Posted by Mike O on: 10.11.2007 /
It’s been a while since I wrote one of these “ravings,” so before I start, I just want to assure you that my purpose here is not to convert, contort, convince or connive you into agreeing with anyting I’m about to say. My purpose is simply to give you a glimpse into the workings of one Christian mind as I process (what I think are) interesting topics. In my first “ravings,” I put it this way:
What if a Christian were to expose to non-Christians the thoughts he has when reads scripture? What if non-Christians could see into the mind of a Christian who is serious about his faith, and was willing to be transparent about it?
I’m going to call this series “Ravings of a madman” as a tongue in cheek way of saying that I know you don’t buy it. I know you think it’s ridiculous. But perhaps it will be interesting to see how an actual Christian processes the things he reads in scripture.
If you’re interested, here the others I’ve done so far:
Ravings of a Madman - #1 - The Church of Laodicea
Ravings of a Madman - #2 - What the Bible says about Prosperity
Ravings of a Madman - #3 - Barbarian Christianity
Ravings of a Madman - #4 - Christianity 101 (1 John)
Anyway, now that I’ve got that out of the way, let’s begin!
——————————————————————————-
One common theme I hear from the people-formerly-known-as-Christian is that, at some level, you felt lied to or deceived about the harder things of your faith. Almost as if the people you trusted were covering up for it’s shortcomings. And when you began to actually think and question what you were being taught, the answers you were provided were weak and sappy.
Well, I don’t want to gloss over the harder things of my faith. They are there, and when I run across something hard, I want to resolve it. And last week, I ran across something hard.
Last week I read something I’ve read 100 times before, but I never really thought about what it meant. It’s found in Mark 4:11-12.
He (Jesus) told them (his disciples), “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
” ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’ “
Like I said, I’d read that 100 times before. But this time it hit me like a ton of bricks - “Wait just one second, Lord - these are my friends you’re talking about here!”
It bothered me. A lot! It sure sounds like Jesus is saying, “I don’t want them to understand,” which doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Why wouldn’t he want you to understand?
So I looked up the passage in the other gospels. I liked the way Matthew recorded it best. He says it like this:
This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
” ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’
I like this version better because rather than saying “I speak in parables so that they won’t understand,” it says, “I speak in parables because they don’t understand.” Almost like the parables are supposed to help, not hinder.
But really, that just raises two more questions in my mind - 1) Jesus either said it one way or the other, but not both. How do I reconcile that? And 2) who says the version I like best is really the right one? What if Jesus really did mean he didn’t want you guys to understand?
That’s quite a quandry for a guy who believes the Bible is consistent throughout, and that God wants everyone to accept his Son as their saviour.
My wife has a book called Hard Sayings of the Bible, so I pulled it out to see what it had to say. It has about two pages on the subject. It’s all very good but for purposes of this post, I’ll extract a couple of paragraphs that answered my questions. If you happen to have the book, this comes from pages 417-418.
It is plain that the saying is an adaptation of an Old Testament text, Isaiah 6:9-10. When Isaiah received his call to the prophetic ministry, in the well-known vision that he saw in the temple “in the year that King Uzziah died,” the voice of God said to him:
Go, and tell this people: “Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.” Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.
Should this commission be pressed to mean that Isaiah was ordered to go and tell the people to pay no heed to what thy heard him say? Was it his prescribed duty to prevent them from hearing and understanding his message, and thus make it simple for them to repent and so escape the destruction that would otherwise overtake them? No indeed; if that impression is given, it is simply due to the Hebrew tendency to express a consequence as though it were a purpose.
Isaiah volunteers to be God’s messenger to his people, and God takes him at his word, but says to him in effect, “Go and deliver my message, but don’t expect them to pay any attention to it. The effect of your preaching will be their persistent refusal to accept what you say, to the point where they will have rendered themselves incapable of accepting it.” In the event, this is exactly what Isaiah was to experience for the next forty years.
