Genesis 3: Oops
So, God set up humanity with everything they needed--and then some. Not only did he create Eden, but he also made the possibility of evil through the gift of free will. The two trees were made as a test. Wouldn't it have been better if the trees had never been put there? Yeah, if you don't mind being a robot! However, the trees were there, and anyone who has ever lived would have to acknowledge that they would have eventually made the same mistake.
What was the mistake? According to Genesis, the mistake was pride--thinking that man or woman could ever be equal to God. This desire is at the heart of all sin--I know more than God, I know better than God, I can do it better than God. This pride--the desire to be God, plagues us all. It is the image of God corrupted. Were made to need him--not to BE him.
The subtlety of the serpent is not to be overlooked. The twisting of the truth is worse than outright lying--and can cause us to fall down a slippery slope rather jump off of a cliff. Either way, we find ourselves at the bottom of deep chasm with little hope of rescue, aside from the God we chose not to listen to.
In the end the woman followed the lies down the path, and she allowed her ears, eyes, and heart to be deceived. The man did not stop her, nor did he seek to stand--but he followed for the same reasons. They both fell together--as have all of us.
Eden was lost, and God was forced to establish his holiness. He did what Adam could not do.
Sometimes I wonder what if Adam had stopped the madness before he fell. We will never know. God stopped it. But he did not destroy his creation. He made them live in the world they twisted. For their redemption. For his glory.
What was the mistake? According to Genesis, the mistake was pride--thinking that man or woman could ever be equal to God. This desire is at the heart of all sin--I know more than God, I know better than God, I can do it better than God. This pride--the desire to be God, plagues us all. It is the image of God corrupted. Were made to need him--not to BE him.
The subtlety of the serpent is not to be overlooked. The twisting of the truth is worse than outright lying--and can cause us to fall down a slippery slope rather jump off of a cliff. Either way, we find ourselves at the bottom of deep chasm with little hope of rescue, aside from the God we chose not to listen to.
In the end the woman followed the lies down the path, and she allowed her ears, eyes, and heart to be deceived. The man did not stop her, nor did he seek to stand--but he followed for the same reasons. They both fell together--as have all of us.
Eden was lost, and God was forced to establish his holiness. He did what Adam could not do.
Sometimes I wonder what if Adam had stopped the madness before he fell. We will never know. God stopped it. But he did not destroy his creation. He made them live in the world they twisted. For their redemption. For his glory.
posted by Randy Rogers at
11:19 AM
4 Comments:
So whose fault was it anyway. The Devil made me do it? I mean who told them they were naked? Isn’t that why they hid? Isn’t that why God shed blood and killed an animal, to make a cover for them? Weren't they naked before? Is the sin knowledge of sin? Why did Eve say that if she ‘even so much as touched the tree... they would surely die’? Did she forget? Was she misinformed? Was she just flat out lying? Had Adam tried to head off the collision by increasing (sinfully?) the scope of the law to include touching as well as eating? Somehow the facts were reported by Eve a-wrongly and the opening given to Satan to compound the deceit(whose?) to the resultant ‘Apples for dinner anyone?’ replied by, ‘Sounds yummy!’ or was it ‘You cook it and I’ll eat it.’?. Were Adam and Eve thus exposed as flawed(incomplete, needful?) in forgetful(Eve) or overzealous(Adam) by this ‘error in the judgement to be expected for the crime of touching’ rather than that first given by God as a crime of eating? I mean weren’t they to tend the garden, and the Tree was in the garden? How would they tend the gardeen if they did not touch it? From whence(where and when) did this Satan come from anyway, and what were his motives? Were they actually proud to try and be like God? Isn’t that our admonition to each other today, ‘To be Christlike’? Is it so bad(prideful) to try to be Godlike? Why is the word Godly used in that phrase instead, more correct?
One little passage, and, oh my, goodness sakes alive, will it ever end, or will it never end, what good can come of all this mess anyway, you know whatta mean, and on and on and on and on and on....?!
I Thank God for you Randy Rogers, as often as I thank God.
Thanking God now,
Robert
OK. That's the article I had envisioned when I first thought about this passage. So many questions, so little time . . . .
Where did the serpent come from? Great question. After all, he was the wisest/wiliest/craftiest of all the animals. Did God make him for such a purpose?
I think one of the things that we see here is a Hebrew explanation of our plight--and their beliefs about snakes, women, etc.
From a theological perspective, we are left to assume that the snake was crafty because there was spiritual intrigue already taking place in the big picture that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of. Satan was already real, and his followers were already in existence. Maybe this refers back to Gen. 1:2 when light and dark were created. We have no real way of knowing exactly how all of this came to pass (see Eze. 28 for what some consider to be a reference to the fall of Satan).
Perhaps the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a result of this spiritual intrigue. I think it is simply a metaphor and a test for humanity, which humanity failed. The failure was not in the desire of knowledge, but in the lack of obedience.
God-like is not the problem. Taking the place of God is the problem. "Be Holy for I am holy" is a call to be God-like. God-like must be obedience and an effort to live like God, not to be prideful and to live as God without God.
maybe "touching" holds the idea of not just tending, but "touching with intent of eating." If God forbade them, then touching the tree would involve a motive against God. So, the touching is wrong because the heart would be wrong. The heart is always the issue.
Aha!(or is it HAYAH?) 'touching with the intent to eat'! Aha!
I always tho't that according to Genesis the original mistake was disobedience, pride in escaping immediate death followed after, and later Job's pride of righteousness followed. Then Christ came and now we can have a pride in humility.
rfr
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home