|
Post by merrybrandybuck on Jun 6, 2016 12:56:43 GMT -8
Can anyone think of a scripture that describes or hints at Adam and Eve's behavior in the Garden? Were they always guided by love or were they sometimes selfish but not held to account because there was only one law--don't eat of the tree...--?
I think I've assumed they were perfect in love, but I don't think there is scripture to back that point of view. In fact I tend to think that Genesis 3 hints otherwise--when "their eyes were opened," they clearly felt inadequate. That could be merely from the disobedience of eating from the tree, but couldn't it also be that they looked backward and saw their past behavior in a new light?
This discussion is important to me because it tells us something about the nature of what happened at the moment of eating. Were they really transformed by the fruit--in other words did they gain some kind of spiritual intelligence at that moment--or was it merely the act of disobedience that caused them to feel shame and so hide from the Father?
I tend to think the former based on the phrase "their eyes were opened."
What were they opened to? Just their own act of disobedience? I'm not so sure. The response seems to be a feeling of complete inadequacy--they understood that they were naked (vulnerable?). I'm not so sure that comes from single mistake. Were they so ignorant of God's love that they couldn't have gone to the father and cried out for his help and mercy? I wonder if it is rather the revelation that their heart is stuck in an evolutionary selfishness while their creator is guided by love. They share the creator's image but not the ability to live it out. That seems a far better and more likely reading to me.
Perhaps the very act that they could be tempted to disobey underscores the idea that they weren't inherently perfect creatures who always chose the loving option. Perhaps it was their own experiences with the self-harm that comes from greed or self-centered behavior that made them want to know how to avoid such a trap by eating the fruit. The seed of temptation comes in their own experience of being wrong and having to make it right. (Their downfall is in their own desire to do good.)
What do you think?
(We'll be talking more about this on Sunday as our view of what is "wrong" with humanity deeply influences what we believe about the nature of God, the gospel and the cross.)
Erik
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 6, 2016 17:18:07 GMT -8
Growing up, my idea of Adam and Eve's experience in the garden of Eden was a completely pain free existence characterized by selfless love. Years ago I moved away from the idea that somehow the laws of entropy didn't exist in the garden (how else should we understand the idea that Adam 'worked' the garden?). Along with that I became persuaded that Adam and Eve were not created with any kind of inherent immortality- that, rather, as the text strongly implies, it was something external (the tree of life) that provided for the possibility of immortal life.
Recent scientific evidence and a fresh analysis of the scriptural creation passages has led me to be much more open to the possibility that Adam and Eve were not the first biological humans (as Genesis 4:16-17 always implied). Instead, Adam and Eve should be seen as the first humans that God granted consciousness of Himself. They are the first sentient physical creatures to understand their relationship to Him. They are the first humans to be given God's plan for their dominion over creation, and the first physical creatures ever offered conditional immortality. In this very powerful sense, Eve is the "mother of all the living", Adam is the "first man".
Of course I don't expect others to automatically hold any of these views, and that's not the point here anyway, but I bring it up to say that the suggestions you pose here fit very well with these underpinnings. They help make much more sense of Genesis 1-3 in light of current science.
Some who hold views similar to mine see the whole Adam and Eve story as symbolic of the experience of all early humans en masse. There are some reasons to support that, but I still think the evidence points to this being the experience of a single pair of humans. Therefore, though I take much of the story symbolically and not literally I still think of it in terms of the literal experience of a pair of humans in a safe, sacred space, interacting with God. Because of this, I think you make a good case that Adam and Eve can't be considered "perfect in love" if they are tempted to disobey God*
* however, on the other hand, was Jesus "perfect in love" when he was tempted in the flesh? That might sound like it has an obvious answer, but, we are told that Jesus "learned obedience" and "was made perfect", so maybe, though he was "without sin", He himself had to taste the experience you are describing (at least in some way).
Are you saying here that basically, Adam and Eve seized on the fruit as the means to "right their own wrongs" instead of trusting God to show them the way to perfect their love?
|
|
|
Post by merrybrandybuck on Jun 6, 2016 17:46:23 GMT -8
Josh, I think that is a strong implication of what I believe.
In the traditional narrative of the fall, humanity chased a holy God away by our sin. He keeps his distance because of his purity. We have to be purified to come near him or his wrath will break out against us, a la Numbers. As I've come to believe that story to be a misguided, I have begun to wonder if God ever desired to keep his distance. If you look at the narrative in Genesis 3, God comes to the garden in the evening as usual to walk with Adam and Eve and when they hide he calls to them. That does not sound like a God who is somehow tarnished by sin. In fact the story seems to say the exact opposite. The God who loves us is left pleading for us to be with him while humanity hides from him.
