Monday: The Forbidden Fruit
Read Genesis 2:16-17, and Genesis 3:1-6 (see also John 8:44). Compare the words of God’s commandment to Adam with the serpent’s words to the woman. What are the differences between the speeches, and what is the meaning of these differences?
Note the parallels between God’s conversation with Adam (Genesis 2:16-17) and Eve’s conversation with the serpent. It is as if the serpent has now replaced God and knows even better than He does. At first, he merely asked a question, implying that the woman had, perhaps, misunderstood God. But then Satan openly questioned God’s intentions and even contradicted Him.
Image © Krieg Barrie from GoodSalt.com
Satan’s attack concerns two issues, death and the knowledge of good and evil. While God clearly and emphatically stated that their death would be certain (Genesis 2:17), Satan said that, on the contrary, they wouldn’t die, all but implying that humans were immortal (Genesis 3:4). While God forbade Adam to eat from the fruit (Genesis 2:17), Satan encouraged them to eat the fruit because by eating of it they would be like God (Genesis 3:5).
Satan’s two arguments, immortality and being like God, convinced Eve to eat the fruit. It is troubling that as soon as the woman decided to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit, she behaved as if God were no longer present and had been replaced by herself. The biblical text alludes to this shift of personality. Eve uses God’s language: Eve’s evaluation of the forbidden fruit, “saw that … was good” (Genesis 3:6), reminds of God’s evaluation of His creation, “saw … that it was good” (Genesis 1:4, etc.).
These two temptations, that of being immortal and of being like God, are at the root of the idea of immortality in ancient Egyptian and Greek religions. The desire for immortality, which they believed was a divine attribute, obliged these people to seek divine status as well, in order (they hoped) to acquire immortality. Surreptitiously, this way of thinking infiltrated Jewish-Christian cultures and has given birth to the belief in the immortality of the soul, which exists even today in many churches.
| Think of all the beliefs out there today that teach there’s something inherently immortal in all of us. How does our understanding of human nature and the state of the dead provide us such powerful protection against this dangerous deception? |
(23)
Our very best in church without our defences in Gal 6:10-18, is vulnerable. Devil can use us in Church to isolate 'even the very elect'. I like this tiny tot song 'O be careful little little lips what you say, ...little hands what you do' because I can be the agent of the Devil in the church.
We can be like serpent as innocent and godly as we may seem. But without our faithfulness in Him we are vulnerable and can easily be used by the devil. A very good elder with one small wrong word or action can be detrimental to the faith of an interest or a church member.
I went to Thailand to teach at Mission College and Carmel was to join me there after about three weeks. Before I left we had some discussion about what it would be like in Thailand and one of the topics was the fruit, Durian. Carmel did not make me promise not to eat it - she knows me better than that, but, she did express her concern that people actually ate such an evil-smelling fruit. I went off to Thailand and started teaching. The plan was to pick Carmel up from the airport when her plane arrived at midnight. I had an evening meal with my friends before we left for the airport and they invited me to eat some Durian as our dessert. It was delicious, and the smell was not all that bad. We then went to the Bangkok Airport, picked up Carmel and started the drive back to Mission College. It did not take long for Carmel to make the accusation, "You have been eating Durian haven't you!?"
Like Durian, sin has a smell about it that you cannot hide. It may be delicious but it has an effect long after you indulged in it. And like Durian, we can convince ourselves that the effect of sin is not all that bad, but, the effect of sin in our lives may be damaging to others around us.
Hello Maurice,
My wife does not like Durian either. Fortunately, eating Durian is not a sin...it is delicious, especially when drizzled with pineapple smoothie.
Richard
Consistent with what today's lesson unpacks, Satan used incredibly "crafty" means to shift Eve in ever so gradual steps from trusting in God to instead trusting in her own perception and reasoning. Included in Satan's tactics was questioning that implied, inferred and insinuated an alternative portrayal of God's nature and character as less than absolutely trustworthy.
