The difficulty in addressing both of your comments is that according to the agreed upon criteria for interpretation I am limited as to what I can say. To remain within the confines of what we are reading (Ch 1-4) I still can extract this much from the text:
Was the serpent evil? That depends on how we define it? As I read the text, the Serpent seemed to undermine the words of God, thus casting doubt on his words. This came from the Serpent and not Eve or Adam ... it was external to man but within the snake. Thus Eve makes the statement that the snake deceived her (v. 13). I would say that the snake sinned or disobeyed God or did wrong because the result of his actions was to be cursed (v. 14). I take this to mean that he did something that he was not supposed to have done ... therefore, I coclude that his actions/questions leading up to this point were malicious in their intention and so sinful in nature. Notice that the LORD curses the snake, but only cuses the ground and not Adam or Eve. I take this to mean that the Serpents actions were far greater than those of Adam and Eve. Later we read that Cain is cursed because he kills his brother. He is cursed because he did the action.
With the limitation of the reading I would not say that GOD DID THIS. Clearly by the text Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and so they, by their own fruition, sinned against God. At this point my understanding of "sovereignty" is that God is the author of life thus he has the fre reign to create it or to take it away.
To Molly's comment about eternal life. I would argue that there is no textual evidence to support that Adam and Eve would die if they had not eaten the forbidden fruit, rather, I think that the text leads one to conclude that if they don't they should continue to live ... forever. I also gather this from the comment that if they had eaten from the tree of life that they would have lived forever (v. 22) ... a good question would be, but in what state? I think they would have lived forever in their fallen state and not their glorified state. They were allowed to eat the fruit from this tree of life prior to the fall for only one tree had restrictions (v. 16-17), thus I have every inclination to think that they would have lived forever.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
A Response
I suppose I ought to respond to Belthshazzar’s comments, since he responded to mine. In this exercise, I don’t mean to call God a liar, no more than I intend to convince myself that the universe was created in 6 days. You see, I am approaching the text as one who is hoping to find meaning, clarity and understanding. If I read that God told Adam and Woman they would “surely die” if they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and I read that they eat from it, and I read that they don’t immediately keel over, my first thought is ‘why not?’ not, ‘God is a liar.’
In addition I have to be suspicious of the statement that “Adam and Eve did not immediately die, but they did die ... therefore, God was both gracious in suspending the punishment and trustworthy in that he causes them to die.” Belthshazzar is making the assumption that if they had not eaten of the tree, they would live forever, never knowing death. This is not suggested by the text. We’re never told that eternal life is God’s intention for Adam and Woman. In fact as we’ll see later, the generations that proceed from them and from Cain and Abel lived inordinately long lives. Thus, I don’t think it’s logical to assume that God simply stayed their sentence till the time of their death.
Finally I’ll make one last comment about the nature of my post. Of course I don’t mean to make God out to be a liar. And of course I hope that my faithfulness to him with flavor all that I read and study in these pages. But if I am to make a serious study of scripture, then I can’t let my assumptions about God change the way I read the Word. Should I let my image of God characterize the way I read scripture? Or should what I read in scripture characterize God?
In addition I have to be suspicious of the statement that “Adam and Eve did not immediately die, but they did die ... therefore, God was both gracious in suspending the punishment and trustworthy in that he causes them to die.” Belthshazzar is making the assumption that if they had not eaten of the tree, they would live forever, never knowing death. This is not suggested by the text. We’re never told that eternal life is God’s intention for Adam and Woman. In fact as we’ll see later, the generations that proceed from them and from Cain and Abel lived inordinately long lives. Thus, I don’t think it’s logical to assume that God simply stayed their sentence till the time of their death.
Finally I’ll make one last comment about the nature of my post. Of course I don’t mean to make God out to be a liar. And of course I hope that my faithfulness to him with flavor all that I read and study in these pages. But if I am to make a serious study of scripture, then I can’t let my assumptions about God change the way I read the Word. Should I let my image of God characterize the way I read scripture? Or should what I read in scripture characterize God?
