Thursday: Human Destiny
Read Genesis 3:15-24. As a result of the Fall, what happened to Adam and Eve?
While God’s judgment of the serpent is explicitly identified as a curse (Genesis 3:14), God’s judgment of the woman and of the man is not. The only time where the word “curse” is used again, it applies only to the “ground” (Genesis 3:17). That is, God had other plans for the man and the woman, as opposed to the serpent. They were offered a hope not offered to him.
Image © Lifeway Collection at Goodsalt.com
Because the woman’s sin is due to her association with the serpent, the verse describing God’s judgment of the woman was related to the judgment of the serpent. Not only does Genesis 3:16 immediately follow Genesis 3:15, but the parallels between the two prophecies clearly indicate that the prophecy concerning the woman in Genesis 3:16 has to be read in connection to the Messianic prophecy in Genesis 3:15. God’s judgment of the woman, including childbearing, should therefore be understood in the positive perspective of salvation (compare with 1 Timothy 2:14-15).
Because the man’s sin is due to his listening to the woman instead of listening to God, the ground from which man has been taken is cursed (Genesis 3:17). As a result, man will have to work hard (Genesis 3:17-19), and he will then “return” to the ground where he comes from (Genesis 3:19), something that never should have happened, and that was never part of God’s original plan.
It is significant that against this hopeless prospect of death Adam turns, then, to the woman, where he sees the hope of life through her giving birth (Genesis 3:20). That is, even amid the sentence of death, he sees the hope of life.
Meanwhile, as would any loving parent, God had wanted only good for them, not evil. But now that they knew evil, God was going to do all that He could to save them from it. Thus, even amid these judgments, all hope was not lost for our first parents, despite their open and blatant disobedience to God; even though they — living truly in paradise — had absolutely no reason to doubt God, to doubt God’s words, or to doubt His love to them.
| Though we tend to think of “knowledge” in and of itself as good, why is that not always the case? What are some things that we are better off not knowing? |
(23)
God's plan for mankind has not changed, the fail/safe plan within the Godhead, before the founding of the world, is in progress since the second Adam's death and resurrection.
Ephesians 1:9-23, psalms 8:4-9, Hebrews 2:3-14
Having read the question at the bottom of the lesson today I immediately think about what King Solomon wrote in Ecclesiates 1:18, which actually had applied to himself having acquired so much knowledge, wisdom and riches which caused his doom.
„For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.“
There are many examples of persons in past history as well as even today, who follow suit, ending up in loosing hold of God because they rely too much on their own wisdom and become self centered.
Of course we know that knowledge is power, however, Solomon exhorts us to „Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.“ Proverbs 3:5-6
God is our all and all. He is our savior, redeemer, and protector.
Trust and obey!
He will direct our path.
Amen
When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.(Prov. 11:2)
Where there is strife, there is pride, but wisdom is found in those who take advice. (Prov. 13:10)
A fool’s mouth lashes out with pride, but the lips of the wise protect them. (Prov 14:3)
What have I learned today?
As long as they could eat of the Tree of Life they would live forever, however the consequence of eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was that they were expelled from the Garden of Eden and thus denied access to the Tree of Life. Until then they had only known - experienced - good things, now they would also experience bad things.
Adam was formed from the dust of the earth and the breathe of life from the LORD, the consequence of his choice was that eventually the LORD would withdraw His gift of life and all that remained of Adam would be the dust of the earth.
But wait, there is Good News, the LORD offered them a second chance to acknowledge Him as the Supreme Authority in their lives, by at same time upholding His Authority and showing mercy to His creatures.
Question at the end of study: "Though we tend to think of “knowledge” in and of itself as good, why is that not always the case? What are some things that we are better off not knowing?"
Like all God's gifts to us, the important thing is not the *gift*, but it's how we use (motivation) it !
Psalms 1
Let us examine how helpless Adam and Eve were after eating the "evil" fruit:hatred, contentions,jealousies, uncontrollable outbursts of wrath,selfish ambitions,dissensions. Galatians 5:20,21
Can we imagine how unaccountable must be these strange new feelings and thoughts that surged through them? They not only "knew evil" but it surged through them becoming a part of them.
How grateful we must be that God, on His part did not leaves in this state.
Galatians 5:22-26.