I have previously written that I find God having affirmed that because Adam and Eve were free to eat of every (mikkol) tree, they needed to exercise their freedom wisely. Thus God inferred and cautioned/warned them about the consequences that would be unleashed if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I would propose that the issue was not simply that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and therefore were being 'punished' for being disobedient. Rather, I find that because of the "personality" change that occurred within them that lead them to eat the fruit, they were now out of harmony with what was necessary for life - trust in God and living in harmony with the non-self-seeking principles by which life is only possible. And I find that this perfectly aligns with what is being said many years later in Galatians 6:7-8.
I therefore find that the notion of the fruit as forbidden was not something that originated with God - nor does it reflect God's nature or character. However, when I look carefully at what the serpent said and implied in Genesis 3:1, I find that it was the serpent who introduces the notion of forbidden. And this initial suggestion starts Eve on a train of seeing God in a different light - one that ultimately led to her distrust rather than trust God.
What do you see when you consider these Bible passages carefully? Was it God who forbade the fruit or was the notion of God as forbidding a misrepresentation of God by a very "crafty" serpent?
Well, Phil, I agree with the general theme of your comment, but why argue with the word "forbidden"?
If a doctor tells me I must not eat peanut butter because it could kill me, then is he not 'forbidding' me to eat peanut butter? That's just the way or language works.
Now, we may take various attitudes towards what the doctor said: We may appreciate the restriction, or we may rebel against it in thought and deed. But the facts remain the same: The doctor forbade the eating of peanut butter because it could cause anaphylactic shock, which could kill me.
God said in Ge. 2:16,17:
In normal circumstances, we would say that God was forbidding the eating of the fruit of that particular tree, I would think. How is it out of harmony with God's character to set boundaries for His children to prevent them from experiencing sin?
It seems to me that it may be our attitude towards boundaries or prohibitions that need adjusting more than the title of the lesson. If we trust our doctor, we will appreciate his "forbidding" of food dangerous to us. If we trust God, we will appreciate his "forbiddings."
Eight of the Ten Commandments are written in the form of a prohibition. That choice made the Commandments very concise. (Even the Sabbath commandment, which is positive, contains prohibitions.) However, in faith, we can also see each of those commandments as a promise: If you accept me as Lord, this is the way I will enable you to live ...
[Btw, I love peanut butter and am glad that I can eat it!]
Inge, this is what I was also thinking. I like your analogy. As someone who found out in my 40s that I have several food allergies which have been causing me problems for years without knowing the source of the problem, I wholeheartedly agree with what you said. When I eat a food I'm allergic to, I don't have a sudden reaction, but a slow one that often doesn't show up till the next day. Sin can also be sneaky (crafty) that way, not showing the effects until later. We must be alert for signs of the potential for sin, just as I need to carefully read ingredient labels for hidden sources of the foods I'm allergic to. One of those is soy, which has many forms that are not directly called soy. Sin also often is not easily apparent. Let us be watchful not to fall unaware into temptation. (One of my allergies is peanuts, and sadly I do miss peanut butter.)
Hi Inge
All I can say is that when I look carefully at the Hebrew of Genesis 2:16-17 I find an absence of forbidding - as I have explained. By contrast, when I look carefully at Genesis 3:1 I find evidence of Satan introducing the idea of God as restrictive. I find this to be consistent with a God who values genuine freedom - informing and cautioning people, but nevertheless valuing their freedom to make a good or poor choice. I don't write what I write because I have a personal problem with boundaries or prohibitions - I write what I write because of the 'evidence' I find.
I am not telling anyone what they must believe, I am only sharing what I find and inviting each person to investigate for themselves what they are fully persuaded in their own mind about (Romans 14:5).
I hear you, Phil. Thanks for your response. I just don't see a problem with God setting clear boundaries to keep His children safe. He still left them free to choose, as the evidence clearly demonstrates.
I think clear boundaries are better than suggestions with a lot of explanations - as my experience with children indicates. Suggestions leave room for confusion and excuses for non-compliance. Children generally respond better to clear directives, and Adam and Eve were children under the loving care of an all-wise Father. I'm glad He gave a clear command so neither they nor we need to wonder what He meant.
