The
story gives no evidence for the idea that they longed to be as gods. It is true
that the snake, in talking to Eve, points out that God knows that as soon as
they eat the fruit their eyes will be opened and they will be like gods, knowing
good and evil. And, like other things the snake said, that was no doubt true
enough. It was, from the snake’s point of view, a statement about God’s motivation:
God did not want humans to be as gods, knowing good and evil. But this does not
mean that the desire to be divine was the motivation of the humans. Even though
the woman heard this remark, it is not clear that she was much attracted by the
prospect of being like a god. She saw that the tree was (a) good for food,
(b) nice to look at, and (c) excellent for giving wisdom (this
last point slightly uncertain, since other meanings are possible, but let it
pass for the moment). She took of the fruit and gave some to her husband. There
is nothing about lusting for superhuman status and power, nothing about taking
over from God the task of governing the world. The woman’s motives were
distinctly within the normal limits and passions of humanity. It was the dietetic
aspect (the nutritious value of the food), the aesthetic aspect (its good
appearance), and the educational aspect (its ability to give wisdom) that
attracted her. There is nothing here of a rebellion against God, noting of a
titanic will to take over the status of the divine. The motivation is sketched
with a noticeably light tough. Even the knowing of good and evil, which the
serpent has actually mentioned as the expected result of eating the fruit, is
not included as an attraction which actually moved the woman’s mind. The
nearest one comes to it is her noting that the fruit is good to make one wise.
If the woman is to be censured, it is more for concentrating on short-term
attractions like food-value, appearance and educative assistance, when she
might better have been thinking about long-term matters like the knowledge of
good and evil. In the result, the motivation is less that of aspiration to
divine status, still less that of rebellion against God; it is more a mixture
of physical attraction, curiosity, and insouciance or inadvertence. It is as if
you have in the house a large red switch on the wall with a notice saying ‘This
switch must on no account ever be touched’, and then one day there comes an
imposing official in uniform with gilded cap, and you ask about the switch and
he says, ‘Well, of course they say you mustn’t touch it, but they are
just saying that: of course you can throw the switch and no harm will be done,
indeed, your electricity will probably run all the better if you do.’ So of
course you throw the switch and Bang! up goes the house in smoke. (James Barr, The
Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality: The Reed-Tuckwell Lectures for 1990
[London: SCM Press, 1992], 13-14)