Wednesday, January 5, 2022

1. Innate behaviours

 Inate behaviours

 

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word:
"You shall love your neighbour as yourself."

But if you bite and devour one another,
watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

But I say, walk by the Spirit,
and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit,
and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh,
for these are opposed to each other,
keeping you from doing the things you want to do.

But if you are led by the Spirit,
you are not under the law.
 

Galatians 5:14-18

 

Jesus declares in John 17:3: ‘And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.’

 

It takes personal endeavour if we are to know God, we must seek Him out, seek His face, and ultimately gain the confidence to bask in His smile.

 

In attempting to understand God, to know Him as He is and live an eternal life, we can draw both on His creation and on the Scriptures that He has inspired His prophets and teachers to write. (Job 12:7-10).

More importantly we need to live Godly lives ourselves if we are to know him (Jer 22:15-16)

 

In looking at His handiwork in His creation we can see evidence of His care and His passion for what He has created. This is seen in His attention to detail and the harmonious environments and ecologies that He has created for the comfort and continuance of all of His creatures.

 

The pages of the Scriptures record many events and incidents involving the actions of men or mankind and the actions of God. Each event and incident is a cameo picture, presented to illustrate aspects of the character of God.

 

Within this text we also have a record of God’s own laws for the growth and guidance of the fledgling nation of Israel. These laws also declare His character by making plain His concerns and wishes for the people whom He has called ‘His son’.

 


To better understand how these all fit together, I want firstly to examine the nature and mind of mankind. If we are to understand God, then there is probably no better place to start than by looking at the human creature, since it was this creature that God made to declare, in part, His own character. Then we can consider what the nature and spirit of man reveals concerning our Creator.

 

In assembling the elements of evidence that we find, we are confronted with several possible ambiguities. Like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that are the same size and shape, these elements may be placed in more than one place and, in so doing, may drastically alter the picture. As anyone who has done a jigsaw puzzle knows, the best way to see if a piece really belongs where it is placed is to observe the picture being constructed. The piece may fit, but if the resulting picture is wrong, then it is not the right piece for that place.

 

Robert Alter, in his translation ‘The five Books of Moses’, comments in the Preface about a tendency of translators to ‘disambiguate’ the text. By this he means that it is not uncommon for translators to assume the need to interpret, rather than translate the text in such a way as to favour their own preconceived views. In so doing they feel that they are being faithful in their translation, sometimes not even aware that they have relayed such bias. Translation is often a rather blunt tool when applied to a literary work. The different language inflections of ancient text are not always understood by modern day linguists and wordplay that is evident in the original is often difficult or impossible to replicate in translated work.

 

Added to this, ambiguities may exist with respect to the tenor of the text which may bias our understanding one way or another. Because of this we need to tread carefully as we navigate the text of the Bible and examine the intent of what is being relayed to us.

 

These problems and the fact that the perspective presented here is a departure from traditionally held views, may cause some readers to consider some things presented here to be controversial. It is not my intention to be controversial for the sake of theological argument. If my promoting of a different view were to cause me to feel smug then I would stand condemned of divisiveness, but this would be the last thing that I would like to result from this paper. My sole intention is to illuminate an aspect of scriptural understanding that I believe has been glossed over by adherence to long-held, poorly formed concepts. It is my contention that some of what we have been taught, was originally formulated by those who wished to maintain authority within the church by fear.

 

Having said this, I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of each of us to examine all points for ourselves. What I present here is just another way of looking at some things, and my hope is that it may be a spur to each reader to seek God more diligently.

 

At the same time, we need to be careful that we do not just end up practising a form of 'creative avoidance' by spending our efforts in fruitless study for the sake of study. The aim and focus of all research must be to help us draw nearer to God and to live as His children. All study must bear good fruit in our lives if it is to be an effective use of our time.

 

We must never lose sight of the fact that the gospel is simple; it is simple enough to be understood by the least educated yet, paradoxically, is often too hard for an intellectual to grasp.

 

Moses writes:

For this commandment which I command thee this day,

it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say,

Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us,

     That we may hear it, and do it?

Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say,

Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us,

     That we may hear it, and do it?

But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth,

and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Deuteronomy 30:11

Paul also reminds us of this:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness
to every one that believes.

For Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law,
that the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise,
Say not in thine heart,
‘Who shall ascend into heaven?’

 (That is, to bring Christ down from above) Or,
‘Who shall descend into the deep?’

