Internal Contradiction
“But of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you shall not eat of it; for in that day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Genesis 2:17
But – “Don’t eat those cookies!” Mom was emphatic. She pointed to the freshly-baked chocolate-chip cookies on the counter. The message was clear, but when she returned to the kitchen, six cookies had mysteriously vanished and been replaced by crumbs on little David’s face.
“I told you not to eat those. Why did you disobey?” she scolded.
David answered. “I didn’t know what you meant. I don’t understand the difference between right and wrong.” (David was a very intelligent six-year-old.)
Would you accept such an excuse? Not on your life! You might have a good laugh at the clever answer, but you know that your child does know the difference between right and wrong, so he is responsible and culpable.
Ah, but what about Adam? If eating from the Tree gives him the ability to distinguish between good and evil, then before he eats, he can’t know the difference. And if he doesn’t know the difference, then how can he possibly respond to God’s command? Little David might not have a legitimate excuse about not knowing, but Adam certainly does. His response to God should have been, “Wait a minute. How could I know it was wrong to eat from that Tree until after I ate from it? I did it, but I’m not guilty. I didn’t know it was wrong.”
God does not accept this excuse from Adam. God clearly expects Adam to understand the command and recognize the difference between obeying and disobeying. That is the entire purpose of the word “but”. What does that mean? It can only mean one thing. Adam already knew the difference between right and wrong before he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, whatever knowledge came with eating from the Tree, it cannot be the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong as we understand it today. It’s time to re-think the story. It’s time to pay attention to what it really says, not what we have assumed that is says.
Fortunately, some very smart and godly men have thought about this dilemma. One of them is Rabbi David Fohrman of the Hoffberger Foundation for Torah Studies. He cites Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, stating that “the tree did not give us moral awareness when we had none before. Rather, it transformed this awareness from one kind into another.” After eating from the Tree, humanity’s innate sense of moral awareness was transformed from concepts of true and false to concepts of good and evil. Genesis describes the tree as desirable, and our concepts of good and evil, unlike our concepts of true and false, also have an implicit measure of desire. What happens after eating from the Tree is that another element enters into the determination of correct moral behavior. That element is my desire. Before eating from the Tree, correct moral behavior was determined by listening to the voice of God. Moral decisions are either true (reflecting what God says) or false (not in alignment with what God says.) But after eating from the Tree, all moral decisions must now be dealt with in the context of what I want. My voice becomes competition with God’s voice. My decisions are no longer simply true or false. Now they are either good (for me) or bad (for me). Now I must decide between what God desires and what I desire. And the world changed – forever.
This is not the end of the story. But it helps us see a different beginning. Maybe it also helps us see just how much the role of our desires plays in our determination of good and evil. Once we understand how deeply seated the concept of desire is in the theology of sin, lots of things change. But one thing must be clear. God built desire into the heart of Man. The question is not getting rid of desire. Rather, it is learning to listen to God’s voice in order to direct the passion of desire.
Everything important happens in the first four chapters of Genesis.
Topical Index: Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, desire, moral choices, Genesis 2:17
Thanks Skip, this is truly a facinating passage of scripture. I was pondering this in light of a couple of things. First though it is not mentioned until Genesis 6 man was obviously created with all that encoupasses the word for Heart. From Frank Seekins book the heart is the word “lev” which in the Anient Hebrew pictures means “what controls the inside”. Now we come back to this passage in Gen 2:16-17 and we see a couple of interesting arangments of Hebrew Pictures. The Word Picture for “el” means strong authority and in verse 17 the word for “thou shall not” is “la” which is the Hebrew picture for hooked or controled strongly. “la” is the pictures used to make “el” reversed. A warning of where the authority is? Then we have the word used for eat. This also uses the letters found in “el” and “la” except it inserts the “kaf” or bent/open hand. The Ancient Hebrew lexicon has this definition – “The pictograph “kaf” is a picture of the bent palm reprsenting the bending or subduing of the will, the “lamed” is a picture of a shepherd staff or yoke. Combined these mean to “tame for the yoke”. An animal or land that is tamed has been worked and is complete and ready for use. The word for eat is derived from this root. One eats when the harvest is complete. All of these words and pictures seem to point this passage in a direction of where man is to place “what controls the inside” – Is the authority to be our maker, or do we submit the “heart” to other things that may “hook or control us strongly”.
Thank you for this. Great images. I have more work to do.
Skip
Speaking of the number four:
The so called “semantic rectangle” of AJ Greimas was one of the most important things I ever learned for interpreting literary texts (hermenuetics).
It is a formal, logical, device that breaks out semantic content into four logical oppositions: good, bad, not-good, and not bad, for example.
For example, the political content of a Tolstoy novel (narrative structure) could be seen in terms of its liberal, conservative, revolutionary, or reactionary positions.
We have four seasons, four elements, four important letters for Jews (YHWH) and Catholics (INRI).