Isaiah’s experience was reproduced in Jesus’ ministry. For all the enthusiasm that greeted his ministry in it’s earlier phase, he had later on to lament the unbelief with which he met in the very places where most of his mighty works had been done.
OK, I can accept that explanation, but it raises yet another question for me - was it really a Hebrew tendency to express a consequence as though it were a purpose? Their explanation hinges on this assumption, so is the assumption true? I don’t know, but if you continue reading in Mark, you find this parable right on the heels of Jesus’ odd statement:
Mark 4:21-23
He said to them, “Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don’t you put it on its stand? For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
This certainly doesn’t sound like he wants the hidden things to remain a secret, does it? So why would Jesus, without hardly stopping to take a breath, say that his message should be both hidden and revealed? Perhaps because of the Hebrew tendency to express a consequence as a purpose.
And then in Mark 4:33-34, it says:
With many similar parables Jesus spoke to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.
Here, it clearly states that Jesus’ desire was for people to understand. But he knew that they wouldn’t and quoted Isaiah to illustrate his point. That makes sense to me.
So here’s how it comes down for me:
1) In the same conversation, Mark records that Jesus says both that he spoke in parables so the general public wouldn’t understand, and so they would. Mark must have been recording consequences as purposes in the first statement.
2) It would be counter-intuitive to die for something you don’t even want people to believe, yet Jesus did.
3) It would certainly be counter-intuitive for his followers to die trying to convince people of something they knew he was trying to hide from them, and furthermore told them he wanted hidden!
4) Why would Jesus/God go to all this trouble, and only want to save a few? That goes completely against the whole tone of the gospel and the nature of God as recorded in the Bible.
5) If Jesus didn’t want people to understand, why did he spend so friggin’ much TIME with them?
It just doesn’t make sense that Jesus intended to hide his message from people. Just look at his life and what he and his followers went through to get the message out there!
So here’s where I end up with it - I’m satisfied with their answer. Jesus did *not* mean that he was hiding his message from certain people. It doesn’t make any sense. And the Bible doesn’t have to be inconsistent simply because it’s recorded two different ways. I accept that it must have been the Hebrew tendency to express consequences as purposes. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.’ Or, should I say it’s an explanation that fits what I believe to be true about God, Jesus and scripture, AND it’s logically sound.
Comment by: Stephan
1Mike,
Thanks for this post. Knowing this tendency, to express a consequence as a purpose, helps makes sense of many things in the OT. I am doing the “Bible in a year” thing and I am in Jeremiah right now. It is a lot more clear in that context.
Comment by: Marty SB
2I wonder why, if God/Christ really wanted us to understand - why he/she did not just say things simply and consistently. I also really get driven nuts by those who think King James English is the only real translation. For me it might as well of been in French.
Comment by: Eliza
3Hi, Mike O - I like reading your “ravings” - thanks! You don’t sound like you’re foaming at the mouth too much! ;-)
I like the idea of a book intended to elucidate difficult concepts or writings. (It looks like there are several of the “Hard Sayings” books - Hard Sayings of Jesus, Hard Sayings of Paul - but maybe this one emcompasses them all?)
I’ll play “devil’s advocate” so to speak ;-) and comment.
Given that it’s important to many people for there to be an explanation in which scripture appears consistent, and all the time & effort that’s been available to put into this, therefore it is IMO not a surprise that there’s an explanation in which scripture appears consistent. (There’s a demand for these explanations, thus a supply.)
As you ask, is there really a syntactic structure in Hebrew in which a consequence is expressed as a purpose? On google search, all I found was a paper stating that a clause translated into English as “a result clause or a purpose clause” is “usually” a “co-ordinate clause” in Hebrew (not secondary, but co-primary, I think this means). I don’t really understand this, & can’t assess its accuracy, but it doesn’t seem to be the same thing at all as expressing a purpose as if it were a result.