 (That is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

But what saith it?

The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart:
 that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart
that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved.                                                    
Romans 10:4-9

 

In all examination of Scripture, we need also to invest time in examining where our theology is taking us. We have the innate ability to know the righteous morality of God; it is in our heart.  The difficulty that we so often face is that our view is so easily clouded by self interest.

 

Knowing Ourselves

 

Innate behaviours

I am going to start from a place way out left of field at a very grassroots level, because it is important that we not leave preconceived foundations as unchallenged. If we are to look at how people work and to see in their workings the hand and character of God revealed, it is first necessary to understand the way people see people, to look with fresh eyes at the biases we have and the natural mind that in the most part rules our thoughts and actions. Some may find it uncomfortable to step outside of ‘Scripture’ to explore the nature of man, but when all is said and done, man came before Scripture and while Scripture deals with the consequences of man’s nature, it would be silly to think that we cannot gain a degree of understanding about the way we are by observation and consideration of our motives as they are outworked in our actions and reactions.

 

When we stop and look at what it is that people have filled their days with (aside from working to survive) over all the thousands of years that man has inhabited the earth, we notice that of all thought, philosophy and storybooks ever written (and all the plays and films and poems and songs) the vast majority are concerned with one thing, Humanity, its identity and its relationships. Just what it is to be human and how it is that we relate to others. We are naturally obsessed with relationships between genders, races, social strata, generations, and any other discernable social groups. It has become apparent that authors and scriptwriters of fiction are now our philosophers, illuminating the psychology and motives of mankind.

 

This quest to define precisely what it is to be human is one that has plagued philosophers, scientists, and sages for thousands of years. Even today the answer is proving illusive and attempts to manufacture artificial intelligence, or to synthesise consciousness and bestow freewill on manufactured apparatus, still falls short of all aspirations.

 

It is this pursuit that has given rise to a literary tool used to examine the foundations of consciousness and conscience. This tool is the consideration of inanimate models (fake creatures) to highlight, by contrast, the characteristics of real, sentient creatures.

 

The trend to do this began some time ago and classic tales like the one of Pinocchio were an attempt to illustrate that, in order to claim to be really human, a subject must firstly exhibit the qualities of conscience (Jiminy Cricket) – courage, honour, loyalty, honesty and love.

 

In more recent times it seems that authors have resorted to the use of robots to probe these qualities.  In most stories and films that encompass the use of robots, there is an assumption of three fundamental laws of behaviour that are built into each robot to govern the way these characters behave and relate to people. In some stories, these laws are directly referenced.

 

These specific laws of behaviour were famously first stated by feted science fiction author, Isaac Asimov, in his book Runabout, written in 1942. Isaac Asimov proposed that these laws were to be hardwired into the robots in such a way that they would never be negotiable.

 

The FIRST of these laws was, in essence, that no robot could autonomously, or under direction, harm or kill a human under any circumstances.

 

The SECOND law was that robots must obey all of the commands given by a human, provided these commands did not conflict with the first law, so that a human could not command a robot to kill or injure another person.

 

The THIRD law was that each robot must protect itself from damage, provided that the defensive action necessary to do this did not conflict with either of the first or second laws.

 

When we stop and consider the laws proposed for robots, it is interesting to note that they declare something of Asimov’s own insecurity. He reveals by his laws that he was concerned about his safety and the safety of all mankind should these creatures ever be made superior to man, either physically or mentally (or both). His laws also declare that he was concerned that men should remain the masters – never slaves to robots. The fact that most other storytellers that have written about robots since then, have also borrowed, or assumed, these laws from Asimov declares a consensus that the laws should stand and, in this way, the insecurity of mankind generally is revealed.

 

However, ultimately, the concept of 'fundamental laws of behaviour' was borrowed from nature. God has built fundamental laws of behaviour into every creature. These behavioural laws define each creature every bit as much as each is defined by its physical form. Each kind of creature behaves in its own characteristic ways. Dogs wag their tail when they are happy, they bury bones and crave companionship. Each type of bird has its own call, nest architecture and mating ritual. These behaviours are hard-wired into each creature. They are not taught but they are innate, and they are often involuntary and, as a consequence, easily predictable.

 

Apart from creature-specific laws, there are some that are much more general. All creatures were made to eat, to procreate and to provide for themselves in a manner befitting each kind of creature and in a way that is related to each creature’s characteristic nature and form. All creatures are hard-wired to defend themselves and, in most cases, to defend their young.