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Mystery of Iniquity
Daniel, why do you see the Serpent in opposition to God? Are you suggesting that the Serpent had an independent will working against God? You say that believing the Serpent means making God out to be a liar? But how is it that the Serpent, a creation of God, can be working against God, for purposes other than God's? Is your presupposition that the Serpent is evil and God is good? The text never tells us the moral nature of the Serpent, we only know that he is cunning and later punished by God for his actions. The problem is that the Serpent is a creation of God, and unless you argue that the Serpent had a free will, the logical conclusion would be that God made the Serpent evil, thus making God the author of evil and complicit in the actions of the Serpent and the fall of man. This seems to be the logical conclusion of the Sovereignty of God as defined by Calvin: that God is, in fact, the author of evil. Tillich writes that Calvin, like Augustine, believed that God created light and darkness, that He formed good and evil, and that no evil occurs which He has not performed. Calvin believed that God shows His glory in the scene we call the world. In order to do this, He (God) causes evil, even moral evil.
If the Serpent is an agent of God, causing mankind to sin, then God's punishment is absurd. But if the Serpent and Mankind are operating as free agents, then there is no Catch 22, because they are ultimately free to obey God, but they choose otherwise and are subsequently held responsible.
raj
If the Serpent is an agent of God, causing mankind to sin, then God's punishment is absurd. But if the Serpent and Mankind are operating as free agents, then there is no Catch 22, because they are ultimately free to obey God, but they choose otherwise and are subsequently held responsible.
raj
Saturday, February 23, 2008
A Response to the Previous Posts
I have some comments that I would like to voice concerning the previous posts ...
"Indeed, what is fair or unfair? just or unjust? good or evil?If the woman and man truly did not have knowledge of good and evil, then how can they be faulted for disobeying God"
They can be faulted because they had all that they needed to know. God was not withholding vital information from them that suspended their moral obligation to obey him. He told them, "Don't eat." That was and should always be enough. The problem comes in, when we are not satisfied with that answer. Why? We want to "know" more.
In fact if you compare Gen 2:9 with 3:6 they both say "good for food," and "pleasant to the eyes" but 3:6 adds "to be desired to make one wise." It was not appetite nor beauty that drew Eve, but the desire for "wisdom" or "knowledge." She wanted to know something that was not for her to know. We can all identify ... think of a time when some authority made a decision without consulting you. They tell you what to do and what is our response? "Why?" Or have they ever made a decision with which you disagreed and they would not tell you why they did so? Does not that tick you off? Why ... because we want to be "in the know." We think the more we know the better off we are. I am not advocating a compaign for total ignorance, but there is evil that we are not intended to know. We want to know, because we are the children of Eve ... we want to be like God.
Think of it. We don't like the answer "Because I said so." It is a vulnerable place to be. This means that we have to trust the person on the basis of what they know and who they are, not on what we know or who we are. Adam and Eve had no reason not to trust God's words. They had the rest of the Garden to prove that he was a benevolent and life-giving God. It was the unknown that they wanted to know.
"did the first humans already have an inherent knowledge of good and evil?"
Whether they did or did not is not the point. They had all that they needed. The "fall" was that they did not believe this. They wanted more. They wanted something that was not given to them. Thus they did not trust God for their all ... they decided to take matters into their own hands. DISOBEDIENCE ... pure and simple. "Do not eat of the tree" is pretty straight forward. If they can name animals, I am sure they can discern what "do not eat" means.
As to Crazy Mollies comment ... I think one is stepping on dangerous territory with this:
"What’s striking to me about the serpent’s proposition is that it is, in fact, true. Certainly Woman—she has not yet been named—and Adam are disobedient to the Lord, but, when they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they DON’T DIE."
By making this statement you are saying that the Serpent was telling the truth and that God was lying. Think about that. Do you really mean call God a liar? Adam and Eve did not immediately die, but they did die ... therefore, God was both gracious in suspending the punishment and trustworthy in that he causes them to die. It was on the basis of his mercy that they were not immediately destroyed.
I think we ought to focus on what God was doing (and not doing) in this story. How merciful of God to sustain our life even when we disobey. How kind of God to make provision for us so that we may receive life and not be cast out forever. How good of God. How good He is.