Also, the purpose/result thing you found, and the one I found, are for writings in Hebrew. The gospels were written in Greek.
Comment by: Eliza
4Mike O, I’ve wondered about the scripture below for a long time. Out of curiosity, does your wife’s Hard Sayings book address these?
(1) “Not against me/you/us = for me/you/us” (= includes many “outsiders”)
Compared with:
(2) “Not for me/you/us = against me/you/us” (excludes all “outsiders”)
Comment by: Mike O
5I think he did - 2000 years ago. My wife would be better at explaining this because she took a course in it, but at the time it was written, in the culture it was written for, the style was probably made more sense than it does today.
Well, that and the fact that the things Jesus taught simply weren’t within the realm of every day religious *or* secular thinking.
Your statement, I think, is a lot like complaining that high-order Calculus isn’t easily explained in everyman’s language.
Me, too. As far as I can tell, Jesus didn’t speak the King’s English. And he didn’t say anything about looking for ‘the version to come.’
And if there really was ‘one right version,’ it would probably be the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic - not English!
Comment by: Mike O
6I agree - the fact that people can explain it doesn’t make it true. There’s a mathematical proof out there somewhere that proves 0 = 1. Of course, there’s a flaw in the proof, but to the layman’s eye, it looks right.
I’m a layman. I understand that I’m predisposed to agree with explanations that support what I already believe. In fact, I’m quite sensitive to people “using” scripture to prove a religious position. One of my favorite quotes (OK, it’s mine!) is “Give me 20 minutes and a slide rule and I can prove anything you like using scripture.”
But at some point, a person has to stop checking and come to grips with the idea that the explanation may be correct. :) The people who taught it to me believed it, I believed it, it seems to fit with the overall tenor of scripture *and* now it even seems logical. That’s good enough for me. At least for now. But I love sparring with the questions!
And again, I’m not trying to prove anything, I’m just revealing how I worked it out, and at what point I was satisfied with my answer.
True statement. Well, greek and Aramaic I think.
“Hard sayings” went into that, too. It said more about it than this, but one main point they made was that Jesus was quoting Isaiah when he said that, which *was* written in Hebrew, which for me is enough of an explanation.
Comment by: Mike O
7Eliza, in #4 you asked about one I’ve looked at before! One of my favorites!
I haven’t looked it up in “Hard Sayings,” but I will tonight. But at the risk of being exposed as wrong, here’s what I came up with on my own …
I don’t think you can mix the me/you/us like you did. I’m only aware of one instance of each - in one, Jesus says “whoever is not against YOU is for YOU” and in the other he says “whoever is not for ME is against ME.”
Here’s my explanation. We’ll see how it compares to the pros!
Jesus has a very specific message with a very specific path - you must follow him to be saved. All other paths/messages/teachings, whether pleasant or not, whether they make the world a better place or not, are against HIM. But since the disciples are FOR HIM, whatever they do is FOR HIM, and anything anyone else does that doesn’t actually hinder them, helps them. So whoever is not against YOU (the disciples) is for YOU (because YOU (the disciples) are for ME (Jesus)).
Does that make sense? Well, that’s how I resolved it, but that was just my own working it out several years ago.
Comment by: Marty SB
8Sorry Mike - that analogy does not compute for me. If it was simple in Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic it should be able to be translated into simple/understandable English. Like basic addition in Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic to basic addition in English. I am not asking that Calculus be translated or explained in basic addition language.
For me your analogy is an attempt to prove what you allready believe rather than thinking through and coming to a position based upon reasonable logic.
My guess is that there was lots of other literature written back in Biblical times that is easily translated and understood today. Why is that not the case for the Bible?
Comment by: Mike O
9Eliza, one other thing I just thought of, too, is that these “Hard Sayings” explanations carry more weight with me because they include some extrabiblical thinking/resources *and* they try to use the balance of scripture to explain itself rather than just one verse and some logic (which is easily twisted). It seems like a quite well-rounded, albeit self-fulfilling approach.