 

We notice however that the fundamental laws that God has built into every creature have no equivalent in the first two of Isaac Asimov’s laws for robots. God’s laws reveal that He has no insecurity at all but only a concern for the welfare and continuance of His creation.

 

Like all other creatures, humans too have characteristic behaviours. These reside in our subconscious mind and, consequently, we are not always aware of the basis of some of our actions and decisions. One of the more human traits is the use of narrative language, which we develop as we learn to speak at about age two. Narrative language is when we verbalise (either out loud or in our mind) the things that we are consciously doing. For youngsters, this trait is quite involuntary and often spoken audibly.

As we develop, we learn that we are able to have more than one narrative – one is the actual memory of events as they happen; another is the way we would like to present it to others.

 

Because these natural laws reside in our subconscious, they more often surface when we are not directly making a conscious decision, or at times of stress or reflex. When driving a car, we often make split second reflex decisions. This deference to reflex most often means that it is the natural defensive mind that makes the choice of action, and it is not unusual, on reflection, to find that we are driving so as to guard our position on the road.

 

While we may carefully monitor our considered actions, we are more likely to declare our natural mind when we react to events or when we are placed under duress.

 

The mechanism that God has provided to cause all creatures to defend themselves is a perception of either security or insecurity. Insecurity is what drives each creature’s need to be defensive and to adequately ensure its own provisions with an urgency that will generally supersede the needs of all others.

 

Text Box: It is out of insecurity that people strive for more goods, for better goods, for status and, out of insecurity, will steal or lie or murder. 

We are all made to crave security and out of this hard-wired need, we naturally do things that are considered to be not the behaviour of Godly people. We hoard goods beyond our ability to put them to good use. We covet goods that we don’t really need. When challenged we may lie to cover our failings or become verbally or physically aggressive or abusive. We form cliques as a defence against outsiders and strive for positions of wealth, power, and authority. In an effort to improve our own relative position we become miserly and less able to be generous. We may even slander others in an effort to strengthen our own social position at the expense of theirs. It is out of insecurity that people strive for more goods, for better goods, for status and, out of insecurity, will steal or lie or murder. 

Tuesday, January 4, 2022

2. All creation was very good

 

The Genesis record states that all of God’s creation was made ‘very good’. Does this mean that they were above feeling a natural tendency to behave with a natural mind? What do we witness of the behaviour of Adam and Eve that may support or refute the idea that they were made with the same insecurities we have now? What was it that ultimately motivated Eve to take of the fruit of the tree?

 

A clue to this is seen in the use of the words “naked” (Heb. ArĂ´me), in the last verse of chapter 2 and “subtle” (Heb. Arome), in the first verse of chapter 3. These are so close in the way they are written and pronounced that a number of commentators have picked up on this classic example of Hebrew wordplay. (See NIV study notes on Gen 3:1)

 

The obvious intention of this wordplay would be to infer the case for substitution. On this basis we could say that the serpent was more naked than any of the beasts of the field, which it arguably was, having no hair and even shedding its skin.

 

But the real point is that Adam and Eve were both ‘subtly minded’ and not ashamed of the natural mind that they had.

 

We read:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Genesis 3:6

It is common to relate this to the passage:

For all that is in the world,
the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,
is not of the Father, but is of the world.

1 John 2:16

 

Text Box: It would appear that the natural mind that is now seen in mankind was also evident in the mind of Eve prior to her taking of the tree. It is widely accepted that this reflects the mind of Eve at the time that she took the fruit of the tree of knowledge. This is the mind that she had before eating of the tree that led her to behave the way she did. That, while Jesus thought equality with God was ‘not a thing to be grasped at’ (Philippians 2:6), this was a driving force in the mind of Eve.

 

Jesus comments in Mark 7:20:

And he said,
That which cometh out of the man, that defiles the man.

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

 

It appears that the natural mind that is now seen in mankind was also evident in the mind of Eve prior to her taking of the tree.

 

This point is crucial in understanding ourselves and our sinfulness.

 

All things made Very Good

Moses records that God made all things ‘very good’. All creation was pronounced ‘very good’ on the evening of the sixth day (even the serpent). What does the word ‘good’ imply within this context?