Time and space cuts the world into four quadrants as do all literary texts from this perspective.
Relational databases (Oracle) and EXCEL spreadheets are based on this structure (matrix).
In the high tech world, the Gartner Group’s “Magic Quandrant” is the standard of excellence for products and companies.
In short the number 4 is a fascinating number, probably related to a “deep structure” of the mind.
I consider myself a “historicist” who uses the “tools” provided by structural linguistics
hey skip this was a good word! my head is full!so many lessons in Gods word…work with me here…wondered if God knows all…that adam and eve would sin..why the creation..only to issue consequences…john said you have an interesting take on this all knowing God….also interesting that he spoke to adam about the tree before eve was created. I write in thoughts so i hope you get me! tara
Hey Skip,
Just curious about something…in this piece you referred to Rabbi David Fohrman as a “godly man”. That puzzles me. Only a quick look at his website left me with the impression that he is just a Jew, unregenerate, not born again and without the spirit of God. Not a completed Jew or as they say a Jew for Jesus. So I’m just concerned and confused that you would refer to a man who is stuck in his sins, self righteously trying to live by the law, and a despiser of Christ, or at best someone who thinks he was “just a good teacher.” How is it that this kind of a man is godly?
I think you can call him smart although the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom so maybe not even that! But isn’t calling him godly off base? Especially in light of: Rom 8:8+9 “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of His.” and here are some others that I think apply Jn 14:6, Rom 3:20, Rom 7:5, Jn 3:3, Acts 2:38-39 are especially powerful as the climax of Peter’s sermon to the Jews themselves.
So that is my argument and concern…am I just wrong? Is this man a believer in Jesus and just doesn’t mention it on his website? Or are you calling him a godly man knowing that he in fact is a mocker of the savior? If you have the time would you help me to see where I am wrong and why? I would really appreciate it…because for the life of me I can’t understand how an unbeliever could be considered “godly”.
endeavoring to be helpful here not argumentative for the sake of argument,
Chuck
Dear Chuck,
I do think David Fohrman is a “godly” man, but perhaps my definition isn’t quite as restrictive as yours. You seem to suggests that someone cannot be godly unless they are a Christian, that is, unless they have a personal relationship with Christ. However, the word “godly” is really an adjective that describes characteristics that display the same attributes we find in God. For example, a man of peace (shalom) would be called godly. So would people who display compassion, mercy, long-suffering, a passion for Torah, genuine seeking for God’s ways, etc. Of course, some of these characteristics are found in people who do not have a personal relationship with Christ, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to name just three. While you may be correct about Fohrman’s Jewish stance, perhaps that only means that he has yet to discover that the God he follows has already offered His Son. Perhaps our Christian intolerance of anyone “outside” to circle of personal relationship is part of his resistance. What I know is this: the man understands the ways of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. He is a God-seeker in that sense, and if God decides to lead him to the Messiah, then I suppose God will do so. In the meanwhile, what he sees in the Scripture is so valuable that I will continue to be honored to study under him. I don’t think that people who genuinely pursue the knowledge of YHWH but who have not yet seen the truth of Yeshua can be called mockers of the savior. Who am I to say what God is going to do with these people or how this fits into His plan? After all, we are not dealing with someone who rejects our God, who lives in disregard to God’s instructions or who blasphemes His name. When you think about it, every Jew that Jesus encountered is in exactly the same position as David. It’s just a matter of time.
Skip
Thanks for taking the time to respond Skip. It looks like we fundamentally disagree and unless you can show me how I am applying/interpreting those verses incorrectly then your opinion, while helpful to understand where you are coming from, is not powerful or persuasive to change my convictions based on the only truth in this world the word of God.
If you would like to continue this discussion privately I would like that, if you are too busy or just not interested I understand and will take no offense.
best,
Chuck
Last Sunday, I asked our Sunday School class to consider “being right” (having correct information or theology) vis-a-vis “being righteous” (having a correct relationship with God thru Christ). We discussed the importance of having correct information but also the incredible dangers (self-righteousness, self-deception, inactive head-knowledge and ultimately, pride). We looked at Prov 3:5-6 that warns against “leaning on our own understanding (discernment)” and instructs us instead to “trust in the Lord” and to “acknowledge (form of “yada”) Him” and He will make our paths straight (correct living). It seemed to us that “being righteous” was a higher priority than just “being right” (or worse, thinking we were right when we might not be right).
