THE DYNAMICS OF TEMPTATION
Genesis 3:1-13; James 1:13-14
Rev. Paul Wrightman 3/12/23
WE CONTINUE OUR NEW SERMON SERIES
ON THE MOST IMPORTANT TEXTS OF THE BIBLE
FROM GENESIS THROUGH REVELATION.
ONE OF THE GREAT STRENGTHS OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
IS THAT ITS EDITORS POSITIVELY DELIGHTED
IN SLAMMING TOGETHER WRITINGS FROM DIFFERENT AUTHORS,
DIFFERENT TIMES, AND DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS.
THIS WAS DONE BECAUSE THE JEWISH TRADITION
WANTED TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF ITS LITERATURE AS POSSIBLE
AND CELEBRATED THE DIALOGUE THAT RESULTED
IN DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW CONVERSING – EVEN ARGUING! –
WITH EACH OTHER.
THUS, AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE,
WE FIND TWO VERY DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF CREATION
IN THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS OF GENESIS.
THE FIRST ACCOUNT OF CREATION,
CONTAINED IN CHAPTER ONE,
WAS LIKELY WRITTEN BY A PRIEST
DURING THE TIME BETWEEN THE CONQUEST
OF THE NORTHERN KINGDOM OF ISRAEL BY ASSYRIA IN 722
AND THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH
TO THE BABYLONIANS IN 597 BCE.
THIS AUTHOR USES THE LITERARY FORM OF POETRY
TO COMMUNICATE THEOLOGICAL TRUTH.
THE FIRST ACCOUNT OF CREATION IS FORMAL AND MAJESTIC
AND EMPHASIZES CREATION’S GOODNESS.
THE SECOND ACCOUNT OF CREATION,
WHICH WE’RE LOOKING AT TODAY,
WAS LIKELY WRITTEN BY AN OFFICIAL STORYTELLER
CONNECTED TO THE COURT OF KING DAVID OR KING SOLOMON
IN THE TENTH CENTURY BCE.
IT IS CASUAL AND DOWN-TO-EARTH,
AND INCLUDES THE STORY OF WHAT HAS COME TO BE KNOWN
AS “THE FALL.”
ONE OF THE BURNING ISSUES OF THE 900’S BCE –
AN ISSUE STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE IN OUR OWN DAY –
WAS THE PROBLEM OF EVIL: WHY IS IT THAT THERE IS SO MUCH
EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD?
THIS IS AN ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT PROBLEM FOR JEWISH PEOPLE
AND FOR CHRISTIANS BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
THAT GOD’S CREATION WAS TOTALLY GOOD.
HOW, THEN, DID EVIL COME TO HAVE SUCH A SIGNIFICANT PLACE
IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS?
OUR BIBLICAL AUTHOR – THROUGH THE DEPTH OF HIS
RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND THE INSPIRATION OF GOD’S SPIRIT –
HAS COME TO REALIZE A SUPREMELY IMPORTANT
THEOLOGICAL TRUTH:
THE FACT THAT EVIL CAME INTO THE WORLD
THROUGH HUMANKIND’S FREE CHOICE,
AND NOT BY SOME ARBITRARY ACT ON GOD’S PART.
OUR AUTHOR WANTS TO COMMUNICATE THIS THEOLOGICAL TRUTH
TO HIS CONTEMPORARIES.
HE KNOWS THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THIS
IS TO TELL A GOOD STORY.
SO HE SETS OUT TO CREATE A GOOD STORY
ABOUT CREATION AND FALL, A STORY THAT WILL GIVE
HIS LISTENERS SOME NEW INSIGHTS INTO THE NATURE OF GOD
AND THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN PREDICAMENT
AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT ENTERTAINS THEM.
TO COMPOSE HIS STORY HE USES ALL THE RESOURCES
AT HIS DISPOSAL: MYTHOLOGY FROM OTHER CULTURES,
STORIES INDIGENOUS TO ISRAEL,
HIS OWN SURPASSING ABILITY AS A STORYTELLER,
AND GOD’S GIFT OF THEOLOGICAL INSIGHT.
OUR AUTHOR WAS FAR TOO SUBTLE AND SOPHISTICATED
TO TAKE HIS OWN STORY LITERALLY.
HIS ACCOUNT WAS INTENDED AND WAS USED
PRIMARILY TO CONVEY THEOLOGICAL CONTENT.