 

Some have suggested that there was no death in the world before Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Their perspective is that all plants and animals continued to live without aging or dying. This view has two major problems. Firstly, it isn’t recorded in scripture that this was the case. Secondly, if nothing matured and died, then not only would the whole of the earth’s ecological environments need to be completely different. Fruit would not ripen and the failure of the seeds of the savannah grasses and herbs to regerminate would rule out the regrowth necessary to support the beasts of the field. The picture of Eden is one in which the beasts of the field are fed by the field plants, and the trees in Eden bore fruit that was pleasant to the eyes and good for food. These were not unripened fruit, which would have been neither pleasant nor good to eat. Death had to be part of the ecology of Eden for creatures to exist as God created them.  To assume otherwise would be to assume that they are not really the creatures that we have now. The term ‘very good’ does not mean ‘undying’ or in any way different in nature from the creatures of today.

 

We see the term ‘very good’ used in many ways in the following passages. (These use the same Hebrew expression as is used in Genesis 1 & 2.)

 

And they said, Arise, that we may go up against them: for we have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good: and are ye still? Be not slothful to go, and to enter to possess the land.

Judges 18:9

The land was termed ‘very good’ when in fact it was seen to be fertile.

 

One basket had very good figs, even like the figs that are first ripe:

and the other basket had very naughty figs,

which could not be eaten, they were so bad.

Jeremiah 24:2

The basket of figs was termed ‘very good’ because they were at their most edible and appealing.

 

But the men were very good unto us, and we were not hurt,
neither missed we any thing,
as long as we were conversant with them,
when we were in the fields:

1 Samuel 25:15

David’s men were ‘very good’ (moral) in their behaviour toward Nabal’s men.

 

God created His world to be complete and balanced. The cycles of life and death, the environments and ecologies were all made to work in harmony. Living things reproduced and died, fruit and grain ripened, and the dead and rotting material fertilised the ground. All creatures behaved as they do today. However, no sin or guilt was present anywhere and, most importantly, no discord in the heart or mind of any creature.

 

Monday, January 3, 2022

3 The knowledge of good and evil

 

Just consider the behaviour of other animals. They steal and kill (sometimes even their own offspring). Their behaviour is always governed by decisions that they perceive as good for them and for their security. When threatened they are always defensive and will respond with either fight or flight, depending on their circumstance. If we always behaved as animals do, we would be considered sinful, however animals are never considered sinful because they have no understanding of moral issues.

 

Children also have no understanding of moral issues, but they gain the ability to assess right and wrong as they mature. For this reason, we never accuse children of sin. Civil laws also deem children and minors to have diminished responsibility even when they commit serious crime.

 

It is necessary for a person to be able to discern right from wrong before any sin is deemed to have been committed by them. (see John 15:22)

 

The same Hebrew words that are used in Genesis 3:22 for this idiom are used in Deuteronomy 1:39

 

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: …

 

Moreover, your little ones, which you said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Deuteronomy 1:39

 

We see that the knowledge of good and evil that the juvenile children of Israel lacked was a knowledge that their parents did have. The children were deemed innocent because they lacked this awareness while their parents were deemed guilty because they possessed it.

This is the same knowledge that the Lord God claimed possession of.

 

God Knowing Good and Evil Gen 3:22

 

Who was the ‘Lord God’ referred to in this passage? Was it just the Elohim (angels) who had this knowledge, perhaps gained in a previous creation by failure and sin? Could it have been only the Elohim who made the executive decision to exclude Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden?

 

The phrase ‘Lord God’, literally ‘Yahweh Elohim’, is generally understood to mean ‘He who will be manifest in mighty ones’. And the ‘He’ (Yahweh) is always the one God – The Father, The Creator. This means that it was God (Yahweh), not just the Elohim, who also made the executive decision to ‘Let Us make man in our image’ and that it is Yahweh Himself who breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of Adam.

 

But doesn’t the use of the word ‘us’ in these two verses imply more than one person?

 

Text Box: It is important to understand that this knowledge of good and evil (as possessed by God and His angels) is the ability to discern between good and evil.
We refer to it as conscience. 
It is the ability to consciously discern what is morally right or wrong.

Yes, it does, but God is always seen in visions as being in the presence of His heavenly host and these verses are simply understood as God speaking to those who were there with Him. He speaks the directive to them and implies a personal participation in each of the acts that He proposes.

 

The word “ya’da” (knowledge) in this idiom has been taken to mean ‘knowledge gained by experience’, because this is a common understanding of the use of the word. But it does not always have to mean ‘to gain by experience’. It may also have the meaning just to ‘perceive’ or ‘discern’. Both God and His angels are able to discern between good and evil and it would be unreasonable to imply that Yahweh needed to perform evil in order to gain such knowledge.