We then looked at this matter of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” I suggested that “good and evil” here might be a bit different than our usual understandings of these terms, i.e. “good” being God’s perfect ordered and functioning creation and “evil” being dysfunction and chaos against God’s perfect ordered and functioning creation….It seemed to me that whether Adam and Eve were completely “innocent” (naked) and had either no understanding or discernment of “good or evil”, the real issue wasn’t their “knowledge” but whether as free moral agents, they would choose to obey or disobey the only standard of “good and evil” that they had been asked to “discern” which was God Himself. Pre-fall, Adam/Eve were in perfect union and communion with God (right relationship) – God’s grace (undeserved supply of all that humans would ever require for full biological and spiritual life) and God’s truth (submission to God’s authority thru His commands) was the standard for this right relationship with God. This relationship wasn’t marked by having correct information but by having a correct relationship with God. What more did they need to know other than to “Trust God with all their hearts and not lean on their own understanding?” The offer then – or test – of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was to participate and partake, not in more information, but instead to “be like God” (Satan’s call to disobedience) by purchasing the lie that there was a mechanism by which Adam/Eve could establish their own standard for “knowing” between good and evil….Therefore, what Adam/Eve did by partaking of this forbidden tree was to deny God’s standard for correct relationship with Him (righteousness by God’s grace and by obedient submission to God’s truth) – they slapped God in the face and told Him, not that they did not have “enough information” but that “relationship with Him” was no longer sufficient for them to live “rightly” in God’s ordered creation…..To me then, “being right” (correct info/theology) is a byproduct and should never be the first order of priority but rather, “being righteous” (only thru and because of Christ’s righteousness) is the first foundation to true spiritual discernment (knowledge of good and evil).
This then becomes God on God’s terms and not God on my terms. It is no longer me determining the standard for righteousness (no matter how right I think my theology might be) but me submitting to His righteousness, which begins first with right relationship rather than just “being right.” (Rom 10:1-2 where Paul prays that God’s chosen ones [Israel] will be “saved” and then describes the problem with Israel – they would not submit to God’s righteousness but created their own standard for righteousness).
Hi David,
I think you have expressed your very profound thoughts very elegantly and tend to agree with what you say.
It seems to me that we all share a passion for the “truth” and that this passion drives our desire to “uncover” the correct interpretation of the text.
In this process we sharpen our mental “tools” and refine our spiritual awareness.
Unfortunately, this “path” seems to contain its own internal contradiction, which leads to self righteousness and pride.
And while I agree with Skip that we do not respect what we consider to be false beliefs, I have met a number of people in my life who on the one hand seem to be relatively ignorant of my view of the truth and yet on the other seem to radiate a love of God and act in a righteous manner.
Hello Michael:
When I think of godly men and women in my life, I generally am not left with wondering what their theology might be…I just know that they are “walking with God” in ways that are simply more profound and substantive than just being people who have correct theology (information).
And how many of us have met the exact opposite? Men or women who have taken on God’s banner of “truth” and get right in your face with it (sort of like the people who put their high beam lights on you as you pass them on the roadway). Self-righteousness (having all the “right” answers) operates this way and is neither attractive nor inviting…and we know it cannot be God-honoring either.
In the past several years, I have really been meditating on the richness of being in a true and personal relationship with Christ. We profess this “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” but I wonder if we truly live the reality of just how “personal” this relationship really is. The imagery of this for me is my father – a faithful and godly man to his Lord, to his wife, to his church and to his calling (missionary for 40 years) and yet hardly a theologian in the educated sense but someone who toward the end of his life and while suffering from extreme vertigo, could be overheard getting up in the middle of the night and deathly sick from his dizziness, talking and asking for “Jesus to help Him” in just as real a way and as personal a way as if Jesus was physically there right with him. At that point in his life, having the “right” information (theology, worldview, truth whether Greek or Hebraic etc.) was almost irrelevant…only a personal Jesus (the Truth) mattered.
This is what I find so inviting about Skip….this is a man who senses and communicates not just head knowledge but you can feel his heart and love for His Lord in his words. That invitation to not only be challenged by him but also to participate in this community is something both my wife and I welcome.
Looking forward to getting to know you better perhaps (if not through words, perhaps in person someday – only the Lord knows).
Hello David,
Your story is very powerful and moving to me. It speaks directly to my heart. And strikes me as a great example of the Truth.
I can relate to your experience with your father because my wife suffers from serious depression, anxiety, and hostility and we have two young children to raise.
I appreciate your response and look forward to our friendship.
Dear David,
Thanks once more for your insightful contribution. I have written quite a bit more about the Tree. You will see it soon (about a week) on Today’s Word. It adds some additional Hebrew depth to your comments. This is exciting stuff since it leads us to see the real issue with sin. It is NOT morality. It is far more important. Just wait.
Skip
I just read your article genesis 2:17 “Internal Contradiction” and found it very interesting. The desire is really what gives us the additional dimention of choice, since now we have our own will that conflict’s with God’s.
It is like the “Terible twos” of a child. The first two years of child’s life he is totally depended on his parents, looks up to them and obeys, mainly because he does not have his/hers judgment developed yet to make his own choices. But than at the age of two his own will (=desire) kicks in and than his first “I don’t want to…” surfaces. The conflict between what he wants and the parents’ will. It will take a while untill the child will learn to make the concientious choices that will please his parents and keep his own identity coming from a place of real understanding why is he doing what he is doing (= choice of good and evil). Thanks, Chava.