Comment by: Stephan
10Marty, there are some things, even in our modern world, that are hard to translate from one language to another. Now factor in 2000 to 4000 years. God, in scripture, was speaking through specific people in a specific culture. They were only capable or writing what made sense to them. Asking them to write in a way that would be culturally understandable to us is like asking them to write in English, which had not even developed by that time. I realize that makes scripture difficult to translate and apply, but dem’s da berries.
Comment by: Mike O
11Marty, my point was that the concepts weren’t easily understood then, either. That’s why he used parables. The last verse I cited
loosely translated into today’s language is,
Much like a new Calc student’s head would do.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
12Mike, I read this when you posted it but I haven’t been sure how to respond.
In the days when I worked hard to understand the Bible, believing it was one coherent integrated non-contradictory whole, I used to do the same as you; I would look up ‘hard’ passages and try and understand them. I even have the Hard Sayings books. So I understand where you’re coming from. And if you’ve found the exploration of this passage helpful, I can relate to that too. I felt that my Bible study was enlightening, when I used to study it.
These days I don’t need an explanation for whatever the Bible says. I find that very freeing. And when I read Christian explanations about how to reconcile passages or what hard sayings mean I think to myself “yeah but on the other hand, maybe it just doesn’t make sense or maybe it really does contradict another passage, or maybe it really is mean/unfair/whatever”. Since my life isn’t organized around my beliefs about the Bible anymore, I’m not motivated to look up hard or confusing passages anymore.
Comment by: Mike O
13I can appreciate where you’re coming from Helen. I guess that’s one difference between you and I - I do believe it, and when I run into things that challenge my belief, I pursue it.
You find your approach “very freeing.” I find mine “very safe.” I remember something I heard at last year’s conference by (I’m spacing out his name - the guy from India) when he said he’d rather be known as a “truth-seeker” than a “Christian.”
Me, too. I am a Christian, but that doesn’t mean I’ve stopped pursuing the truth.
Eliza, sorry for the delay in replying! I did not have access to a computer all weekend. But I did look it up and I’ve posted it here, word for word, from the book.
Comment by: Bruce Lofland
14I have pondered about this many times. I tend to see the Bible more as art than as a legal document, so inconsistencies in little things don’t bother me much so long as the gist of the message is meaningful.
I think that the quote from Isaiah could very well be just what you said, a Hebrew language style issue. He was speaking to Jews that probably knew Hebrew, even if they spoke Aramaic or Greek.
I think His use of parables was designed to make people think. These were spiritual ideas about intangible things that He was trying to teach. There was not way to say them in a way that just anyone of that time or even this could understand easily. They would have to think about it to understand the meaning. It is using art to express meaning. How can you explain the beauty of a flower to someone who is blind?
Most people who heard Him casually would not understand, thus He tells a simple story and lets it sink in slowly. If He didn’t do that, they would be hearing but not understanding. His dedicated followers, did not need to be coddled this way though, because they were motivated to think hard about these concepts and understand them faster.
Comment by: Laura M.
15Makes sense to me, Mike.
Ditto.
Comment by: Laura M.
16Help me with this one:
Why does the Bible say Adam chose to disobey God when he ate the fruit from the ‘tree of knowledge’? How can you make a choice when you don’t yet have any knowledge? Without knowledge you’d be lacking in the true ability to choose because you would be as innocent as a newborn baby.
If you told a newborn to not poo in their diaper but they did it anyway, it wouldn’t be because they’re disobedient. It would be because they don’t have the knowledge necessary to know how to stop themself from pooing in their diaper.
Also, if mankind’s free will is so important to God, why is it that man wasn’t allowed free will until after ‘the fall’? Free will is usually described by Christians as being a gift from God, but it sounds like it came about as a punishment.
It doesn’t sound like God wanted man to have ‘free will’ in the first place, since he immediately punished him for supposedly exercising it in the Garden.