THE STORY LINE OF CHAPTERS TWO AND THREE --
SCENES ABOUT A PARADISAICAL GARDEN,
THE TOUCHINGLY “HUMAN” WAY IN WHICH GOD CREATES
MAN AND WOMAN, WALKS AROUND THE GARDEN
“IN THE COOL OF THE DAY,” SPEAKS DIRECTLY
TO THE FIRST HUMANS AND MAKES CLOTHES FOR THEM,
THE PARADE OF ANIMALS, THE MYSTERIOUS “TREE OF LIFE,”
THE EVEN MORE MYSTERIOUS
“TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL,”
THE TALKING SNAKE, THE EXPLANATIONS OF “WHY” SNAKES CRAWL,
“WHY” WOMEN HAVE SO MUCH TROUBLE BEARING CHILDREN,
“WHY” WOMEN ARE SUBSERVIENT TO MEN,
“WHY” WORK IS OFTEN SO UNREWARDING,
AND THE EXPULSION FROM THE GARDEN,
IS BUT THE CULTURALLY ACCEPTABLE OUTWARD FORM
FOR CONVEYING THE AUTHOR’S REAL MESSAGE,
WHICH IS THEOLOGICAL, TRANSCENDS CULTURE,
AND STANDS FOR ALL TIME.
OUR AUTHOR’S “REAL,” OR DEEPER, MESSAGE IS THIS:
GOD IS CREATOR,
THERE IS A UNIQUE PERSON-TO-PERSON RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN GOD AND HUMAN BEINGS,
THERE IS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPOUSES,
THE TEMPTATION TO DISOBEY GOD
ORIGINALLY CAME FROM AN “OUTSIDE” FORCE OF EVIL,
HUMANKIND’S “FALL” WAS FREELY CHOSEN,
AND THE FACT THAT GOD CONTINUES TO BE IN RELATIONSHIP
WITH “FALLEN” HUMANITY.
AS WE READ GENESIS, CHAPTERS TWO AND THREE,
WE MUST CONSTANTLY BEAR IN MIND
THAT OUR AUTHOR DID NOT INTEND FOR HIS NARRATIVE
TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.
HE WANTED TO PROVIDE A THEOLOGICAL ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION OF WHY THERE IS SO MUCH
EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD,
ESPECIALLY IN CONNECTION WITH HUMANKIND.
OUR AUTHOR’S GOAL WAS THEOLOGICAL TRUTH.
TELLING THIS STORY WAS THE MEANS HE USED
TO REACH HIS GOAL.
# # #
WE ARE INTRODUCED TO TWO VERY CONSEQUENTIAL TREES
IN CHAPTER TWO: THE “TREE OF LIFE,”
AND THE “TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.”
THE “TREE OF LIFE,” LIFE MEANING IMMORTALITY,
RECALLS A COMMON THEME OF NEAR EASTERN MYTHOLOGY,
THE QUEST FOR EVERLASTING LIFE.
THE “TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL”
IS A SPECIFICALLY ISRAELITE CONTRIBUTION.
THE “TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL” IS SIMPLY THERE,
A PART OF LIFE.
TO EAT OF ITS FRUIT ENTAILS CERTAIN NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.
BY ORDERING HUMANKIND NOT TO EAT FROM THIS TREE,
GOD IS SIMPLY TRYING TO SHIELD US FROM EVIL, TO PROTECT US.
GOD, THE STORY LINE IMPLIES, SEES HUMAN BEINGS
AS QUITE CAPABLE OF KEEPING THIS COMMANDMENT;
OTHERWISE GOD WOULD NOT HAVE BOTHERED TO GIVE IT TO US.
THROUGH THE LITERAL DETAILS OF THE STORY
THE FOLLOWING THEOLOGICAL POINTS ARE REVEALED:
ABOUT GOD – THAT GOD’S BASIC ATTITUDE TOWARD HUMANKIND
IS ONE OF WANTING TO PROTECT US FROM DANGER.
ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS – THAT OUR RIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
IS ONE OF LOVING OBEDIENCE.
ABOUT THE NATURE OF LIFE – THAT DISOBEYING GOD
HAS INEVITABLE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES.
WHAT, HOWEVER, IS THE “TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD & EVIL?”
IT IS OBVIOUSLY A SYMBOL FOR SOMETHING. BUT WHAT?