I have come to believe that we are the ones who separate ourselves from God and not the other way around. The first act of that separation comes in trying to right our own wrongs because we fear that he will reject us in our imperfection.
Erik
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 6, 2016 17:56:17 GMT -8
Can anyone think of a scripture that describes or hints at Adam and Eve's behavior in the Garden? Were they always guided by love or were they sometimes selfish but not held to account because there was only one law--don't eat of the tree...--? What else would they be held to account for if there was only one rule? Where there is no law (no rule) there is no sin. How could they be held accountable for a sinful action if it was not forbidden? It seems part of your assumption is that being selfish or self-centered is a sin. I don't see it that way. To fulfill one's desires is not sinful. The only time it is sinful is when it crosses a rule. Case in point, when Eve's desire took her to consume the forbidden fruit. I don't believe Adam and Eve are seen as having been made perfect. They had much work to do - procreate, subdue the earth, etc. I prefer to think that Adam and Eve were made neutral and sin free. From their neutral state, had they followed God correctly, they would have progressed to being godlike. I subscribe to the Eastern Orthodox view of Theosis - that man was and is meant to become god. I don't think they could look backwards and see their past behavior in new light, because they had nothing in which they had failed to measure up to except the single incident of eating from the banned tree. Instead, the appeal of the fruit was to be like God - what I believe is the purpose of man, but the fruit was the wrong way to go about it - and upon eating the fruit, mankind saw just how far from being godlike he had started and was at that moment. Also, mankind felt the shame of dishonoring his creator's direction, his rightful superior. A combination of the two would be my case. Something spiritual did happen. A spiritual rift between a spiritual God and his spiritual creation. Also, shame from dishonoring their position in creation. We do not have a shame culture as much as I believe we should, so the west does not understand the feeling of shame. I believe the entire story of the Bible is of mankind's shame, and God setting aside his privilege to identify with man in his shame and then bring him out of it. This is why I think Christ went into the historical context he did to die the most shameful of deaths. Certainly there are more painful ways to die. You can read stories of people being killed in all kinds of horrendous ways which would hurt much more than the cross. Hebrews 12:2 tells us the punishment of the cross that Christ had to endure was not the pain, but the shame. This idea ruins a lot of the penal substitution based atonement ideas and sheds a lot of light on the plight of man going back to the garden.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 6, 2016 19:03:55 GMT -8
I have come to believe that we are the ones who separate ourselves from God and not the other way around. The first act of that separation comes in trying to right our own wrongs because we fear that he will reject us in our imperfection. Erik Generally agreed but what about the banishment from the garden/ it's being guarded by angels with "flaming swords"? I see these as God protecting humanity from itself.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 6, 2016 19:14:17 GMT -8
Jay, While I agree that it wasn't sin without the rule, I do think they would be able to look back on their previous behavior and see it as less than perfected- and even shameful in light of their new understanding of love
Oh, and agreed with both of you about the primacy of shame in the narrative and in the gospel message itself.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 6, 2016 21:37:59 GMT -8
Great thread Erik. It's getting too late to post everything I'm thinking, but I hope to carve out some time to interact tomorrow. Real quick thought though, I think it is possible to sin without a specific rule. Paul makes a great case to the Corinthians for sin being a violation of conscience, and a great case to the Romans for some keeping the law they aren't even aware of by following their conscience. I think we're originally built pre-programmed with at least some of the law of God as base model equipment. Ok, see? Car analogies, I told you it was getting late
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 7, 2016 17:06:05 GMT -8
Yeah, Chris, I was thinking about that too. Isn't that backed up by:
Romans 5:13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
The law brought external condemnation of sin, but guilt could have been experienced beforehand presumably.
Still, the Mosaic Law is what's in view there. The Garden of Eden still could have been the first time humans felt guilt.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 7, 2016 20:56:05 GMT -8
Actually, I had Romans 2 in mind:
Romans 2:14
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them
And on the negative side:
1 Cor 8:7-12
However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. ...
...will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.
I think sin comes from suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness. Humans inherently have an innate moral code of love, I think. And we know when we are violating it.