 

It is important to understand that this knowledge of good and evil (as possessed by God and His angels) is the ability to consciously discern between good and evil. We sometimes refer to it as conscience. It is the consciousness of what is morally right or wrong.

 

It cannot be knowledge gained by ‘an experience of doing wrong’, or the juvenile children of Israel (Deuteronomy 1:39) would have had it beginning at an age somewhere between one or two years. The experience of doing wrong is clearly not what is being referred to within this context.

 

Special trees

This is also seen in the passage recorded earlier in Genesis when it records that God made two special trees to put in the Garden.

 

Moses records in Genesis 2:9 that God placed…

..the tree of life also in the midst of the garden,

and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

We are unable to assume from the text that the writer of Genesis wanted to infer that, while the tree of life had a potency to impart life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lacked any specific potency.

 

It should be noted that, from the very beginning, evidence for the “specialness” of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is quite clear and there is no justification for thinking that one tree was more potent than the other.

 

More importantly, we should understand that the tree was custom-made to deliver ‘the knowledge of good and evil’ That is, it awakened the ability to discern between what is morally right and morally wrong.

 

Have you ever wondered how the tree of life worked?

Was it blessed by some supernatural or mystical spell?

I think that it be more reasonable to understand that it simply contained an ingredient that rejuvenated Adam and Eve, to keep them young.

 

How did the tree of the knowledge of good and evil work?

We aren’t told, but it could be that the tree also contained an ingredient which precipitated a mental (and possibly physical) maturity.

 

Text Box: It is important to note that it was the fruit of this special tree that brought about a change in the minds of Adam & Eve – it was not just an experience of disobedience that caused their change of state.

In this way - while the tree of life held back the normal progress of aging by continual use - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did the reverse and accelerated the natural maturing process. Because the normal progression of development is forward towards maturity, only one eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was necessary to speed up this development and awaken the natural development of conscience.

 

So, we see that, before eating the tree, Adam & Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, in the same way that young children have no knowledge of good and evil. They were unable to distinguish between what was morally right or wrong. Children may choose to transgress a command - but this decision isn't sin. A trained animal may choose to disobey a directive - but this isn't sin either.

 

It is important to note that it was the fruit of this special tree that brought about a change in the minds of Adam & Eve – it was not just an experience of disobedience that caused their change of state.

 

Ever since Adam and Eve’s action, all of mankind matures to a point where they are able to discern what is right and wrong - with the most rapid development of conscience occurring at about the age of maturity. Usually, this change is most noticeable at puberty and into our later teens. Most parents of teenage children would have noticed that, as their teenagers grow into maturity, they will start observing and picking up on any wrong attitudes by other members of the family and correcting double standards. It is also at this time in their lives that they can become reactionary to social wrongs.

 

The need to know the difference between good and evil is seen in the account of Solomon gaining wisdom (which uses the same Hebrew terms):

 

And now, O LORD my God,
thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my father:
and I am but a little child:

I know not how to go out or come in.

And thy servant is in the midst of thy people
which thou hast chosen, a great people,
that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude.

Give therefore thy servant
an understanding heart to judge thy people
that I may discern between good and bad
:
for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?

And the speech pleased the Lord,
that Solomon had asked this thing.

And God said unto him,
Because thou hast asked this thing,
and hast not asked for thyself long life;
neither hast asked riches for thyself,
nor hast asked the life of thine enemies;
but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment.

 Behold, I have done according to thy words:
lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart;
so that there was none like thee before thee,
neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.

1Kings 3:7 

We see the same principal in the prophecy of Isaiah (which is later applied to Jesus in Matthew’s gospel):

Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Butter and honey shall he eat,
that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. -
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,
the land that thou abhor shall be forsaken of both her kings.

 Isaiah 7:14-16

 

And the theme is repeated in the New Testament by the writer to the Hebrews:

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers,
ye have need that one teaches you again
which be the first principles of the oracles of God;
and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

For every one that uses milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness:
for he is a babe.

But strong meat belongs to them that are of full age,
even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised
to discern both good and evil
.

Hebrews 5:12

 

Why was it a problem for Adam & Eve to have a knowledge of good and evil but it wasn’t a problem for God to have that same knowledge?