The story comes across to me as God saying to Adam, “You want the freedom to choose? Then here, take it and be gone. I have no use for you if you won’t mindlessly obey.”
Which way do Christians think of free will? As a punishment or as a gift? Is that view backed up by the Bible?
Comment by: Stephan
17Laura, I see free will as a double-edged sword. Freedom to succeed is also freedom to fail.
I have a middle-school aged son who is dealing with something like this now. He wants more freedom when it comes to homework. We have always micro-managed the whole homework thing with our kids, making sure everything was done and correctly before it was turned in. He wants to be able to do it on his own, at his own pace, without us looking over his shoulder. So we have given him more freedom, but he is finding that this is not always a good thing. Things have been turned in late, incomplete, or not done at all. His grades have suffered as a result. But with that he is learning that maybe we actually knew what was best for him in the first place, and maybe he should do things the way we taught him.
I think this is a microcosm of God’s interaction with us and free will. He wants us to do things the right way, but He wants us to learn it ourselves. He does not want to impose it on us. You cannot have freedom to succeed without freedom to fail. It cuts both ways. I don’t think we were given free will as a result of the fall - I think the fall is a result of free will.
I honestly do not know if there was an actual Adam and Eve, and a real Garden of Eden, and an actual apple. I think they may be symbols of free will and choice. The Bible is clear, however, that man was given a clear law, and that the law was understood and disobeyed. It’s not like a baby pooping in his diaper - it’s probably more like a 5-year-old taking a cookie before dinner. They clearly know it is wrong (even if they don’t necessarily know why), but they do it anyway.
And I don’t necessarily believe that everything that happened after they ate the apple was “punishment” so to speak. I think it was God allowing natural consequences to take place. But I also believe that He already knew this would happen and already had a plan to fix it in the person of Jesus.
Comment by: Laura M.
18Thanks for your answer Stephan.
My question was meant to deal with the issue of things that seem contradictory in the bible , but actually have perfectly reasonable explanations. Mike was discussing how he makes sense out of what first appears to be a contradiction, when in fact it is not.
I’ve always seen the story of the ‘fall’ as a major contradiction not only within the text, but in the overall belief system of Christianity. That’s why I’d like to understand better how Christians view this story.
I don’t think the story needs to be taken literally, but obviously it is placed in the Bible for a reason. I agree that the intent is to explain free will and choice, except that I think the story doesn’t really explain anything. Or maybe I just disagree with the explanation?
The fruit Adam was forbidden to eat was from the Tree of Knowledge. This indicates that God did not want man to have knowledge. That was a privilege reserved for God only.
One cannot have free will without knowledge, so it seems God did not want man to have free will (he told him not to eat the fruit). Rather, the ‘fall’ was a result of free will, just as you said. Not a punishment, just the natural consequences.
So, even though God does not want us to have free will, we have it anyway? Even though God did not want us to gain knowledge we managed to do it anyway? Despite the idea that God knew this would happen from the beginning, it is still contradictoy.
The gist seems to be that he allowed us to have knowledge and free will so that we can learn that it’s a bad thing (he must think it’s bad if he didn’t want us to have it in the first place). I cannot agree that having knowledge and free will is a bad thing, so I believe this story is contradictory on several levels.
I do not agree that a five year old child who takes a cookie after his parents told him/her not to is making a choice to do something wrong. If the child doesn’t understand why it is wrong, then the child is not choosing to do wrong.
The child may not understand why not doing what their parent tells them is bad for them, anymore than they understand why eating the cookie is bad for them. It depends on the comprehension level/social awareness of the individual child. Some know it’s wrong because they understand why. Others do not, because their ability to understand certain things/comsequences hasn’t reached that level yet.
When you think about it, it’s easier to understand why you shouldn’t eat the cookie than it is to understand why you should listen to your parents. Plenty of adolescents/teenagers and even adults regulate their diet for health reasons, yet refuse to listen to a word their parents have to say! It takes most of decades to figure out that there is a reason why we should appreciate the wisdom of our elders. Why would we expect a five year old to understand that?