In the OP, Erik asked if Adam and Eve walked in perfect love before the fruit was eaten. I say no because Eve was apparently not thinking much of how her disobedience would impact her husband. Adam was quick to throw Eve under the bus as well...not too chivalrous I think. Reading between the lines, It kind of suggests that maybe there was already some deterioration of the relationship happening? We are all familiar with that moment when we consciously decide we will do something when we know we shouldn't. Is it then that our conscience is defiled, not necessarily when the deed is done?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 8, 2016 19:50:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 9, 2016 17:38:54 GMT -8
We in the west do not understand shame much, rather we understand guilt and punishment. The scales of justice must be balanced, so criminals must pay their debt to society. It is often said, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." This is a shame free view which considers the rectification of wrong as merely a penal payment. A shame culture understands that no payment can remove shame of wrongdoing. This is why suicide is common in shame and honor cultures - take for instance Japan. Shame doesn't even have to be the direct result of one's own hand. A Japanese general might commit suicide when his troops are defeated because he has failed to secure an honorable victory, no matter if his men were fighting insurmountable odds. A shame culture doesn't understand, "Well, we tried our best." "Well, we meant well." and then move on from failure or loss. Nudity is associated in the Bible with shame, and this is why Adam hides his nudity from God after he sins. It is not symbolic of Adam feeling any legal guilt, but of Adam's shame. Subsequently, this is why Christ begins a new mankind as a new Adam. With shame it doesn't matter the legal price that has been paid, shame still exists. Adam's mankind is forever shamed. I throw in with theologians who do not look at inherited guilt from original sin, but ongoing shame because Adam made it impossible for his entire family to properly (honorably) perform our intended function. Thus, we are born into a fallen state where, apart from Christ, it is impossible for us to fulfill our purpose, and subsequently to gain honor. I believe Christ ushered in the new heaven and earth, declaring on the sixth day "It is finished!" - his work - resting from his work in the tomb on the seventh day, and rising into the infancy of a new heaven and earth - a reality into which we can enter through him to be new creations in the new creation Christ made. As new creations, we don't have to rectify the shame of our old selves because we are made new, entirely lacking the shame brought by Adam and in a lineage headed by Christ who entered into shame, emerged unscathed, forever protecting his family name from any shame we might incur personally as we sin. I believe if we understand shame culture, it shows why the first prophecy of Christ was not that he would come to bear our legal penalty, but that he would overcome the shamer of mankind.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 9, 2016 22:16:28 GMT -8
Powerfully put jay!
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 10, 2016 7:31:35 GMT -8
Yes, quite so.
So then, what would this shame culture look like to you if it were more of what you think it should be? Do you think early mankind had this mindset? How about the Jewish culture leading up to Christ's day? Or earlier yet, pre-Exodus.
I think this is a fascinating aspect of the discussion. Keep it going! :-)
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 10, 2016 9:25:04 GMT -8
Yes, quite so. So then, what would this shame culture look like to you if it were more of what you think it should be? Do you think early mankind had this mindset? How about the Jewish culture leading up to Christ's day? Or earlier yet, pre-Exodus. I think this is a fascinating aspect of the discussion. Keep it going! :-) Early mankind was absolutely built upon more of a shame and honor culture than a judicial mindset. This can be seen in many ancient writings even outside the Bible. This understanding is taken from reading people much smarter than myself who make this assertion, and say that a shift to legality and guilt rather than shame and honor is really a relatively recent western idea. Even as recently as the Roman Empire, who was very much about having a legal system, shame and honor reigned supreme. This is why they did not merely exercise punishment upon criminals but utilized shaming punishments such as the cross where one was stripped naked and hung up for all to view in their state of shameful weakness as they soiled themselves. The criminals were not given a quick and private execution to simply satisfy the law as we do to our criminals today, but they were put on full, embarrassing display. Anyway: Within the Bible, and most importantly back on the OP's topic, shame is introduced as the issue at hand related to the fall of man. Genesis 2 ends with the state of mankind as shameless. Genesis 2:25 introduces the topic of shame and ties it to nudity, which is opening the door to what is going to happen shortly - by Genesis 3:7. Notice the topic introduced in 2:25 is shame, not innocence. The issue raised leading into the fall is not of innocence followed by guilt, but shamelessness followed by shame. Genesis 2:25 ties being unashamed with being comfortable at being fully exposed (nudity). Thus, after sinning mankind is no longer comfortable with being naked, which in the context of Genesis 2:25 means that mankind now is ashamed. Believing that Moses has written this from oral tradition dating back far before his own time, I believe this answers your question that the shame and honor understanding dates back far before the Exodus as it is integral