in 3:3 "...Neither
shall ye touch it..." is the beginning of her calamity. That she abides
not with God's words. That she adds to His words, her own.
The
first time I encountered this interpretation, I immediately disregard it
as a shallow one. Perhaps it was the attitude of the speaker that
helped me discern it such.
Because there are several cases one must go through, though I do not necessary support:
1. God did say "touch not" and it is not recorded...hence Eve was merely completing the text.
2.
God did not say it and Eve was well aware of it but yet, out of her
divinely called duty to manage the world under God's instructions, she
levied a new command under the image of God, that is perfectly agreeable
to God.
3. Of course, the shallow take: That God permitted it to
be touched but not eaten. Which, I think is absurd, unless they have a
good reason as to why God would permit it to be touched, which I doubt.
And
out of my expectation, John Calvin did expound upon this...though not
direct on the verse (3), but in the commentary of verse 1. "When she
says, God has forbidden them to eat or to touch, some suppose the second
word to be added for the purpose of charging God with too great
severity, because he prohibited them even from the touch (164) But I
rather understand that she hitherto remained in obedience, and expressed
her pious disposition by anxiously observing the precept of God;"
Though
unfortunately, even the translator of the commentary couldn't bear to
agree with Calvin. That he had honestly add his own little footnote
(164): (164) “Neither shall ye touch it.” “The woman herself adds this,
which certainly in the divine law we are not permitted to do.” — Peter
Martyr’s Commentary on Genesis.
True, we are not to add to God's
words, to increase burden, create falsehood, or chaos beyond which God
has plainly intended the meaning. For such is great iniquity, so great
that God would surely add calamity to him who does it. But I fail to see
how this is similar to Eve's speech. As if a mother is wrong to tell
her children "God doesn't want you to eat so much candies", unless that
is how the Bible talks about "Candies"? Ridiculous.
That is not
to say that Eve truly believes that by mere touching and not eating it,
one will die. It was only Eve's view on God's precept, as Calvin puts
it. It was her job restrict access to the tree. Because of my stand, I
need not worry about other case, which is the problem of those who, not
mine. That should it cause death if licking but not eating? tasting but
not swallowing? licking upon fingers that had "touched" the fruit? etc.
And the wicked would meet their folly, thinking that they are wise
enough to twist God's precept to their own lust.
And as for those
who rather deny all effects of death or life within the fruit of both
trees, verse 22 is enough to defeat their strongest argument. By saying
this, I am not saying that God has no direct power over life and death
but that through the creation of the two trees, God set His ordinances
by which He displays His power. Because the trees are real, not
symbolic. And it is men's responsibility to discern the source of the
powers of those trees.