 

While God has always been able to discern between right and wrong, He is not subject to the same insecurities that we have. God is immortal and all powerful – He has no need to act defensively. His perfect perception of what is right and what is wrong gives rise to no internal discord in Him at all, since all of His righteous thoughts and actions are above the natural plain on which we exist. But the effect of being able to discern between right and wrong creates a problem for us who are instinctively motivated by self-interest. We experience internal discord that results from having a Godly perception of morality in a natural, self-seeking body and mind. We refer to the discord that arises from our failure to comply with our conscience as guilt.

 

The dawning of conscience was accompanied by the appearance of guilt in Adam and Eve – as it does in all people on earth today. Guilt gives rise to its associated pain, a sense of shame, damaged relationships, and an increase in defensive anti-social behaviour and withdrawal.

 

David graphically describes the effect of guilt:

There is no soundness in my flesh because of your anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin. For my iniquities have gone over my head: as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me. My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness. I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long. For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh. I am feeble and sore broken: I have roared by reason of the disquietness of my heart. Lord, all my desire is before you; and my groaning is not hidden from you. My heart pants, my strength fails me: as for the light of my eyes, it also is gone from me. My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my kinsmen stand afar off. They also that seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things, and imagine deceits all the day long. But I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that opens not his mouth. Thus I was as a man that hears not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs.

Psalm 38:3-14

 

 

Sunday, January 2, 2022

4. God's Command and the serpent's lie

 God Interacts with man

The first interaction, the first recorded words that God speaks to man, must surely colour our understanding of who He is and what He is about. What do we know of God from the way He has dealt with mankind? How do we see His demeanour and view the tenor of this interaction? What is the purpose of this interaction? Is this a loving God, or a God who is dispassionate toward his creation? Does His command imply that He is a secure God, or a God that suffers insecurity?

 

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden;
and there he put the man whom he had formed.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow
every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food;
the tree of life also in the midst of the garden,
and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

:

And the LORD God took the man,
and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,
Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
Thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof
thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 2:7-17

 

As previously presented, we must understand that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a special tree with a special ability to give the power to discern the moral rightness or wrongness of an issue. It is my assertion that this is the only understanding that makes sense. It is also the most clear, uncomplicated, and simple perspective of the events.

 


Righteous Commandments

Before considering the command not to eat of the tree, let us just deviate for a moment and consider all of the commandments that God has given.

 

Moses writes;

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments,
even as the LORD my God commanded me,
 that you should do so in the land whither you go to possess it.

Keep therefore and do them;
for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say,

“Surely this great nation is a wise
and understanding people. “

For what nation is there so great,
who has God so near to them,

as the LORD our God is in all things
that we call upon him for?

And what nation is there so great,
that has statutes and judgments
so righteous as all this law
,
which I set before you this day?

Deuteronomy 4:5–8

 

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD
is sure, making wise the simple.

The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart:
the commandment of the LORD
is pure, enlightening the eyes.

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever:
the judgments of the LORD
are true and righteous altogether.

More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold:
sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

Moreover, by them is thy servant warned:
and in keeping of them there is great reward.

Psalm 19:7-11

 

Wherefore the law is holy,
and the commandment holy,
and just, and good.

Romans 7:12

 

It is common sense that commands can be classified according to their goodness. Some commands are good, and some are bad.

What is it that separates good commands from bad ones? I would like to tender an opinion that unrighteous commands are those made purely out of self interest and with no benefit to those constrained by them or to any community under their governance.

In Daniel 3:4-6 we read of the law of Nebuchadnezzar

Then a herald cried aloud,
To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages,

That at what time you hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp,
sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music,
you fall down and worship the golden image that
Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up:

And whoso falls not down and worships
shall in the same hour be cast into the midst
of a burning fiery furnace.

 

This was clearly not a good command despite the fact that Nebuchadnezzar

·       Was the rightly appointed legal authority

·       Had the legal right to pass whatever law he wished

·       Had the support of his court and advisers.

 

When we look at the laws that God has made, we can see in all of His commands that the underlying purpose is the good of mankind.

 

All of God’s laws are righteous - not just because they were made by God – but because they are righteous in intent and content.

 

Let us move on and see how the righteousness of God is revealed in the commandment not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by re-examining the first few verses of Genesis chapter three.

 

The Serpent Mind in Genesis

The serpent was made by God to be more ‘subtle’ than any of the beasts of the field.

