Man, look at what the serpent, the evil one, Satan, whatever name you want to use, does here -- he starts by twisting God's words and then calls God a liar. He uses the same old, yet effective, tricks when he tempts Jesus in the desert. He succeeded with the first people, bringing sin and death into the world. He failed with Jesus Christ, the one who conquered sin and death once and for all.
He's also not a complete liar when he calls God one. After all, after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they knew good from evil. And they didn't die either, at least not physically, right away. But that's how sin is, isn't it? It doesn't look horrible and nasty most of the time. It looks pleasant and pleasurable. It might even look good or holy -- a shiny facade surrounding death and decay.
I noticed that Eve's eyes were not opened until after they both ate. It's interesting to think of what it would be if that was not the case -- what if Eve's eyes were immediately opened? There would be two possible outcomes as far as I see. The first is that she would knowingly drag Adam down into sin with her, which is quite a common effect of sin, isn't it? To quote a character in a film I wouldn't recommend watching -- "when you dance with the devil, the devil don't change -- the devil changes you." The second is that she would see the terrible thing that she did and try to prevent her husband from following, at all costs. I'm not sure how that second scenario would pan out. Obviously it doesn't matter because that's not what really happened -- it's just an interesting thought.
For this next one, I won't pretend I would have ever noticed this on my own -- but let's say that Adam and Eve's nakedness represents their sin. Becoming aware of it, they try to cover it themselves in making loincloths out of fig leaves. But we can't cover our own sin, can we? Absolutely not. God is the one who does the covering, with animal skins -- meaning blood had to be shed to cover their sin. That's a pretty awesome picture of the redeeming work Jesus did on the cross.
Notice how God says "Where are you?" and "Did you eat what I told you not to?" I hope no one actually reads that and thinks that God didn't really know. I read it and think of it like this -- say my kids ate some cookies from the cookie jar (that we don't have, but let's just say...) and I knew it. It was just before dinner time. There were crumbs on the counter and chocolate on their mouths. "Girls, did you any cookies from the cookie jar?" What, like I'm stupid? I'm just making a point with the question.
It's also kind of interesting they hid when they sinned. That's so like us, and it's even like my dog when she poops on the carpet. She's an idiot like us. "Gee, I know pooping on the carpet is going to bring all kinds of trouble down on me, but, man, I really want to poop on the carpet, so I'm going to do it anyway!" Then she hears me coming and puts herself in timeout in her box! Just don't poop on the dang carpet in the first place! But then, we, I, don't learn very quickly either...
I don't really get the whole cursing the snake thing. Some sort of symbolism over my head? Or maybe snakes were just a lot more awesome back in the day. I think the first is more likely.
But right after that is what appears to be the first promise of the plan to fix the whole mess Adam and Eve just made. An offspring of Eve crushing the serpent's head while the serpent bruises his heel. Well, let's see, crushing one's head pretty much kills them. Bruising one's heel, not so much. And the two go together. Could it be that Jesus defeated Satan completely with his death on the cross -- a fatal blow for the evil one that came at a price?
I think the next part where God talks to Eve gets misread a lot. Maybe I'm wrong, but telling the woman "and your husband shall rule over you" isn't some sort of command that says "hey dudes, you're the boss and your wife has to do what you say." Yeah, that makes for a great marriage. I think it's more God looking into the future and seeing what men are going to do because of their own sinful nature. Now don't get me all wrong here. I'm not saying their aren't different roles for men and women, nor I am saying that men are not to be the spiritual leaders of their own homes. I'm just saying that this doesn't look like a command saying how it must be, but rather a statement of how it's going to be.
I think the next part where God talks to Adam is pretty clear cut. The lesson here is "don't listen to your wife". Just kidding.
I talked about this "to dust you shall return" idea with my kids the other day. Smarties said, "Well you don't turn into dust!" So I asked them what happens when you stick a body in the ground. "It rots" my little one told me. "But there's bones!" I'm glad they're thinking. :-) Leave them long enough and it all gets mixed together. Dust.
There's that "us" part again with God. I guess it wasn't a fluke in the first chapter.
My kids were thinking about the next part too. "What if they ate the tree of life, and what if they ate it first?" they asked. That's cool they're asking questions, especially ones that God addresses in his Word. Now that they've sinned, he doesn't allow for it.