in their history. Moving forward from Moses, God ties the following and disregard of the Mosaic Law with glory (honor) and shame. Hosea 4:6-7 ties not following the law with God heaping upon Israel, not legal guilt, but shame - far worse than legal guilt, although they did incur guilt under the Law as well. Looking forward even further from there, Isaiah 61:7 looks to a time when shame will be replaced. Interestingly enough, shame and honor cultures believe there is only so much honor and shame to go around. Thus, to gain honor means you must take honor from someone else, and to incur shame means someone else has stolen your honor. This can be seen at play in scripture as Colossians 2:15 shows the work of Christ in light of reversing the flow of shame. When everyone thought Christ was the one being shamed on the cross, Christ was actually flipping the tables on the enemy and shaming them. Thus, Christ's honor (glory) is gained by shaming his enemy. I am not denying that there is a legal guilt incurred and necessarily dealt with when sin is involved, but my contention is that such guilt is seen as the more minor issue while shame is the primary problem at hand. This is a bit rambling and lacking in all the detail it could have, but to again take it back to the OP, Genesis ties sinning to the origination of shame. Therefore, until Adam and Eve sinned, they had nothing to be ashamed of. Before sinning, they were certainly in a learning environment, but no shame and honor culture attributes shame to a child learning to walk. In the same manner, I believe that Adam and Eve had no shame and never felt shame for any of the time between when they were created, not perfect, but innocent and up until they sinned.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 10, 2016 15:30:39 GMT -8
So here are some of my musings on this. I think I would have to disagree that we are not a shame culture. Indeed, I believe a universal sense of shame is behind much of our sin and self-centeredness. I would agree that we do not value honor quite as much as other cultures, which may make it seem like we don't have a shame culture. But anyone with a facebook or twitter account can see that public shame is quite alive and well in our culture. I'm of the opinion that nothing good ever comes from shame and I think an argument could be made that shame preceded the fall (and may have been the very tactic of Satan). the serpent tells Eve: “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:5)...planting the idea that "you are not good enough as you are" (shame). It's a strong motivator to reach out and grasp the equality with God. Whereas, Jesus found no shame in divesting Himself of that equality (Phil 2). It's interesting that nakedness is the thing associated with shame in the bible, but only the parts of the body that bring forth life. There's nothing inherently shameful about nudity and indeed the human body is one of the most beautiful works in all creation (until you get to my age that is ). David shamelessly danced naked publicly before God and told his wife he would humble himself even more than that. But even more than nakedness, women felt the greatest shame if they couldn't bear children. And as a nation, Israel seemed to suffer the most shame when they under the rule of a kingdom that was not God and they were not at liberty to worship God and bear the fruit of their faith. Exile from God's kingdom was the consequence of disobedience and the faithful always longed to return home (Heb 11) and serve God. And through Christ, they have indeed returned. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. (Heb 12:28)Now that we have a kingdom that cannot be shaken, we have no reason to fear. And since perfect love casts out fear, it also casts out it first cousin, shame. This brings us full circle to what I think Eden was meant to be in the first place. But like entropy is to energy, the fall was to sin. It had to be discharged and it's potential exhausted so that we could finally have a kingdom that could not be shaken without limiting the free will of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jun 20, 2016 14:53:16 GMT -8
Certainly there is a sense of shame in everyone, but our culture looks to alleviate shame, not deal with what is shameful.
The message of our society is to be ok with who you are, embrace yourself, remove social stigma over this or that.
The recent "ban the box" campaign is an example of attempting to remove shame, where job applications can no longer ask possible employees if they are felons. The whole point of banning the question on an application was because it caused the applicant to feel ashamed.
Everyone getting a trophy so nobody feels less honor than the actual winners is another example how we do not live in a honor/shame culture. We want to avoid the last place players feeling ashamed over their failure.
Our culture wants to avoid honor and shame so none feel bad, and all feel good. This is different from such shame and honor cultures like Japan where honor and shame are embraced as motivators to be pursued and avoided respectively.
I agree with you that I don't believe the human body is anything to be ashamed of. In fact, in my bodybuilding, the human body is shown off for how remarkable it is. I have had trouble with many Christians view of such events as immoral and immodest, but I don't believe it is. Rather, I can look at a man or woman who has conditioned the human body and appreciate their hard work, and to me it is a testament to intelligent design.
My believe is that nudity reflects being exposed to scrutiny. After Adam's sin, him covering his nudity was not because suddenly the human body was shameful, but Adam could not stand to feel so exposed externally for the shame that was in him internally.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 9, 2016 16:30:32 GMT -8
|
|