Satan insinuated that the prohibition against eating from the tree was because God was selfish and was trying to keep something good from them. The results of their believing Satan's lie made very clear to the universe that God's prohibitions are only for our good. His prohibitions against self-seeking behavior will remain in place for eternity, but no one will feel that to be a burden because they understand the character of God. For that matter, I don't believe the "restriction" will ever come to mind because the saved will only *want* to love and serve Him - just as it was before Satan's rebellion.
Thanks Inge for your response. I hear that you have certain preferences regarding how God and scripture is portrayed that match your journey with God and your experience/s. And I am not trying to get you to change your mind about any of that. That is not my role nor purpose. There are other people that have different needs and experiences and perhaps what I write meets where they are at - perhaps it doesn't. That is why I share what I see and leave it up to each person to study and decide for themselves whether they are persuaded of such (Romans 14:5b) or not.
I have previously mentioned I hold myself accountable for what I write and share. If I am sharing error rather than truth, then that would definitely be a concern. This is why I take the time to provide the detailed evidence for the views I raise - so the evidence can be explored to see if it is in error or not. And I don't just share on this forum - I am also involved in sharing with people locally on a daily basis. And I see people's lives being changed by the Holy Spirit for the better - so the fruit would suggest that I am not working to tear down the Kingdom of God.
I may present things differently than you would, but like you I am aiming to uplift God and unpack His goodness and beneficence. Were I presenting what I present to try and diminish God's goodness, that would be a concern for sure. There will be those who benefit better from what you present and hopefully there are those who benefit from what I present. And together we express the diversity yet unity within the body of Christ.
Respectfully in Christ.
Phil
It seems to me that "you shall not" and "thou shalt not" are the same thing. Are you suggesting the Hebrew words are not the same?
Hi Gerald. Thanks for your request for clarification.
Language unfortunately is highly vulnerable to misperception and misinterpretation - hence the misunderstandings that occur frequently for people where what someone assumes they are saying is frequently different from what they were aiming to say.
This is because context (incorporating both the words themselves and the presuppositions of the hearer that often differ from those of the speaker) influences derived meaning. What I am proposing is that the Hebrew supports (or at the very least does not preclude/rule-out) an interpretation that is along the lines of what we might say today as - "You are free to eat of every (none excluded: Nikko) tree in the garden. However/And, whatever you do, (I would strongly advise) that you do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because if you do, in the day you eat of it, you will unfortunately surely die".
The wider question is, was God being authoritarian or authoritative? Authoritarian imposes commands, restrictions and prohibitions. Authoritative informs as to the true nature of the reality at hand, informs of the options and consequences of those options, even passionately provides advice/recommendations, but also fully supports the unrestricted freedom that the person ultimately has to choose. Deuteronomy 30:15-20 echos this - as but one example. And importantly, it preserves the freedom to make a wrong choice rather than punishing someone for making a wrong choice. It is the inherent consequences of the wrong choice that exerts the punishment (as per Galatians 6:7-8) - otherwise there isn't actually true freedom to make a wrong choice.
I will also point out that authoritative does take the developmental maturity level of the recipient into account in how the above is expressed (eg see 1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12-14). Adam and Eve were at a higher level of developmental maturity than, for example, the children of Israel. Hence, the children of Israel were related to in a more 'childlike' manner - although the ten 'commandments' reproduced within Deuteronomy 5 form part of what Moses summarises in Deuteronomy 30:15-20 as informed choice with passionate advice/recommendation.
Am I proposing that we take things beyond what was originally intended by looking too deeply into the bible text? Ellen White proposes that true Bible study involves going beyond a superficial reading to seek for "hidden treasure" (a metaphor she uses on some occasions to describe this). And that such will develop the capacity of our (spiritual) mind like the study of no other literature. Is she suggesting we all must become academics? No, she is speaking more of a hunger and thirst and a willingness to be led by the Holy Spirit to seek to know more and more.
I hope this helps a bit more with your question. If not, please ask for further clarification.
But your explanation cites Deuteronomy 30:16 where the Lord himself describes what you refer to as advice as "commands."