So, back to my point. You can’t make a choice without knowledge. Adam didn’t have knowledge until he ate the fruit, so technically he wasn’t choosing to do wrong. He couldn’t possibly truly know the consequences of his actions (he didn’t have that knowledge yet). He was just doing what he was designed to do. A child’s brain is designed to learn, to seek out knowledge. The child learns nothing from obeying the parent. He learns from eating the cookie (or the fruit).
Or from watching someone else eat it.
Comment by: Stephan
19Laura, you bring up some excellent questions. I like the way you think.
The way I see it, free will was never designed to be a good thing or a bad thing. It just is. We can have the choice between two equally good options - neither one is wrong - but still have free will. I see free will sort of like a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is neither good nor bad, but it can be used to build a house or two smash someone’s skull. One of those is definitely better than the other, but the hammer itself is not the problem. The problem is how it is used.
I think the crux of free will is that God wants us to choose to follow Him. Adam was given that option - do what God asks or do whatever you want. He chose to do what he wanted, against God’s will. While it is true that you can learn from doing the wrong thing, that is not the only way to learn. And learning from a mistake does not mean the mistake was the right thing to do.
You said:
That depends on what kind of knowledge you are talking about. If you have two choices, but do not know the outcome of either, you still have free will. If you have been told in advance that one is better than the other, that is all the knowledge you need to know which one is the right one. You do not need to know the consequences in order to know that something is wrong.
In the story of Adam and Even, they have sufficient reason to trust God. They are given one rule, not to eat from one particular tree. There are a host of other options from which to eat and satisfy their needs. Rather than continue to find satisfaction in the myriad positive ways they have been given, they choose to try the one and only way that was forbidden. While they may not have had full knowledge of what would happen, they knew it was wrong because they had been told so by God.
Like I said, I do not necessarily believe it has to be a literal story. The gist is that we are all given choices, and, in general, we know which ones are right and which ones are wrong. We often choose to do what we know is wrong. When this happens we often gain the knowledge of why it was wrong and what the consequences are. I believe this is what happened to Adam and Eve.
Comment by: Mike O
20Actually, it was the tree of the “Knowledge of Good and Evil,” not just “Knowledge.” Genesis 2:16-17 says,
Then in Chapter 3:1-5, Satan comes on the scene to tempt them:
and then, surprisingly, at the end of Chapter 3 it looks like you’re right - God didn’t want us to have the knowledge of Good and evil because that was reserved for Him only, because he says this:
Next you said,
I disagree. I agree with Stephen on this one. Maybe it’s just a perspective thing, but just because you don’t understand why, if you disobey, it’s still wrong. That’s why you slap their little hand (or whatever punishment you mete out) when your children misbehave even though they don’t understand. It’s still wrong to take the cookie if only because you told them not to. In fact, that’s why it’s wrong - it’s wrong because you told them not to - they had to disobey to do it, whether or not they understood all the ins and outs and the full ramifications of their choice. (It’s not wrong, however, for a baby to poo their pants .. it’s just really really immature.)
I think your equating of knowledge and free will is faulty. Adam and Eve, while they may not have understood why it was wrong, did know they were disobeying God. They had free will, by design from God. God does want us to have free will (he gave it to us). God didn’t want us to have knowledge of good and evil, but he gave us the opportunity to disobey (act on our free will) and attain it anyway, and we did.
It’s only contradictory if you equate knowledge and free will, and I don’t think that works.
Comment by: Mike O
21OK, I did my best. It’s a bit long and wandering and it probably raises more questions than it answers, but it’s my take on it, and I think it’s how mainstream Christianity views it.
Why did God create man in the first place? A lot of people see God as a wrathful, bigoted, hateful God with control issues. But if God is eternal, he could have just been mean and hurtful and unjust to the angels – he didn’t need us for that. But for some reason, he created us even though he already had them to pick on.