I understand Gen.3:15-24 to be the spiritually relevant fall-out based on the decision by Adam and Eve to disregard the Will of God; both knew the consequences, they just did not know them in the form they would come about. Now, God communicates these details so they know how they will be experienced in their new way of life.
I wonder if there is another word used in the original language for God’s judgement other than calling it a ‘curse’ – “a solemn utterance intended to invoke a supernatural power to inflict harm or punishment on someone or something.” (Oxford Languages)
I have come to understand the story about the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden – the blessed land flowing with milk and honey, perfectly established by the Creator Father for His children -, differently.
We find out what it is like living outside of Eden - barren land, inhospitable, raw and untamed. Spiritual separation, facing the untended environment by using their own capabilities to forge out the living by their own sweat and toil – Gen.3:19 - , this is now their new 'life' - survival of the body. What God did and would have continued to provide in the by Him established Garden was now theirs to receive by their own sweat and tears.
But most importantly, they lost their spiritual life-line by loosing the privilege of living in the Father's Garden in Eden - to be able to communicate whith Him directly, asking questions, commenting on experiences, learning what was important to know about life. Tending the Garden of Eden was different from tending to 'carve out a living' in the ‘wilderness’ of the untamed earth.
By patience and longsuffering, the Spirit of God watched over humanity's 'wilderness experience' until it was time for man to hear again the voice of the Father calling his faith-children home by the Voice of His Son, our Savior Christ Jesus.
Today's lesson continues a concept that was introduced in yesterday's lesson:
What do you notice as you look carefully at this statement? I find that this view implies that if judgment wasn't applied, sin itself would not inherently result in death, evil and curses. Thus, if judgment wasn't applied, you could sin and get away with it.
I find this suggestion to parallel precisely what Satan was ever so 'craftily' hinting at in Genesis 3:4-5. Satan insinuated that there was no inherent problem in eating from the tree and therefore that God had prohibited/forbidden them because He didn't want them also enter the realm of being 'gods'. I don't know if you can see it, but this (false) suggestion also carries with it two key insinuations about God's nature and character:
1) That God is self-seeking: He doesn't want anyone else to occupy the realm of God. (Satan also falsely implies that is it actually possible to become "like God" - when in actuality the created can never become self-existent Creators).
2) God is arbitrary. Arbitrary is more than just doing something because one feels like it - it includes causing something to happen that otherwise wouldn't inherently happen.
Thus, the suggestion that judgment is what leads to death, evil and curses portrays a God who is arbitrary.
I am not outlining the above to be critical of the lesson, but rather to prompt us, if we are willing, to step-back and look carefully and reflectively (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) at some of the finer details of what we believe and why. And by this I am not talking about merely composing 'doctrinal beliefs'. As I have outlined previously, your subconscious 'mental map' that consists of all of the beliefs you hold, is the filter through which you interpret everything you encounter - and is also the filter that directly influences how you will behave/respond in every situation. The problem is that because this lies within the realm of your subconscious, you will often not be aware this is actually going on until you conscious step back to consider it more carefully (hence David's request in Psalm 139:23-24)...
I agree with your concern about the implications of this statement in Wednesday's lesson:
The judgment is not what led to death, evil, and curses. Death and evil are the result of sin. The judgment is a recognition/clarifying of what happened and what the consequences will be.
However, I do think your definition of arbitrary is .. well... arbitrary. You wrote
The standard definition is well stated by American Heritage Dictionary thus:
It seems to me that definition 2. describes your definition of arbitrary. It appears to be your own personal definition. But perhaps Australian English is different enough that arbitrary means something different where you live?
If arbitrary means what you suggest: "...causing something to happen that otherwise wouldn't inherently happen," it wouldn't be such a bad thing. In fact that portion of the definition certainly describes the Creator God I worship. By His Word He created all there is, and He upholds all by His power. It would not "inherently happen" without Him willing it to be - even though evolutionary scientists would like us to believe so.
The way I see it, God acts by reason and principle - the principle of His Law of self-renouncing love. When He acts according to that law He is not arbitrary when He makes things happen that "that otherwise wouldn't inherently happen." After all, He is acting in accordance with His Law.
The problem with the quotation from Wednesday's lesson is that it does seem to make God sound arbitrary - as though He imposed a consequence unrelated to the natural consequence (necessity) of their behavior. Since the statement is an interpretation of the biblical text, it can be seen as missing the fact that separation from God means separation from life (i.e. death). And that is a grave omission.