FIRST OF ALL, “KNOWLEDGE,” FOR THE HEBREWS, MEANS NOT JUST
INTELLECTUAL COMPREHENSION, BUT LIFE EXPERIENCE AS WELL.
THUS, TO “KNOW” SOMETHING OR SOMEONE PRESUPPOSED
A CONNECTION, OR RELATIONSHIP,
BETWEEN THE KNOWER AND THE KNOWN.
SECONDLY, WHEN TWO EXTREMES ARE JUXTAPOSED IN HEBREW,
THE INTENT IS TO COVER EVERYTHING BETWEEN
THESE TWO EXTREMES.
“GOOD AND EVIL,” OF COURSE, ARE SPECIFICALLY MORAL TERMS.
THUS, THE JUXTAPOSITION OF “GOOD AND EVIL”
IS MEANT TO INCLUDE EVERYTHING IN THE MORAL DIMENSION.
NOW, PUTTING THESE TWO CONCEPTS TOGETHER,
“KNOWLEDGE” PLUS “GOOD AND EVIL,”
WHAT WE COME UP WITH IS “KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE
OF EVERYING PERTAINING TO MORALITY.”
UNFORTUNATELY, EVERYTHING PERTINENT TO MORALITY
INCLUDES IMMORALITY.
THUS, THE DANGER
OF THE “TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL” –
THE DANGER FROM WHICH GOD IS TRYING TO PROTECT HUMANKIND
WITH THE COMMAND NOT TO EAT OF ITS FRUIT –
IS THAT IT COULD SERVE AS THE DOOR, OR ENTRANCE,
INTO IMMORALITY, WITH ALL ITS DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES.
BUT, WHY, THEN, ASK MODERN MEN AND WOMEN, DID GOD ALLOW
THIS DANGEROUS TREE TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT TO EVEN ASK SUCH A QUESTION
IS ALREADY TO HAVE SLIPPED INTO TAKING THIS STORY
TOO LITERALLY.
OUR BIBLICAL AUTHOR IS NOT REALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF CERTAIN TREES,
BUT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL AND SUFFERING IN LIFE.
THIS PUSHES US TO REPHRASE OUR QUESTION:
“IF GOD IS SO GOOD, WHY DID GOD ALLOW EVIL IN THE WORLD
TO BEGIN WITH?”
OUR STORY DOES NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY.
IT DOES, HOWEVER, GIVE US A HINT IN TERMS
OF THE QUALITY OF THE RELATIONSHIP
WHICH IT ASSUMES EXISTS BETWEEN GOD AND HUMAN BEINGS.
OUR HEBREW AUTHOR ASSUMES THAT THIS IS A PERSONAL,
LOVING RELATIONSHIP, AND THAT IT IS BASED ON
THE HUMAN PERSON’S FREEDOM TO RESPOND OR NOT TO RESPOND,
TO OBEY OR NOT TO OBEY, GOD.
A RELATIONSHIP WHICH CANNOT BE REJECTED
MAY BE THE STRING CONNECTING PUPPET AND PUPPETEER,
BUT IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONS.
THUS, A CERTAIN RISK – THE POSSIBILTY, AT LEAST –
OF DISOBEDIENCE, HAD, IN A SENSE, TO BE “BUILT INTO”
THE GOD-PERSON RELATIONSHIP IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT
TO BE A REAL RELATIONSHIP.
OUR AUTHOR POINTS TO THIS RISK IN HIS SYMBOL OF THE
“TREE OF KNOWLEDGE”
AND GOD’S COMMAND NOT TO EAT FROM IT.
# # #
CHAPTER THREE IS DEVOTED ENTIRELY TO THE STORY OF “THE FALL.”
AGAIN, IT WILL BE OUR TASK TO LOOK BEHIND
THE CAPTIVATING IMAGES AND PROFOUND PSYCHOLOGY
TO SEE WHAT OUR AUTHOR IS REVEALING HERE
ABOUT THE NATURE OF EVIL, HUMANKIND, LIFE, AND GOD.
IN CONSTRUCTING HIS DRAMA,
OUR AUTHOR NEEDED A CHARACTER THROUGH WHOM
HE COULD INTRODUCE THE TRADEGY OF TEMPTATION AND FALL.
THE SNAKE, ESPECIALLY A TALKING SNAKE,
WAS THE PERFECT CHOICE FOR SUCH A CHARACTER.