But if God is a God of love like Christians say he is, and if the angels aren’t able to return that love because they don’t have free will (which is how I was taught and believe to be true), that gives him a better reason to create humanity. I believe before God ever created life on earth, he thought it up, and he had a reason for doing it – and that reason was to create something that could love him back.
But to have that, he had to create a system in which people could reject him, for there can be no love where there can be no rejection. That’s where the free will comes in.
Anyway, getting back to Adam and Eve, what good would free will be without the opportunity to disobey? I’m trying to think of an example in parenting, but I can’t – kids always have the option to do the wrong thing if they’re willing to face the consequences. But if Adam and Eve didn’t have the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil available to them (off-limits, but available), they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to do anything wrong. So whether they had free will or not, they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to displease God, so free will would be meaningless, and I don’t think you can have love in a system that does not provide any other option. It is precisely because we had the the opportunity to fail Him – the free will - that Love could exist. And they did. They failed Him, and he loved them anyway.
God didn’t say, “Of any tree of the garden, you may freely eat, but if you eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil, I’ll kill you.” Rather he said, “Of any tree of the garden, you may freely eat. But if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will die.”
I don’t believe God wanted them to disobey, and he certainly didn’t want them to die, yet he knew they would disobey, and the result of disobedience was death - why “death?” Why not just say, “Hey, don’t do this, OK?”
OK, this is Theology of Mike, 101 – so I could be wrong – this is just what I think.
I believe there is good and evil. God is responsible for all that is good. And one of his fallen archangels – Satan – is responsible for all that is evil. And I believe anything that goes against God is sin. And I believe that physical death is the result of sin. Yes, I believe if the world was perfect, if Adam and Eve and NONE of their descendants – ever – including you and me had ever sinned, nobody would ever die. Other than the bible saying there is a connection, I can’t really explain it any better than “I believe death is caused by sin.”
Anyway, disobedience is the root of all sin. And whether Adam and Eve knew what they were doing or not, they knew God told them not to eat it, and they did it anyway. They disobeyed. They sinned. And if they didn’t, someone somewhere would have. I would have. So while that did expose them to death, I don’t believe that God simply got mad and killed them.
I don’t believe God was surprised by it when Adam and eve sinned – I think he knew they were going to eat it. They didn’t have to (free will, remember?), but he knew they would. Why? Because he knew Satan would be there to tempt them.
Anyway, I think I’ve strayed from the topic a bit, but here’s where I’m going with it – God knew we would fail. But he loves us, and he had to give us the opportunity to fail so we would have some way to love him back.
Alison Wilcocks said it well
Comment by: Steven Carr
22We have once again the well known Christian tendency to deny what the Bible says.
And substitute their own words, which they prefer.
Comment by: Steven Carr
23‘Anyway, getting back to Adam and Eve, what good would free will be without the opportunity to disobey? ‘
Correct.
God would never have forcibly prevented Adam and Eve eating of a tree by putting angels with flaming swords to deny access to it.
Oh wait, he did just that in the next chapter.
Still, that hardly matters does it?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
24Steven wrote:
Steven if you think Mike has done this please be specific about how and where because I can’t see where he did.
Actually it does matter to me. I’m glad you pointed that out.
I have a lot of questions about the Adam and Eve story, but that particular aspect of it doesn’t especially concern me because I think it’s typical in relationships that the trust factor goes up or down depending on whether people indicate they’re trustworthy or not. The trust factor went down in this case so God’s behavior changed towards Adam and Eve. I think that’s to be expected.