With regard to your appraisal that my explanation of arbitrary is... well... arbitrary, I was trying to provide a more simplified explanation. I will therefore elaborate a bit further.
Unfortunately the standard dictionary definitions you have provided do not reflect the full scope nor core essence of the concept of what is referred to as arbitrary. Merriam-Webster dictionary incorporates a 'definition' that comes closest to reflecting the core essence and therefore scope of the phenomenon when it states "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something." At the same time, "arbiter" is defined as "a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining" (dictionary.com). This reflects the notion of someone having the ability to bring something about. At the convergence of these we have then someone who exercises absolute power to bring something about (that otherwise wouldn't be brought about) and having done so on a 'subjective' rather than 'objective' basis (ie "the intrinsic nature of something"). This is what I was referring to in my explanation of Satan's insinuation regarding God's nature and character.
There is an incredibly (?infinitely) complex matrix of 'mechanisms' that comprise the reality of what Jesus referred to as true or abundant life (the 'zoe' of John 10:10). However, those mechanisms in and of themselves are incapable of producing and sustaining life. It is only when God imparts His life-giving 'breath of life' through those mechanisms - mechanisms that He also promotes and sustain - that life (zoe) comes into existence. When all preconditions inherently necessary for a resultant outcome to come in to existence are present, the resultant outcome will come into existence. Thus, when God Creates (Hebrews 11:3) and sustains (Hebrews 1:3), the basis upon and means by which He does those things is anchored within and reflective of the inherent cause-and-effect nature that life can only viably exist upon. While it is true that life cannot exist apart from God, I find it is equally true that all God's actions have an objective rather than subjective basis to them - which is why neither He nor any of His actions are arbitrary. I believe this is one of the essential bases upon which God and every single one of His Ways is going to be universally declared as "just and true" - not just because of the outcome of those ways but also because of the means and methods of each and every one of those ways as having been in accordance with an objective rather than subjective basis.
The only reason I write this is to substantiate that my simplified explanation of arbitrary was not just me being arbitrary.
Phil, I totally agree that God is never arbitrary. He acts in accordance with the principle of self-renouncing love, which is His character. I also believe that when God acts in accordance with His character of love - whether or not He acts in ways we expect - He is not being arbitrary.
To understand the meaning of a word, as generally used (remembering that a dictionary is a reflection of usage, not an arbiter of meaning), we must take all the possible meanings and put them together. We cannot just choose an aspect of meaning and declare that to be the essential meaning. To do so seriously endangers accurate communication.
But I have a question regarding this statement:
For clarification I ask: Does God operate according to laws outside of Himself?
Where do "all preconditions inherently necessary for a resultant outcome to come in to existence" originate? (I recognize you say that He "promotes and sustains" these mechanisms, but my question goes deeper.)
Just checking: Do you agree or disagree with my understanding that God designed all the laws upon which the universe operates - whether these are moral, emotional, intellectual or physical? I believe these laws are really all grounded in His character of love. He is not indebted to laws for which He is not personally responsible.
Thanks Inge
And I agree with you that "I also believe that when God acts in accordance with His character of love - whether or not He acts in ways we expect - He is not being arbitrary." We see some aspects of this differently - and may well continue to do so until the new earth where we'll be able to ask God face-to-face to clarify some of the things we are seeking to understand.
With regard to word usage, unfortunately words are playing catchup to trying to apprehend understanding of concepts - particularly ones pertaining to God's Ways that we are each trying to grow in understanding of. Existing words are all I have to use but am needing to push them in different directions in order to attempt to explain the concept. If there was a more precise word for what I am attempting to describe, then I would use it. Words evolve and change in their meaning over time because the word is trying to describe an aspect of reality - reality is not limited to the scope of the word. And so, as you say, accurate communication becomes a more difficult process as a result. 1 Corinthians 2:6-13 reflects this difficulty and the reason for it.
