What could possibly be wrong with the knowledge of good and evil?
If I was writing the Genesis account, I would have called the forbidden tree something like, The Tree of Darkness, or The Tree of Unspeakable Evil, a name that would have prompted George Lucas to send Indiana Jones out to find it. Instead, the tree that brings death is a tree that seems harmless, a tree that offers moral knowledge.
d
I have heard a few theories as to why this tree was harmful, most of them in a youth group setting. One explanation is that Adam and Eve (though made in the image of God) only had the knowledge of good, therefore, without the knowledge of evil, their ignorance preserved them from sin. Maybe the person that invented this theory should eat from the Tree of Logic. What does the knowledge of evil even mean? Would Eve get a mental image of Adam killing a beaver, or of her telling Adam that she walked around the river when, in fact, she walked right through it? GASP! She lied! Evil!
Knowledge of something does not introduce it into the world. Eve already had orders not to eat from the tree. That was knowledge enough. Good=Avoidance. Evil=Eating.
Another theory is that it was not the tree itself that was the problem, but the entire issue was about obedience. God might as well have said, "Don't touch that rock," or "Don't take one step forward and three steps back." But no, he said don't eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I can sympathize with the obedience argument, but one question continues to nag at me: Why name the two trees if they are insignificant? Apparently the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is at odds with the Tree of Life. But how can that be?
"Okay smarty," says a frustrated blog reader, "what is your theory?"
"CHILL," says the blog writer, "I'm getting to it. GOSH!"
Another way to say "knowledge of good and evil" is Law. The Law is merely a list of rules. Do them, and you are doing good. Break them, and you have sinned--evil. The Tree of Life as described in Revelation is something that would bear fruit that was to be eaten by the saints, and bear leaves for the healing of the nations. Trees are often compared to men in scripture. What "living" man is to be eaten, and provides "healing" for the nations? Clearly this tree is in reference to Christ, the spiritual man, who gives the Spirit of Life to men.
But where do we see the Law and the Spirit at odds?
For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Romans 7:5-7 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. Romans 8:2-5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. II Cor 3:5-6 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Galatians 5:18
The verbiage is so reminiscent of Genesis. Eat from the Tree of "Law" and you will die. Eat from the Tree of Life and you will live forever (Eternal Life). Clearly these verses of Paul are pertinent to the question: What is wrong with the knowledge of good and evil?
What is your answer?
10 comments:
Interesting that your post is about Adam, Eve and the Trees... I'm writing about something that pertains to this passage as well. Hmmmmm.... coincidence? Weird? Not, really.
After breaking "The Law" by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God lays out the consequences for all three of them (The serpent, Adam & Eve) and then kicks them out of the Garden of Eden.
Their expulsion from the Garden was something that I had always considered part of their punishment... along with having pms, painful childbirth and getting splinters while trying to pick fruit.
If the Law was set to show that man would never be able to keep it on his own, and if our only way to be connected with God was to be perfect, AND the penalty for breaking it was spiritual death...then we were doomed from the start.
Genesis 3:22&23
"Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" -- therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken."
What I had always seen as more punishment from God, was actually Him displaying His love for them (and for us). For if Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life AFTER they had eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would have lived forever in their separated state...forever in their spiritual death.
Now here's a question that never came to mind before--God said that after eating the forbidden tree Adam became like God. So Adam sinned and became like God in some way? And God punished mankind for it...weird. I'm more confused about this than I used to be. Thanks Frank! You'd better have a good post to answer this one. ;)
I'm just laughing at Eve's mental picture of Adam killing a beaver. I think it was one of those talking beavers from Narnia. They were like the Jar Jar Binks of the Lewis universe. Good riddance, beavers.
In Genesis, the Hebrew word “yada” (Strong’s dictionary 3045) is used for “knowledge”, “understanding”, and “carnal knowledge”. OT sexual standards developed to include such practices as polygamy and temple prostitutes. This would have to give a broader connotation to the Hebrew readers of the OT. Cultural differences and translation questions can make it difficult to understand what the OT writers were trying to say. Anyway, knowing (yada) good and evil is illustrated in interesting stories through the OT. We need to study the use of “yada” to get a better understanding of what “yada” is about. So, “yada yada yada”.