THE SNAKE IS THE SYMBOL OF AN OUTSIDE PERSONAL FORCE OF EVIL
WHICH HAS SOMEHOW INSINUATED ITSELF INTO THE
GOODNESS OF CREATION.
OUR AUTHOR, OF COURSE, DOES NOT COME RIGHT OUT
AND SAY THIS.
TO DO SO WOULD HAVE BEEN TO WRECK HIS STORY LINE.
BUT IT IS UNMISTAKABLY IMPLIED IN THE SCRIPT.
TO BE “CRAFTY” (3:1a) – TO TRY TO MANIPULATE
RELATIONSHIPS AND EVENTS ACCORDING TO ONE’S OWN
ULTERIOR MOTIVES – ASSUMES A LACK OF INNOCENCE.
THIS LACK OF INNOCENCE BECOMES MANIFEST
WHEN THE SNAKE SAYS TO THE WOMAN: “DID GOD SAY,
‘YOU SHALL NOT EAT FROM ANY OF THE TREES IN THE GARDEN?’
(3:1b)
THIS MALICIOUS QUESTIONING OF GOD’S WILL
ON THE PART OF A CREATURE, PLUS THE DELIBERATE DISTORTION
OF GOD’S COMMAND (COMPARE THE SERPENT’S
“NOT TO EAT FROM ANY” WITH GOD’S ORIGINAL
“FREE TO EAT FROM ANY” IN 2:16)
ASSUMES THAT THE SERPENT WAS, IN SOME WAY,
ALREADY FALLEN, ALREADY POSSESSED BY EVIL,
BEFORE IT TEMPTED HUMANKIND.
AMBIGUITY, MALEVOLENCE, AND MISREPRESENTATION
ARE THE HALLMARK’S OF THE SERPENT’S STYLE AND CONTENT
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DIALOGUE WITH THE WOMAN.
LURKING JUST BEHIND THE TEXT IS THE SUPPOSITION
THAT THE SERPENT HAD ALREADY TURNED TO EVIL.
THUS, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A “FALL”
BEFORE THAT OF OUR HUMAN ANCESTORS.
THIS IS THE DIRECT IMPLICATION OF OUR STORY,
AN IMPLICATION WHICH WAS PICKED UP
BY LATER BIBLICAL AUTHORS AND GAVE RISE
TO SPECULATIONS AND STORIES ABOUT “SATAN,”
AND, FINALLY, “LUCIFER.”
THESE LATER STORIES AND SPECULATIONS ARE SIGNIFICANT –
NOT FOR THE LITERAL CONTENT OF THEIR DETAILS –
BUT BECAUSE THEY COMMUNICATE AN ESSENTIAL
THEOLOGICAL TRUTH OF JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY;
NAMELY, THAT GOD DOES NOT CAUSE OR TEMPT TO EVIL,
BUT THAT EVIL AND TEMPTATION ARE THE STOCK-IN-TRADE
OF A MIGHTY CREATED BEING WHO REBELLED,
TURNED AGAINST GOD, AND WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE
THE REST OF CREATION FOLLOW ITS LEAD.
THIS IS A CRUCIALTHEOLOGICAL INSIGHT.
IT SPARES JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY FROM THE NECESSITY
OF HAVING TO CONSIDER EVIL AS PART OF GOD.
AS WE APPROACH THE FAMOUS DIALOGUE BETWEEN
THE SNAKE AND THE WOMAN,
WE NEED TO EMPHASIZE THE FACT
THAT OUR BIBLICAL AUTHOR INTENDS TO IMPLICATE
ALL HUMANKIND, NOT JUST THE FEMALE HALF OF HUMANKIND,
IN THE FALL.
WE MUST ALWAYS BEAR IN MIND THAT OUR BIBLICAL AUTHOR
IS SPINNING A GOOD YARN,
AND THAT A GOOD YARN IN THAT TIME AND CULTURE
DICTATED THAT THE “FALL GUY” BE A WOMAN AND NOT A MAN.
IF SOMEONE WERE SPINNING A GOOD YARN
ABOUT THE “FALL” OF HUMANKIND IN OUR CULTURE TODAY,
I SUSPECT THAT THE “FALL GUY” WOULD BE A MAN
AND NOT A WOMAN.
THIS WOULD NOT, OF COURSE, EXCLUDE WOMEN FROM THE FALL
ANY MORE THAN OUR GENESIS STORY EXCLUDES MEN.
THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE SNAKE AND THE WOMAN (3:1-5)
HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A MASTERPIECE
ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TEMPTATION.
WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THE BRILLIANT DISTORTION CONTAINED IN THE SERPENT’S OPENING VOLLEY:
“DID GOD SAY, ‘YOU SHALL NOT EAT FROM ANY TREE
IN THE GARDEN?’” (3:1b)
THE WOMAN’S FIRST MISTAKE IS TO RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION.
SHE KNEW IT WAS DISTORTED, BECAUSE SHE CORRECTS IT
IN THE FIRST PART OF HER REJOINDER:
“WE MAY EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREES IN THE GARDEN;
BUT GOD SAID, ‘YOU SHALL NOT EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE
THAT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GARDEN…’ (3:2-3a)
NOTICE, HOWEVER, THAT AT THIS POINT, PRECISELY IN THE CONTEXT
OF HER DEFENSE OF GOD’S COMMAND,
SHE HERSELF SLIPS IN A SLIGHT DISTORTION.
SHE ELABORATES ON GOD’S COMMAND
BY ADDING THE PROHIBITION “OR EVEN TOUCH IT.” (3:3b)
AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE REST OF THE STORY,
THIS SEEMINGLY INSIGNIFICANT EXAGGERATION
PLANTS A SEED OF SUSPICION WHICH SOON LEADS
TO HER DOWNFALL.
SHE IS BEGINNING TO SEE GOD’S COMMAND
AS SENSELESS AND ARBITRARY.
THE SNAKE, OF COURSE, SENSES THIS,
AND DECIDES TO MAKE ITS FIRST BIG MOVE,
THAT OF DIRECTLY QUESTIONING GOD’S INTENTIONS.
FIRST, IT FLATLY CONTRADICTS GOD’S DESCRIPTION
OF THE CONSEQUENCES: “YOU WILL NOT DIE.” (3:4)
THE SNAKE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS THIS CONTRADICTION
WITH A MALIGN LITTLE PORTRAIT OF GOD, A CHARACTER SKETCH
WHICH MAKES GOD OUT TO BE A PETTY TYRANT
JEALOUS OF GOD’S OWN RIGHTS:
“FOR GOD KNOWS THAT WHEN YOU EAT OF IT
YOUR EYES WILL BE OPENED, AND YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD,
KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL.” (3:5)
THE SERPENT HAS NOW PLAYED ITS FULL HAND.
SENSING THAT THE WOMAN IS BEGINNING TO QUESTION
THE REASONABLENESS OF GOD’S COMMAND,
IT SKILLFULLY DEPICTS GOD AS SUPREMELY SELFISH.
THE SNAKE’S TACTICS ARE SPLENDIDLY SUCCESSFUL –
THE WOMAN IS NOW FULLY ON THE PATH OF RATIONALIZATION:
“…THE WOMAN SAW THAT THE TREE WAS GOOD FOR FOOD,
AND THAT IT WAS A DELIGHT TO THE EYES,
AND THAT THE TREE WAS TO BE DESIRED TO MAKE ONE WISE…”
(3:6a)
RATIONALIZATION, OF COURSE, PREPARES THE WAY
FOR THE ACTUAL ACT, WHICH SOON FOLLOWS:
“SHE TOOK OT ITS FRUIT AND ATE.” (3:6a)
THE COMMONPLACE ABOUT MISERY LOVING COMPANY
NOW COMES INTO PLAY:
“AND SHE ALSO GAVE SOME TO HER HUSBAND,
WHO WAS WITH HER, AND HE ATE.” (3:6b)
YOU WILL HAVE NOTICED HOW THE SNAKE USED ALL
THE ARTIFICE AND INTELLIGENCE AT ITS DISPOSAL
TO TEMPT THE WOMAN, REPRESENTING, OF COURSE,
ALL HUMANKIND.
NEVERTHELESS, THE WOMAN WAS NOT REALLY COERCED.
SHE FREELY CHOSE TO DISOBEY GOD.
WE HAVE HERE ANOTHER MAJOR THEOLOGICAL POINT:
THE FACT THAT THE FALL OF HUMANITY
WAS SELF-CHOSEN AND NOT FORCED,
NOT FORCED BY EITHER THE SNAKE OR BY GOD.