 

This same Hebrew word for subtlety is referred to in other passages as:
the prudence of a shameful man
or a knowledgeable man                                 (Proverbs 12:16, 23)
And in the NT the serpent subtlety is also directly referred to in
                                                                           (2 Corinthians 11:3)

The Greek word used in this place is also used to refer to:
the wisdom of the world                                  (1 Corinthians 3:19)
the cunning craftiness of deceitful men         (Ephesians 4:14)

 

We should keep in mind that the serpent was an animal, and, like all other amoral animals, the serpent could not sin. It only had power to reason and to talk. In recent times this has been demonstrated in some birds that have been shown to communicate verbally with simple logic and understanding. We should be clear that the ability to talk does not imply an ability to discern moral issues – the serpent, like all animals – was amoral.

 

The natural animal mind is not sinful of itself but, since it is devoid of moral awareness, it is focused with animal intent on interpreting the things that it perceives in such a way as to advance and preserve self. It is much like the natural scientific mind, observing and interpreting without moral influence. In trying to maintain objectivity by excluding all that cannot be quantified, they express conclusions that are arrived at by a purely empirical means – as much as they are able. But despite giving lip service to such objectivity, we find that scientists all too often lose objectivity where self interest is at stake. In the pursuit of science, it is a principle that scientists take care to document carefully and to provide evidence for their conclusions truthfully. The problem is that, while the facts stated may be correct, the conclusions drawn may be no more than personal opinions or extrapolations biased by self interest. A recent example of this mindset was revealed by a group of scientists who spent their own money to take out newspaper advertisements opposing the presentation of ‘intelligent design’ to school children. In so doing they revealed both their lack of independent objectivity and a core insecurity. The difficulty facing scientists today is that funding is generally provided more plentifully for projects that are in accord with current theory. If a scientist were to go against this, he is more likely to lose funding.

 

Was the serpent trying to lie?

In order to answer this, let us take a closer look at the scene played out for us in Genesis 3:1-6. Just imagine Eve and the serpent standing there and looking closely at the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

- setting the scene (voices from behind closed curtains)

 

Eve:             “Hmm – this appears good for food.”
Serpent:       “Yes – it doesn’t appear to be toxic or poisonous at all -
                    And it sure would be good to be like God
                    to know good and evil.”

 

- Curtain opens - Eve and the serpent standing by the tree

 

Serpent:         “Didn’t God say you could eat of every tree…”

 

Eve:            (cuts the serpent off)
                         “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
                         but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
                         garden, God has said ‘You shall not eat of it;
                         neither shall you touch it, lest you die. ‘”

 

(A pregnant pause as they look at the fruit again and
observe again that it is “good for food and
capable of granting a knowledge of good and evil”)

 

Serpent:         (asserts) “You won’t surely die.”
                        
(i.e. This fruit won’t kill you)
                   
(gives reason) “But God knows that
                         in the day you eat of it your eyes shall be opened,
                         and you will be as gods, knowing good and evil. “

 

Eve:       (Looks and sees that the tree is good for food, and that it is
pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise),

She takes the fruit and eats it.

 

The Hebrew expression ‘muth tmuth’ (translated ‘you will surely die’) is generally used for places where a judicial sentence is proclaimed.

The Hebrew expression is an example of a figure of speech known as Polyptotonit simply emphasises the verb that it is applied to by repeating it. It does not mean that God is threatening a judicial sentence to Adam.

There are other examples of its use where this is clearly not the case.

(For example, 2 Kings 8:10, Judges 13:22)

 

If Eve had believed that God had threatened her with judicial death for eating from the tree, then the serpent would have had no power to convince her otherwise because the judgement would still stand.

 

This passage makes much more sense when we understand that both the serpent and Eve knew that God was warning of a danger in the fruit and was not threatening judicial death.

 

It was because Eve understood that the command was a warning about the fruit, that the serpent was able to deceive her by inferring that God was only acting out of self-interest in warning them not to eat it.

 

What the serpent said was supported by natural observation and deduction. It could be seen as saying scientifically what was observed from a natural perspective without understanding the spiritual impact of what God had said.

Not having sufficient information, the serpent did not anticipate the full outcome. The serpent tenders an alternative reason for God’s command: “God knows that when you eat of it you will be like God – having a superior moral awareness”.

The big lie that the serpent introduced into Eden was far more subtle than just saying ‘you shall not surely die’. It is a deceptive lie that has endured through all time since and it was this lie that Jesus came to refute.