I believe that a big part of the problem with "prohibit" versus "warning" is the emotion and motive that we associate with the words due to our human experience. Prohibit sounds authoritarian. Warning sounds authoritative. It is natural for us to think that God has similar feelings and motives that we do. But, as you rightly remind us, Phil, God's ways are much higher than ours. I believe that God was doing something more than warning Adam and Eve about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Hebrew word for "command" which appears in all of His discussion about the tree (I am using the NKJV) has a stronger meaning than "warning" and used consistently in the sense of telling someone what they should do. It seems to me that if God was only warning Adam and Eve that eating that fruit would result in disastrous consequences, then there must be something inherent in the fruit itself that caused sin and death. It would be similar to saying to a child "this is poisonous and could kill you." The problem is not the fruit, but the decision to set oneself as God to determine what is right and what is wrong. That decision is a little clearer with a command than with a warning. But we always need to realize that God only does things with His self-emptying love. We must be careful in presenting this to others to keep that focus.
Regarding God's statement that Adam and Eve could eat of every tree, it seems to me that He was not including the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Instead He was saying that you can eat of every tree, except this one.
Thank you Joe for outlining the issue so clearly.
A helpful observation, Joe.
The "emotive content" of words is a content conditioned by our environment and background. Thus different people will hear the same words differently.
Yet, in the Bible, it should be possible to understand the meaning of expressions as originally intended by noting their context. Thank you for helping us do this.
Yet, if we see God's 10 commandments as "Commands" we will get a negative view of them. But if we view them as "Promises" we will see them as things to go after and live by. Jesus was very good about them by just saying that there were only 2: Love to God and Love to our neighbor. When we Love God we will reverence His name, we will honor His Seventh Day, we will shun idolatry etc. and when we Love our neighbor we will respect their posessions, their relationships to others, we will not lie about them, we will help them with thier needs etc, and etc,
Thanks, Pete. That's right on. That's what happens if we change our attitude towards "commands" of God and naturally view them as promises. From one of my favorite books, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings, p. 72
Note that the "commands" and "injunctions" are real. It is our attitude that needs changing: As children of God, we are privileged to regard His commands and injunctions as promises. That means the Bible is filled with beautiful promises!
Amen, Inge Anderson, and so 1 Peter 1:4 is a welcome "Soul Saving Scripture," and so is 2 Corinthians 7:1 to help us rid ourselves of unholy things in our characters. Peter and Paul were both very good about what "Scriptural Promises" were about.
Phil, who was speaking in Genesis 2:17?
Hi Alfred
It is God who was speaking in Genesis 2:17.
Thank you to each person who has contributed to the conversation today. It is good to see people taking the time to study, think and reflect upon what they believe and why (Acts 27:11; Romans 14:5b). Hopefully we can continue to interact further across this week's and quarter's lesson and that whether we have similar or different views, the process of exploring and sharing such is constructive and beneficial.
hmmm, that is interesting. i do not read hebrew so i cannot say how the two scriptures are worded, originally. however when i review the different versions of the verses only a one/two do not say 'must/shall not eat.' it is also my understanding that there is no punctuation in hebrew and no chapter/verse determination. so with the help of the more open verses, I see God presenting the tree of good/evil as an exception to all the other trees in garden, not a 'forbidden'. i think this is what your trying to say.
at first i wondered at the importance of the nuance. i believe your trying to say its important to how we view God's character (and Satan's). i also believe that you may be saying that one form may invite rebellion faster than the other.
i was not an overly disobedient child but i believe i was more receptive to instruction than bossy. one implies reasoning and the other implies 'because i said so.'
Phil, is that close to what you're trying to say?
Hi Dorothy
Yes, you are correct. And thanks for asking rather than merely assuming. God bless your seeking to grow in your knowing and understanding of Him and His ways...
When the serpent told Eve she would be like God and know Good and evil, I believe more was implied than just experiencing good and evil. The serpent told her she would be like God or be a god unto herself deciding for herself what is good and evil. "She would be a god. She would be a law unto herself. -Ellen White, Christ Triumphant, January 16." This is where most of the world is at today, thinking they can decide for themselves what is good and evil instead of trusting God's Word to define good and evil for them. Its like the days of the book of Judges when every man did whatever was right in his own eyes. We need to " Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths." Proverbs 3:5-6.
I think your comments are right on the mark William. Today it is secular society and Atheism that think they are a law unto themselves. There are no absolutes in their world and as a result, society breaks down little by little.