"Indeed, what is fair or unfair? just or unjust? good or evil?If the woman and man truly did not have knowledge of good and evil, then how can they be faulted for disobeying God"
They can be faulted because they had all that they needed to know. God was not withholding vital information from them that suspended their moral obligation to obey him. He told them, "Don't eat." That was and should always be enough. The problem comes in, when we are not satisfied with that answer. Why? We want to "know" more.
In fact if you compare Gen 2:9 with 3:6 they both say "good for food," and "pleasant to the eyes" but 3:6 adds "to be desired to make one wise." It was not appetite nor beauty that drew Eve, but the desire for "wisdom" or "knowledge." She wanted to know something that was not for her to know. We can all identify ... think of a time when some authority made a decision without consulting you. They tell you what to do and what is our response? "Why?" Or have they ever made a decision with which you disagreed and they would not tell you why they did so? Does not that tick you off? Why ... because we want to be "in the know." We think the more we know the better off we are. I am not advocating a compaign for total ignorance, but there is evil that we are not intended to know. We want to know, because we are the children of Eve ... we want to be like God.
Think of it. We don't like the answer "Because I said so." It is a vulnerable place to be. This means that we have to trust the person on the basis of what they know and who they are, not on what we know or who we are. Adam and Eve had no reason not to trust God's words. They had the rest of the Garden to prove that he was a benevolent and life-giving God. It was the unknown that they wanted to know.
"did the first humans already have an inherent knowledge of good and evil?"
Whether they did or did not is not the point. They had all that they needed. The "fall" was that they did not believe this. They wanted more. They wanted something that was not given to them. Thus they did not trust God for their all ... they decided to take matters into their own hands. DISOBEDIENCE ... pure and simple. "Do not eat of the tree" is pretty straight forward. If they can name animals, I am sure they can discern what "do not eat" means.
As to Crazy Mollies comment ... I think one is stepping on dangerous territory with this:
"What’s striking to me about the serpent’s proposition is that it is, in fact, true. Certainly Woman—she has not yet been named—and Adam are disobedient to the Lord, but, when they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they DON’T DIE."
By making this statement you are saying that the Serpent was telling the truth and that God was lying. Think about that. Do you really mean call God a liar? Adam and Eve did not immediately die, but they did die ... therefore, God was both gracious in suspending the punishment and trustworthy in that he causes them to die. It was on the basis of his mercy that they were not immediately destroyed.
I think we ought to focus on what God was doing (and not doing) in this story. How merciful of God to sustain our life even when we disobey. How kind of God to make provision for us so that we may receive life and not be cast out forever. How good of God. How good He is.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Catch 22?
Let me just start by saying that you guys are all blowing my mind grapes. Perhaps the purpose of the talking serpent is not an allusion to Narnia or a claim that devil animals may have had the power of speech nearer to the dawn of time. Perhaps it is meant to suggest, rather, that the temptation to disobey comes from an external source foreign to the essence of humans. More specifically it comes from the beast, traversing the boundary that separates humans from animals. The subsequent struggle throughout history between Godliness and rebellion is here defined in terms of humaneness verses beastliness. Here, beastliness does not refer simply to the nature of animals, but to the nature of monsters, which I will define ad hoc as non-humans posing a threat to human life.
That said, I love how truly crafty the serpent's approach really is. The first thing that the serpent does to the Woman is to imply a question through the explicit suggestion, which is an exaggeration of the truth. Check it: "Did I understand that God told you not to eat from any tree in the garden?" The implicit questions that the serpent can expect the Woman to pose to herself are as follows, 1. "Wouldn't it suck if God had forbidden you to eat from any tree in the garden?" 2. "Is the restriction of two trees qualitatively different from i.e. more just than the restriction of all trees?" This is brilliant! The Woman's internal thought process is probably similar to my own. To the first implicit question, I would answer, "yes, if God were to restrict all the trees, it would be unfair." This first implicit question serves to introduce the very concept of unfairness, and furthermore unfairness on the part of God. To the second implicit question, I would think, "Maybe the restriction of two trees is unfair. I need time to work that question out." Before the Woman had time to work that out, the serpent strikes with the statement contradicting God's statement, "you will not surely die. [God lied to you to prevent you from threatening his power]." Ultimately, the woman and the man bet against God. What were their motivations? Ironically, Eve may have felt she needed fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in order to work out implicit question 2. Indeed, what is fair or unfair? just or unjust? good or evil?