It has been difficult to understand why Lot would offer his daughters to the mob at Sodom to protect the angels. Some versions include the explanation that eastern hospitality placed such high value on the protection of guests. I think that there is also something going on with the understanding of “yada”. The mob demands that Lot bring out the angels “…that we may know (yada) them.” (Genesis 19: 5 KJV) Other translations use more specific words for “yada” including “rape”. The KJV does not use the word “rape” anywhere. Even in the old English of 1611, there does not seem to be the specific concept of “rape” as sexual assault, and rape was a more general concept of unwelcome taking. If we throw this translation back into Genesis 3:5, then the suggestion would be that we would be like God and rape good and evil. This may seem silly, but it does fit the description of grabbing something that should be given to us at the right time. So, when Lot offers his daughters, it would seem that there is more to wanting to “know” the angels than sexual gratification or preference. Also consider the negotiations between God and Abraham and Sara in Genesis 18. Verse 19 states that the Lord knows (yada) Abraham and will extend this knowledge to the Lord’s plan for Sodom. As Lot is leaving Sodom, his wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt. This is another violation of God’s order similar to Eve’s. With the loss of his wife, Lot’s daughters decide to continue the lineage and get Lot drunk and lay (shakab 7901) with him without his knowing (yada). This use of “shakab” and “yada” is interesting. Adam knew (yada) Eve, and Cain knew (yada) his wife. Later OT passages use “shakab” rather than “yada”. To see “yada” pop up in the story of Sodom is interesting. This may suggest that Sodom was another attempt to raid the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Anyway, the “knowledge” (da’ath, Strong’s dictionary 1847) of good and evil, is somehow different from knowing “yada” good and evil. This will take more digging.
The OT also uses “ishshah” (Strong’s 802) as “woman” or “wife”. There appears to be less distinction between “woman” and “wife” than between “yada” and “shakab”. Again, it is difficult to see the ideas across the space of translation and culture.
Wha??? It was a tree, not a sexual object.
It is a bit confusing, but it should tack onto "The Knowledge of Good and Evil". I am still trying to get into the language and culture of the times to understand the story.
It is really difficult to have a Frank discussion about "carnal knowledge" when God's design has been so muddied in our culture.
After the Fall, the first thing Adam and Eve noticed was that they were naked. This carries on into the Law which prohibits various "uncovering nakedness (6172)" (Leviticus 18 and 20). Why is this phrase used instead of "yada" or "shakab"? It is considered good to have a fig tree (1Kings 4:25). Is this to ensure a supply of fig leaves to cover our nakedness?
In Daniel 1:4, there is an interesting use of knowledge words: “…skilful (7919) in all wisdom (2451), and cunning (3045) in knowledge (1847), and understanding (995) science (4093)…”. Strong notes that (4093) comes from (3045).
The Serpent in Genesis 3:1 is “more subtle” (6175), or “prudent”, or “the wiliest”, or “the craftiest”, of all the creatures. In Proverbs 12:23 “A prudent (6175) man concealeth knowledge (1847)”; 13:16 “Every prudent (6175) man dealeth with knowledge (1847)”; 14:8 “wisdom (2451) of the prudent (6175) is to understand (995)”; 14:18 “the prudent (6175) are crowned with knowledge (1847)”. The Wisdom (2451) of Proverbs 8 has been compared to the Word (logos, 3056) in the NT (John 1), and is considered to be the spirit of Christ.
So what do we make of Christ being hung on a tree (3586)? (Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1Peter 2: 24) How is the tree (3586) of life (Revelation 22:2) compared to: “I see men as trees (1186), walking.”? (Mark 8:24)
Deuteronomy 21: 22-23 has instructions for execution and hanging on a tree (6086) and the curse of God and the need for burial before night; as observed in the Crucifixion. In the OT, a fir tree is simply a fir (1265) (Nahum 2:3) or a fir (1265) tree (6086) (1Kings 6: 34).
Anyway, it is all about more than trees. Being separated from God is the main pain. Being purified by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ so that we can be reunited with God is the good news.
What are the numbers in the parentheses? I feel like this is something obvious, that I should know, and that I'm stupid for asking... but I don't. So tell me. Please? :)
Strongs numbers.
That verse you said from Revelation-was it 22:2? I looked it up and...it gave me chills. Eating from the Tree of Life-Christ; producing fruit to bring healing (restoration) to the nations...Man restored to God!Please someone paint a picture of this or write a song about it...
It is really a beautiful and stirring verse. Kind of leaves you in a place of hopeful awe.
its also a great reminder to me that we're not just here to endure the evil and corruption, but that Jesus came to "undo the works of the evil one" and bring peace and healing back to earth through His kingdom, His people.
Post a Comment