With regard to your question "Does God operate according to laws outside of Himself?, I will try to put my answer in words but it is likely to be clumsy because of the above reasons. God operates in accordance with the principle of beneficence - and at the same time, as Ellen White has stated, beneficence has its source in the heart of God. Why is God about beneficence? Why not something else - some other basis? Is it because God had the power to make that basis the only basis upon which life would work? If so, could He have equally made some other basis the only viable basis on which life could work? If there are multiple, equally viable bases upon which life could work and God chooses one over the other when another could equally have been chosen, then the issue (and allegation of Satan) regarding arbitrary arises. In order for God to objectively be non-arbitrary, there would need to be one reality that is superior to all other options. Am I therefore saying that such a reality is bigger than God? No, I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that God is non-arbitrary and because He is willing to be non-arbitrary (which is the most secure base He and His creation can be upon/within) He is 'aligned' with an 'objective reference-point' (language falling short here) - like He is both aligned with beneficence and the source of beneficence at the same time (one-in-the-same).
Of relevance is that there are things that exist outside of God - but such does not diminish God in any way. Evil/maleficence is not within God and is therefore outside of God. Prior to Lucifer's fall, evil/maleficence was a potential principle - 'in theory' - but Lucifer/Satan brought that principle into existence. Closest analogy I can think of is potential energy being brought into existence via it transforming into kinetic energy.
So this is why I can't answer your question with a simple yes or no - because the answer is kind of yes and kind of no. The main point is that the answer to that question does not, as I see it, diminish God in any way - rather it enlarges and affirms all that God is as the I AM. But like I have said, I am trying to describe things using language that falls short, so it would be easy to misunderstand what I am attempting to convey and am still growing in my understanding of - and will continue to do so for eternity.
Phil – thank you for your insightful comments. May I request of you to clarify the next to the last paragraph: “Of relevance is that there are things that exist outside of God … .” “Prior to Lucifer’s fall, evil/maleficence was a potential principle – ‘in theory’ – but Lucifer/Satan brought that principle into existence.”
May I ask how you consider that the ‘potential for existence of any principle’ could be 'outside' of God?
Also - how do you know that dissent by a different entity was not present somewhere in the universe before the issue with Lucifer deceiving Adam and Eve here on earth arose?
Lastly - if dissent (evil/maleficence) was a ‘potential principle’ and part of the original creation of all
that is, would this not imply that the response to it was present as well? Or do you think that the principles needed for 'responding' were an ‘after-thought’?
Thank you!
Hi Brigitte
In regard to your questions:
1) I find evil/maleficence to be contrary to everything that God is about. Therefore I believe that God is not the source of those things (or the principles they operate on: self-seeking, exploitation, "steal, kill and destroy", etc) and therefore that those things and their associated principles are outside/apart from of God (eg, John 10:10; James 1:17).
2) I believe dissent by Lucifer was present in the universe prior to the deceiving Adam and Eve here on earth. I don't find evidence of it having been manifest prior to Lucifer's fall - therefore Lucifer was the first to access that 'potential' (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:14-16).
3) Yes, I agree that the response to evil/maleficence was eternally present - because the response is intrinsic to beneficence. So, no, it wasn't an afterthought.
Phil, you wrote
Is it possible that you are trying to describe something that is not inherent in the original text of the Bible?
Consider this:
There are 8,679 unique words in the Hebrew text of the Bible. ("Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary")
In the Greek New Testament there are roughly 5,437 unique words. "How many words are in the Greek New Testament?" but other sources cite fewer words.
Modern English has 171,476 words that are in current use (HOW MANY WORDS ARE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?"), with over 1 million recognizable English words if you include those no longer in current use, including some of the vocabulary of the KJV.
My reason for citing these factoids is that it should be possible to describe concepts described in a 8,679-word language with the words currently in use in a 171,476-word language. If it is not possible, perhaps what we want to describe is not in the original text either.
Just a thought ...
Inge, good thoughts.
I believe that if we consider texts within their context and the big picture of the whole Word of the LORD the message will be clear, after all that is why it has been preserved for us. Like Timothy some of us have been taught and memorized the Scriptures since birth and therefor they are part of our sub-conscious and conscious thoughts.
The LORD through Paul tells us : But continue in the things that you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from a babe you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. 2Ti 3:14-17 MKJV
Methods of Bible Study - Adventist
1)The Bible is the Word of God and is the primary and authoritative means by which He reveals Himself to human beings.
2)The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers with thoughts, ideas, and objective information; in turn they expressed these in their own words. Therefore the Scriptures are an indivisible union of human and divine elements, neither of which should be emphasized to the neglect of the other (2Peter 1:21; cf. The Great Controversy, v, vi).