If the woman and man truly did not have knowledge of good and evil, then how can they be faulted for disobeying God. We, on the other side of paradise, judge our progenitors for having sided with evil, but we assume they should have known better as a prerequisite for their humanity. Did the first humans already have an inherent knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree? If so, they chose evil after really or potentially having identified it as such. If the knowledge of good and evil was not inherent to the first man and woman, then there was only one way to find out whether the serpent was trustworthy or not. The man and woman did learn something after eating the fruit, but it was not that disobedience was a mistake, but rather that their nakedness was worthy of shame. Is this the same as realizing that nakedness is evil? We can see from God's words in Gen. 3:22 that the fruit did indeed transform the knowledge of humans, "God said, 'The Man has become like one of us, capable of knowing everything ranging from good to evil." Did God set up a catch 22 by restricting the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? I echo Crazy Molly's question about the supposedly fatal consequences of eating the fruit of good and evil. If Adam and Eve were immortal while in the garden, then why was the tree of life restricted? They seem to have always been destined to surely die, whether eating from the tree of knowledge or not.
It would not surprise me if this story were intended to reveal to us our own affinity for earnest questions as the key to human nature. We love posing questions that we honestly do not know the answer to. I tend to dislike the serpent because he seems to have posed questions to which he already knew the answers, or did he? Did the serpent ask these questions in earnest, just as surprised to get his and the humans' butts kicked by God as a result of eating the forbidden fruit? Just like any other tool, I think questions are good when asked out of genuine curiosity and bad when used as instruments of coercion and manipulation. "The serpent seduced me, and I ate."
That said, I love how truly crafty the serpent's approach really is. The first thing that the serpent does to the Woman is to imply a question through the explicit suggestion, which is an exaggeration of the truth. Check it: "Did I understand that God told you not to eat from any tree in the garden?" The implicit questions that the serpent can expect the Woman to pose to herself are as follows, 1. "Wouldn't it suck if God had forbidden you to eat from any tree in the garden?" 2. "Is the restriction of two trees qualitatively different from i.e. more just than the restriction of all trees?" This is brilliant! The Woman's internal thought process is probably similar to my own. To the first implicit question, I would answer, "yes, if God were to restrict all the trees, it would be unfair." This first implicit question serves to introduce the very concept of unfairness, and furthermore unfairness on the part of God. To the second implicit question, I would think, "Maybe the restriction of two trees is unfair. I need time to work that question out." Before the Woman had time to work that out, the serpent strikes with the statement contradicting God's statement, "you will not surely die. [God lied to you to prevent you from threatening his power]." Ultimately, the woman and the man bet against God. What were their motivations? Ironically, Eve may have felt she needed fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in order to work out implicit question 2. Indeed, what is fair or unfair? just or unjust? good or evil?
If the woman and man truly did not have knowledge of good and evil, then how can they be faulted for disobeying God. We, on the other side of paradise, judge our progenitors for having sided with evil, but we assume they should have known better as a prerequisite for their humanity. Did the first humans already have an inherent knowledge of good and evil before eating of the tree? If so, they chose evil after really or potentially having identified it as such. If the knowledge of good and evil was not inherent to the first man and woman, then there was only one way to find out whether the serpent was trustworthy or not. The man and woman did learn something after eating the fruit, but it was not that disobedience was a mistake, but rather that their nakedness was worthy of shame. Is this the same as realizing that nakedness is evil? We can see from God's words in Gen. 3:22 that the fruit did indeed transform the knowledge of humans, "God said, 'The Man has become like one of us, capable of knowing everything ranging from good to evil." Did God set up a catch 22 by restricting the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? I echo Crazy Molly's question about the supposedly fatal consequences of eating the fruit of good and evil. If Adam and Eve were immortal while in the garden, then why was the tree of life restricted? They seem to have always been destined to surely die, whether eating from the tree of knowledge or not.