But in general, I do have lots of problems with the story since many Christians seem to believe God knows the future; so presumably God knew Adam and Eve would fail the fruit test, with dire consequences. Why give someone a test you know they will fail and suffer because of failing? If God didn’t know they would fail that changes things so this makes a little more sense; I can see why some people prefer to believe God doesn’t know the future. But the Bible says he knows the end from the beginning, so it does rather indicate he does know the future (maybe someday I’ll look up what people who say they believe the Bible, who believe God doesn’t know the future, do with that verse)
Comment by: Mike O
25Whether God knows the future or not can probably be argued either way using the Bible, but I think it’s pretty clear that he does know the future.
To your question of why he would give us a test he knew we could not pass, with such dire consequences, that will probably be debated through the centuries - the Bible doesn’t say why he did it, just that he did.
That’s why I’m willing to explain why I think he did it, but I could certainly be wrong.
Comment by: Mike O
26I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Sure, I substitute my own words when I’m trying to explain a 2000+ year old texts to somebody today. But that doesn’t mean I’m denying anything. In fact, I check my beliefs all the time against the bible, and if any of them don’t line up, I try to fix it. it’s hard, though, because I’ve been a Christian for basically my whole life, so if there are errors in what I believe - and I’m sure there are, there MUST be - they’re based on my understanding of scripture. So it’s hard to find.
But “deny” the Bible? Never in a million years. I may struggle with it, and I may try to understand it, and I may succeed or fail at that, but I have never “denied” anything in the Bible.
what were you referring to? Maybe I just need to clarify. Maybe I took something out of context? Or maybe you did?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
27Mike O, here’s a letter by Greg Boyd explaining his view that God doesn’t fully know the future and defending it from the Bible.
I think Stephan shares Greg Boyd’s view that God doesn’t fully know the future.
For some Christians, this resolves some issues that are otherwise unresolvable.
Comment by: Mike O
28I read that letter … he makes a pretty good case for it. But I know the opposing case can also be made. So to me it seems a bit pointless to get too caught up in which one is “really” right. And when it all comes around, will God really care if we understood it right, as long as we tried?
Also, I made this statement a couple of comments back,
I just happened to read this this morning in Romans. It’s Romans 11:32
This may be our answer right here - he “set us up for failure” (as some would see it) so that he could be merciful and show us grace. For without failure, there can be no mercy or grace.
Maybe you have to read it in context for it to make sense, but Romans chapter 11 does sort of speak to that angle.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
29Mike wrote:
Right - I posted it mostly so you could see what people who believe that way base their belief on.
Indeed…
I’m glad I’m not a Christian any more so I don’t have to try to understand these things.
I know some Christians are fine with saying “it’s a mystery” or “I trust God” but I always wanted to understand things and so it’s a relief now I don’t have to believe it all fits together somehow in a way that’s hard for me to get my head around…which made me keep trying, like an itch you can’t help wanting to scratch, maybe…I guess not believing anymore is a rather drastic solution but it did make the itch go away.
Comment by: Mike O
30I suppose. But did you just stop trying to figure it out - stop caring - or did you actually change your beliefs? Was it “I used to believe in God, now I don’t” or more of a “I got tired of scratching so I made the itch go away.”
I’m not trying to get all preachy, but did you solve the problem (I had an itch so I fixed the cause of the itch), or just cover up the problem (I had an itch so I put some anti-itch cream on it)? Please forgive me if I’ve just overstepped my bounds. I’m just asking where you’re at with it - I know you’ve been on quite a spiritual journey.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
31Mike, I don’t mind you asking.
At first I decided to stop trying to figure it out because I was getting nowhere and I had a life to live. (My illness fed into obsessively trying to figure it out - so part of being well was letting go of some stuff mentally)
When I had doubts then I thought “Ah, maybe it can’t be figured out because it really doesn’t all fit together!” and that was the best explanation I’d come across.
If you have a box of puzzle pieces and you believe they all fit together then you might try to do the puzzle and see what picture it makes. But if you think they probably belong to a bunch of different puzzles and will never form one picture anyway, there’s no point.
Comment by: Mike O
32Thanks for that - I think I see where you’re coming from. Good analogy.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
33Thanks Mike!