There is ONE WORD that sums up the 3 parties in this epic event, and that WORD is MOTIVATION. The parties = mankind, God and Satan.
God's motivation was obviously consistant with his divine nature to bless mankind and produce obedient immortal children. Psalms 8, Hebrews 2, Job 2:3-10, James 1:12-15
Satan's motivation's were very deceptive and evil,
1. To obstruct the production of immortal Sons and Daughters. Adam and Eve were babies in mind and motivation (spirit) and subsequently they lost the oppurnity to develope the perfect mind of Christ. ....
2. Satan tempted mankind by undermining God's motivation in his commands to abstain from the tree of good and evil. (And subsequently, had they *NOT* disobeyed God, they would not have suffered pain and evil in their spiritual growth of divine qualities 2 Peter 1
He also tempted God by undermining mankind Job 2:1-6 as the example of the overall issue at stake in God's purpose for creation was the productions of perfected immortal sons and daughters. Ephesians 1, Colossians 1.
Larry, Adam and Eve were created in the image of the LORD so I wouldn't say they were babes in mind, innocence and naivete is a far cry from having undeveloped minds. In addition we are told that the angels had warned them about Satan.
I said babies in the *mind of Christ* .
Was Jesus fooled or decieved ?
Larry, please explain further I don't understand what you mean by "babies in the *mind of Christ*'
Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:1
Adam *walked* with God is consistant with fellowship with God, as our first parents had a spiritual dimension for growth and maturity in the Spirit !
Our first parents were temples of God on earth as his representatives!
I believe the LORD set in place natural laws that apply to the physical world automatically.
In addition because humans were created in His likeness He revealed to them His Principles of eternal life, the first of which is acknowledging Him as the supreme authority who has their best interests at heart.
In Genesis we see the various aspects of the LORD's character being revealed step by step. First He provides everything they need. However in addition to caring for these individuals, unbeknownst to them He is already involved in a controversy in regards to His Principles. Thus He provides a test to see if they will acknowledge His authority.
As we study further in Genesis we will discover additional aspects of the LORD's Principles and Character.
I quote from E. White „Mind Character and Personality“:
So, many would choose to die a slow death rather than to stop eating peanut butter or whatever makes them si(n)ck.
Could the ‘contemplating the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit’ in and of itself be the actual lure of temptation? Man being spiritually ‘tempted’ in this sense implies challenges to either trust or not to trust the Word of the Creator God explicitely.
I do not think that being ‘tempted’ is about what the believer is tempted with – coveting material things, vices related to personality, etc. I think ‘temptation’ is the spiritually focused attempt by Satan to take our eyes off of God’s Word of Truth – His Way -, and place it on another way – our own, which is governed by the desires of the flesh.
I see 'Satan’s attack concerning two issues': trust and faith when tempted to foresake God’s known directives which lead to increased spiritual understanding about why these directives are given - because He loves us -, ultimately leading to everlasting life.
Considering the act of eating the ‘forbidden fruit’ using this perspective, I conclude that the Creator’s guidelines are in place to gradually make this process observable; giving mortal man the opportunity to grow spiritually and intellectually.
The Human species was created with possessing free will; the ability to use one's intellect to choose implies this. Choices are the footsteps leading to the door through which man can enter the kingdom of God – this door is named ‘Faith in the Word of God’: Matt.7:13-14; Rev.3:20; John10:1-5; John10:9.
Gen.4:7 - ”If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”
If man holds onto the Word of God by faith, loving Him with ‘all’ his/her heart and not leaning onto ones own understanding of right and wrong, we will be kept safe by God's Grace. If one leaves God’s safe path, one is on his own. On this path one faces constant temptations which causes ‘evaluation’ of right from wrong over and over again. Man cannot know right from wrong within himself - it is revealed by the Creator.
I think it becomes clear that Eve (probably Adam) did contemplate eating of the tree by her answer to Satan's first question. she not only restates what she has been told by God but adds to His instruction with further boundaries. Interesting that contemplation to act opposite instruction might be temptation.