TO PARTICIPATE IN EVIL, THEN, WAS ORIGINALLY
A FREE CHOICE ON THE PART OF HUMANKIND.
WE HAVE ALSO SEEN HOW
THE “TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL”
PROVIDED A POSSIBLE POINT OF ENTRY FOR DISOBEYING GOD.
WE KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE STORY, THAT THE WOMAN
WAS TEMPTED TO EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THE FORBIDDEN TREE,
AND THAT THIS ACTION WOULD USHER IN IMMORALITY,
WITH ITS SELF-DESTRUCTIVE EXPERIENCE OF EVIL.
WHAT, HOWEVER, INSPIRED THE WOMAN TO DO THIS?
THE TEXT PRESENTS THE ESSENCE OF THE SERPENT’S TEMPTATION
IN ITS PRONOUNCEMENT THAT “YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD” (3:5a).
PRESUMABLY, THIS IS THE PART OF THE INVITATION
WHICH STRONGLY APPEALS TO THE WOMAN, AND NOT THE PART ABOUT “KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL,” (3:5b)
BECAUSE AT THIS POINT SHE WOULD NOT YET KNOW THE MEANING
OF THE WORDS “GOOD” AND “EVIL.”
SHE WOULD, HOWEVER, KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS
TO BE “LIKE GOD,” THROUGH HER OWN PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
WITH GOD.
WE CAN SEE HOW WANTING TO BE “LIKE GOD” WOULD HAVE BEEN
A POWERFUL TEMPTATION, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SNAKE’S
DEFIANT LITTLE CHARACTER SKETCH OF GOD AS ARBITRARY TYRANT.
WE CAN EASILY IMAGINE THE WOMAN THINKING TO HERSELF
SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF
“WHY SHOULD GOD HAVE ALL THE FUN?”
“WHAT RIGHT DOES GOD HAVE TO LORD IT OVER US LIKE THIS?”
HUMANITY, AS REPRESENTED BY THE WOMAN,
IS RAPIDLY COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT, TOO,
SHOULD HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING “LIKE GOD,”
AND THAT IF GOD WON’T GIVE THIS GIFT,
HUMANITY WILL JUST HAVE TO TAKE IT FOR ITSELF,
NOW THAT THE FRIENDLY SNAKE HAS SHOWN HOW.
WHAT THE BIBLICAL AUTHOR IS TELLING US THEOLOGICALLY
IS THAT THE ORIGINAL SIN – WHATEVER THE OUTWARD ACTION WAS – HAD TO DO WITH HUMANKIND’S ATTEMPT TO REJECT
ITS CREATURELY STATUS AND TO SET ITSELF UP AS A “GOD”
IN ITS OWN RIGHT.
INSTEAD OF A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD “IN GOD’S IMAGE,” WHERE A PERSON REFLECTS GOD TO THE REST OF CREATION,
AN ATTEMPT IS MADE BY HUMANITY TO SUBSTITUTE
ITS OWN IMAGE IN PLACE OF GOD’S.
THIS DEMAND ON THE PART OF HUMANITY TO BE LIKE GOD
UNDERMINES THE FOUNDATION OF THE ORIGINAL GOD-PERSON
RELATIONSHIP, WHICH WAS FOUNDED ON HUMANKIND’S
RESPONSIVENESS AND DEPENDENCY ON GOD.
AT SOME TIME IN THE DISTANT PAST,
OUR BIBLICAL AUTHOR IS TELLING US,
HUMANKIND MADE THE CHOICE TO CALL THE SHOTS
INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING GOD’S LEAD.
HUMANKIND DECIDED THAT IT WANTED TO RE-CREATE THE WORLD
IN ITS OWN IMAGE INSTEAD OF LEADING THE WORLD TO GOD.
NEXT WEEK WE WILL SEE HOW THIS MOMENTOUS DECISION
TO PLACE SELF AHEAD OF GOD LEADS TO THE FIRST MURDER,
THE STORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD BY A VAST FLOOD,
AND AN ATTEMPT TO STORM HEAVEN ITSELF.
IN TERMS OF IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR OWN DAILY LIVING,
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT WOULD BE THE WAYS
IN WHICH WE OURSELVES TRY TO BE “LIKE GOD.”
HOW HAS THIS PLAYED OUT IN YOUR OWN LIFE?
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO GIVE THE LEADERSHIP OF YOUR LIFE
BACK TO GOD?
AMEN.