3) All Scripture is inspired by God and came through the work of the Holy Spirit. However, it did not come in a continuous chain of unbroken revelations. As the Holy Spirit communicated truth to the Bible writer, each wrote as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, emphasizing the aspect of the truth which he was led to stress. For this reason the student of the Bible will gain a rounded comprehension on any subject by recognizing that the Bible is its own best interpreter and when studied as a whole it depicts a consistent, harmonious truth (2Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:1, 2; cf. Selected Messages, Book 1, 19, 20; The Great Controversy, v, vi).
4) Although it was given to those who lived in an ancient Near Eastern/Mediterranean context, the Bible transcends its cultural backgrounds to serve as God’s Word for all cultural, racial, and situational contexts in all ages.
SDA Methods
Thanks Inge
I note your concern and caution. I am also mindful of the many points raised by Ellen White in the article The Mysteries of the Bible a Proof of its Inspiration where she notes that God would have us progressively advance in our understanding of Him and His Ways, but that we need to be very careful about how and why we do so.
Phil, you wrote:
If I understand you correctly, what you mean to say is that God operates on the principle of always doing good (the meaning of "beneficence"). Is that any different from my saying that God always acts in harmony with His character of self-renouncing love?
You wrote
Could you explain why being "non-arbitrary" (according to your definition) is a more "secure base" for God's creation than His inherent character of self-renouncing love?
How can we judge which choices God had for a foundation of His creation - apart from what is revealed in His Word? (Hints of some universal laws God did not make seem to be suggested by some of your comments.)
I think you may mean to say that God did not create evil, because the teaching that all things exist "inside of God" sounds similar to pantheism which equates all reality with divinity. Do I understand you correctly? (Christians affirm that God is outside and beyond His creation. Thus all of creation is "outside" of God.)
Inge, I agree with your thoughts.
In addition God said Adam has become like us - knowing good and evil. So God is saying he 'knows' evil. He must have - otherwise why call a Tree the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
We believe that God is omniscient - knows everything - Why else would Christ be the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world?
"Omniscience is the property of having complete or maximal knowledge. Along with omnipotence and perfect goodness, it is usually taken to be one of the central divine attributes. One source of the attribution of omniscience to God derives from the numerous biblical passages that ascribe vast knowledge to him". Stanford Encyclopedia.
Stanford
God takes responsibility for everything, although we know He loves the world, still like a Father he also disciplines His children.
Isa 45:5-7 ISV I am the LORD, and there is no other besides me: and there are no gods. I'm strengthening you, although you have not acknowledged me, (6) so that from the sun's rising to the west people may know that there is none besides me. "I am the LORD, and there is no other." (7) "I form light and create darkness, I make goodness and create disaster. I am the LORD, who does all these things.
Thanks Inge
In brief response regarding each of your points:
1) I find that, yes, God operates on the principle of always doing good - self-renouncing love. At the same time I find that God always does good using means that are always freedom-based and non-arbitrary. Thus I see "non-arbitrary, freedom-based beneficence" as an inseparable 'package' that appears to reflect harmonious core principles of who God is and what He is about. But each of these words merely refer to large concepts.
2) As I see things, non-arbitrary beneficence is a more secure base than arbitrary beneficence. That is what I had in mind when writing what I wrote. Predictability and consistency lie at the core of the fabric of reality as reflected in the notion of constants (consistent cause-and-effect principles) that James suggests also characterises God (James 1:17b) and Paul suggests characterises Jesus (Hebrews 13:8). When observing humans, consistency and predictability are the hallmarks of healthy attachment formation.
3) I am saying more than just that God did not create evil - I am also conveying that God does not 'manifest' the means and methods of evil (1 John 1:5). As you know, I find and believe that "steal, kill and destroy" (and all that these entail) lie exclusively outside of God who I find to exclusively be (about) Life. No, I am not advocating pantheism.
The knowledge we were not meant to know was evil. We do well though to seek after the knowledge of a loving God. In the knowledge of God our knowledge of evil turns to lovingkindness. The loving kindness that God expressed by initiating a way out of sin, the plan of salvation. Giving them and us something to do that is constructive, working and sharing our toils helps build our minds on knowledge of God rather than evil, if we choose, our loving God outside the garden of Eden gave opertunity to increase in the knowledge of Him.
But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the Lord , exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the Lord .
Jeremiah 9:24.