I believe the Jews also added more boundaries to God's commands, thinking that it would keep from sin. This is where Jesus' instruction on the importance of what goes on in our hearts and minds is REALLY what is important to our spiritual health.
There was nothing different, on face value, with eating a fruit from that forbidden tree as compared with touching and eating a fruit from any other tree in the Garden of Eden. Indeed, even God seemed to confirm what Satan was claiming, “now they have become as one of us, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:22)
The saddest part was that Adam and Eve didn’t understand what it meant to ‘know good and evil’, the implications it brought with it, or the consequences.
Eve chose to believe the Serpent. She chose him over her Creator/God/Father. This was her sin.
Adam and Eve learned of good and evil from a position of having sold out to Satan.
I’m sure that created beings from other planets, have the same choice of loyalty. I’m sure they are observing this ‘theatre of sin’ and choosing God every moment of the way.
The one thing…. Choosing God, seeking His face every moment of the way, is what we need too.
Psalm 27:4 One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek:
that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life,
to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek Him in his temple.
Ann - I wholeheartedly agree with your observation stating that Adam and Eve "learned of good and evil from a position of having sold out to Satan."
I find God's instruction given to Adam and Eve about the 'not-eating' in the same category as the 'can-eat' - neutral.
At the time God gave this instruction Adam and Eve did not know good and evil, right and wrong, obedience or disobedience. They were unaware of the emotional consequences/experiences of doing other than what their Father talked to them about.
Awareness of 'disobedience' of a 'command' came about after they did 'what seemed to be good in their eyes' - the first occurance of doing something based on their own conclusion - Gen.3:6.
The learning of the spiritual, intellectual, and emotional consequences of this state of mind occured after they made the choice to eat.
What exactly is the meaning of "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Someone said that humans were to know only good but not evil. Yet the forbidden tree had both "Good and Evil" to its fruit and "Death" was the sentence to the eating of that fruit. So, apparently, Adam and Eve knew only "God's Love" but not "Good" or even "Evil," until they ate of the tree that had both of these characteristics to its fruit. But then, in doing so, they started to die and only the spilled blood of God's Son Jesus could reinstate them to their original sinless state and "Eternal Life" again.
I am wondering about the reason why Eve chose to eat the fruit. I think that, due to the blessing of 'walking with God in the cool of the day,' she was so impressed by Him that she wanted to be truly 'like God' and thought by eating the fruit she would get a faster bridge-of-gap remedy.
There is a way that seems right to man, but its end is the way of death. (Pro 14:12) I think this showed Eve/Adams spiritual immaturity and therefore lack of 'knowing' God truly. It also helps me understand that I must "Trust in the Lord with all my heart, and lean not on my own understanding." (Pro 3:5)
O Lord, help me.
If one thinks in their mind to eat of the tree’s fruit and then reaches out and touches the fruit to bring it into their mouth, the sin is done.
So touch or no touch, Eve had done it. She even expressed it directly and correctly: ‘…to make one wise’. Within her mind, she had ‘bought into’ the beguiling of words (desired to be wise by adding evil and ‘likeness’ to her present state of development), the hypnotism of an excelling kind, and the spiritualism of the talking serpent. All of which contributed to her ‘thought of sin’, the physical trespass of her fingerprints on the skin of the fruit was an inevitable follow-up (Lucifer: before open rebellion, iniquity was found in him.)
Her entire act, and Adam's forthwith choice, is also similar to the ‘three course matter’ involved in the first four seals of revelation: Peace was taken from the earth, desire for merchandise/gain, and spiritualism which obviously encompasses death. (White horse, red horse, black horse, and Pale…) Our experience in the end times will also involve these three elements. The scarlet beast will be red, the apostate protestants will be black, and spiritualism is where Satan moves with his sting of death. Hands across the gulf will be extended and a threefold union will result.
There is a tree on every planet in the unfallen universe and none of the inhabitants have eaten of 'their tree'. So my question is what is the name of these trees: loyalty, trees of the knowledge of good and evil...or some other name? Eve's Tree was not the first tree of this nature.
Did Moses give this name to 'her tree of experience' or did Adam give it this name and that name came down to Moses, as every other name of original things has come down to us through the history of life on earth?