It would not surprise me if this story were intended to reveal to us our own affinity for earnest questions as the key to human nature. We love posing questions that we honestly do not know the answer to. I tend to dislike the serpent because he seems to have posed questions to which he already knew the answers, or did he? Did the serpent ask these questions in earnest, just as surprised to get his and the humans' butts kicked by God as a result of eating the forbidden fruit? Just like any other tool, I think questions are good when asked out of genuine curiosity and bad when used as instruments of coercion and manipulation. "The serpent seduced me, and I ate."
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Was the Serpent all that bad?
It’s very strange to think of creatures dwelling among humans and conversing with them in a way we’d understand. I’m a vegan, so presumably I’m one of those who have utmost respect for animals (or ‘non-human animals’ as some of my more radical veggie brethren would phrase it). Yet even with that respect comes a certain arrogance that we men and women are special in certain ways—created in God’s image, able to speak in complex language that vary according to geography and culture, able to discern the realities of an omniscient God and the concept of the human spirit, and the ability to tell right from wrong.
So to hear about a serpent who was “more crafty than any other beast” and who could cunningly ask “Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?” understandably encourages skepticism in the non-contemporary reader. I think the absurdity (Raj described it as fantasy) of a talking snake has led many Christians to suggest that the serpent is actually Satan. Daniel referenced this. I don’t see any evidence for this however. I think it’s weird but fair to assume that the serpent is indeed a talking creature. Perhaps things were very different in Eden.
What’s striking to me about the serpent’s proposition is that it is, in fact, true. Certainly Woman—she has not yet been named—and Adam are disobedient to the Lord, but, when they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they DON’T DIE. Not in the physical sense anyway. Perhaps their innocence has died, or their special relationship with God, or their naturally symbiotic relationship with the earth and its creatures. But in the simple, life vs. death manner of thinking, Adam and his wife do not surely die.
Would you rather die or be a paradisiacal refugee?
So to hear about a serpent who was “more crafty than any other beast” and who could cunningly ask “Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?” understandably encourages skepticism in the non-contemporary reader. I think the absurdity (Raj described it as fantasy) of a talking snake has led many Christians to suggest that the serpent is actually Satan. Daniel referenced this. I don’t see any evidence for this however. I think it’s weird but fair to assume that the serpent is indeed a talking creature. Perhaps things were very different in Eden.
What’s striking to me about the serpent’s proposition is that it is, in fact, true. Certainly Woman—she has not yet been named—and Adam are disobedient to the Lord, but, when they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they DON’T DIE. Not in the physical sense anyway. Perhaps their innocence has died, or their special relationship with God, or their naturally symbiotic relationship with the earth and its creatures. But in the simple, life vs. death manner of thinking, Adam and his wife do not surely die.
Would you rather die or be a paradisiacal refugee?
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Serpent
Raj, I had never thought about approaching the serpent scenario as a "good" event. Meaning, what was there about the Serpent that should have made Adam and Eve think "this is bad?" Everything that was made was good ... why not this. The only thing that I can think of is that this is the first time that a contradiction enters into their life. God said not to eat it or one will die. The serpent says that I can eat it and that I won't die. Which one is true? But didn't God make the serpent, so wouldn't his words follow in line with him being a "good" creation of God? There is certainly a load of background info that is conspicuously absent. If you think about it ... reading it as best you can as though you have little background info (as hard as it is) WHERE IN THE WORLD DID SUCH A CREATURE COME FROM THAT OPPOSES THE CREATOR?
I don't find the thought of him being intelligent difficult to comprehend. After all, what WASN'T new to Adam and Eve? Everything they saw, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled was new. And who taught them how to speak? Somehow they were endowed with immediate intellectual faculties that gave them language, motor, and reason abilities. They did not "grow" in some sense, yet they did (since there were things that they did not know). I wonder if reading Job before hand would give some insights (many scholars believe this is the first book written in the Bible).
I don't find the thought of him being intelligent difficult to comprehend. After all, what WASN'T new to Adam and Eve? Everything they saw, touched, tasted, heard, or smelled was new. And who taught them how to speak? Somehow they were endowed with immediate intellectual faculties that gave them language, motor, and reason abilities. They did not "grow" in some sense, yet they did (since there were things that they did not know). I wonder if reading Job before hand would give some insights (many scholars believe this is the first book written in the Bible).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)