 

The real serpent lie is cunningly couched in the multi-faceted inference: -
That God does not love you.
That He is trying to keep you down.
That He is not working for you but against you.
That in moving to protect his position against you He declares Himself to be insecure.

 

This is the lie that characterises the serpent in Scripture, and it is the lie that comes from seeing God as a legal God to Adam and all mankind instead of the loving Father that he is. It is the lie that underpins the idea that God is in heaven waiting for us to do something wrong so that we can be crossed out of the book of life. It is the lie that says that “God wants obedience just for the sake of obedience – just to maintain His authority and to make us acutely aware of our inferiority”.

It accuses God of making an unjust law in the pursuit of self-interest.

 

It should be noted that the Genesis record makes no suggestion that the behaviour of Adam and Eve became worse as a result of taking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The only change in their makeup was that they gained the ability to discern between good and evil.

 

We need to take another look at this command given by God not to eat of the tree.

 

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,

Do not eat of it:
because in the day that you eat thereof you will surely die.

 

God knew that the tree was a special tree which would have an effect on Adam and Eve, that, in maturity, their moral eyes would be opened to see right from wrong. Because of this, it would have been wrong of God if He had not issued a warning to them of the negative consequences of eating from the tree - if he had allowed guilt to enter their lives unwittingly. The metamorphosis that takes place at puberty, in essence, marks the death of the child and the birth of the adult – much like the transition of baptism marks the death of the ‘old man’ and the beginning of life as a ‘new man’. God was warning Adam about the death of the childlike innocence in him, in the only way that Adam could understand.

 

Because God’s commands are always righteous commands, it would be wrong to think that He would issue a pointless command that could serve no good purpose. If, as some suggest, the tree was just any botanical tree that God had forbidden, then the command could only have been a pointless test that could not serve to teach them anything (they would be dead) nor from which He could learn anything. God already knew how their minds worked. Even if God had no intention of exercising the judgement that He had stated (this too would also paint Him in a deceitful light), the only outcome, would be to make Adam and Eve feel inferior and inadequate, which Eve already felt.

 

In fact, there is an ambiguity of tenor in the declaration of this command. We can see God as posing a trivial test and setting a draconian punishment for failure, or we can see God lovingly providing a warning of the consequence of eating the tree.

 

If you were a guest of a ruler on an island state somewhere, and invited to partake of his banquet and, on attendance at this feast, the king stares at you and says, “If you eat the plum pudding I will kill you”, the sense of unease would make you want to leave and not to be around this awful fellow who has placed your worth at less than that of the plum pudding.

 

If, on the other hand, he leaned over and confided “Don’t eat the plum pudding or you will die”, you may understand from his warning that it was not safe to eat, and wisdom would have you abstain from it. In which case you would feel grateful for the advice and the confidence afforded you by the king.

 

If a parent commands a child not to touch the heater it is because they want the child to avoid the pain. All parents know that one day their child will touch a hot surface but, while the lesson learned by this act may be important, the thought of painful injury to their child invariably prompts a warning.

 

If their child had touched the heater without being warned, he may wonder why no warning was given. Their child may consequently question the love of the parent putting them in danger without first making it known to them.

 

If a child is warned and, despite the warning, touches the heater, he learns not only that he should not touch the heater but also that his parent is caring and trustworthy, that the commands of the parent are just and good.

 

If a parent decided that a child needed to learn this awful lesson and (God forbid) put the child’s hand on the heater, the child may then know not to touch the heater, but they would not trust this parent in future and may, from that day on, carry a deep-seated resentment toward them.

 

God could not have just put a Godly knowledge of morality in the minds of natural creatures without being the author of guilt and discord. The knowledge had to come at their own hands against His advice in order for them to appreciate His goodness.

 

But parents have a heater in the house for good reason – why did God put this dangerous tree in their path?

 

This was no plan B scenario. God knew that they would take of the tree, and it was necessary for them to do so. Mankind had to gain this ability to discern between good and evil - how else could they ever know and do what was right? Without this understanding they could never have loved righteousness nor loved God for His righteousness.

 

It was a good thing for Adam and Eve to gain the knowledge of good and evil, but mankind was not made with it – and a warning was given to prevent it - because of the pain of guilt that would inevitably follow. This was a lesson that Adam and Eve had to learn by their own hand. God could not have bestowed this knowledge on naturally minded mankind without giving just cause for mankind to hate him for doing so. It is a part of the process that God has set in train to create holy people from natural creatures