One thing I just noticed is that it seems man wasn't created automatically living forever. If they ate of the tree of life, yeah, but they didn't. And what do we see in revelation when all things are restored and made new? "To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." That's so cool. The tree of life, eternal life, at the beginning and end of God's story. The wrong choice made right.
And for those of my LDS friends reading this -- it's such nice tight wrapping up and closure of the whole big story in the Bible that makes me further baffled about why you hold dearly to the Book of Mormon. You have the whole story of God wrapped up from creation to new creation in the Bible. It's done, that's it, nothing more! I say this not meaning to turn you away from reading my posts -- I just want desperately for all junk "around" Jesus to be stripped away so that all that's left is him, because he is all we all need. The same goes for my Catholic and protestant friends as well -- if you've got a bunch of junk you don't need bolted on to Jesus, whatever it is, get rid of it!
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hey, were you talking about me in that last paragraph? :)
If the Bible clearly tells the whole story and contains everything you need, why do you suppose people fight so much over what it says? (Disclaimer: I don't consider the Bible to be a single book that communicates a unified message.)
That said, I agree with your point about shedding excess baggage that gets in the way of simple truths. It's just a matter of deciding what's the baggage and what are the simple truths. I don't have an easy key to that, though I know a lot of people think they do.
I was talking more about my family, but yes, you also.
Thanks for the honesty in your disclaimer, but then I'll just have to say you're wrong. It communicates what our big problem is and what God has done for us to solve it, and what we need to do.
Why do people fight about it? Lots of reasons. They see what it says but don't want to do it? They want to make up their own rules and twist the words of the Bible to fit them? They come into reading it with their own baggage and focus on minutia? They don't do what the Bible itself says and let "disputable matters" go and just be one in Christ? They don't have the Spirit to understand it in the first place?
Well, maybe the key isn't easy or maybe is very easy. If something is taking away from focus on Christ and getting off into other junk, that seems bad.
What I see some Mormons, Catholics, and protestants doing is quite the same. We'll go the Catholic route as a first example. A lot of focus on Mary, the saints, the sacraments, the Pope, a bunch of extraneous doctrine, and spending more time defending "we're the true church" than talking about Christ crucified.
Protestants are not exempt with these silly denominations, getting obsessed with trying to correlate Revelation to current events, arguing about how the proper way to baptize someone, what the church structure should be, and blah blah blah.
The Mormon church has parallels as well, but I'll just leave it at that. My intent is not to make a list of things to go argue about, but rather to point out that everyone needs to ask themselves "Is really for God's glory or not? Is my focus really on Christ or not?"
If it smells of "religion" and not personal relationship, dump it.
Do you think that it comes down to an individual ensuring that his or her own focus is where it should be?
And if so, can a person with this proper focus exist in even the organizations that you see as generally tending to add unnecessary elements to one's faith? Could some of what's baggage to one be a genuine spiritual aid to another?
Why is the Bible itself (or at least many parts of it) exempt from being grouped with these other "extras?" Can't people be led on good or bad paths when they try to follow the Biblical text, just as with anything else? The bad might be due to error, but I don't think it's always due to a lack of sincerity. Most people in the organizations you named would claim to have the goal of following Jesus as found in the Bible, however they might interpret what they find in its books.
Sorry if I come across as argumentative. As you know, I enjoy talking about this sort of stuff. I usually resist but the LDS part impelled me to jump in this time. :) Feel free to drop the thread, or we can take it to e-mail if it's interesting to you.
I'll address the first two paragraphs in a pile of rambling (and frankly I put them off until the end and came back and answered them last, FWIW). If it looks like my train of thought goes off halfway through, that's why. :-)
(My post apparently is too long, so I'll split it up into two!)
I'll say yes to each person ensuring their focus is where it needs to be, to an extent. I think you need correction and guidance through prayer and through the Word of course. And I think there is benefit in counsel from a body of believers when needed. But absolutely, we are supposed to "test ourselves to see if we are in the faith" -- prayerfully examine our thoughts/actions, and the motives behind them. Are we really doing things for God's glory or not? Are we pointing to Jesus or pointing to something else?
I'll also say yes to their being bona fide Christians in other groups than say an evangelical, or more general, protestant, church. I'll also say there are plenty of lukewarm people in the protestant churches as well that are in dire straits. And yes, I think it is possible for "one man's trash is another's treasure" so to speak -- but if, for most people, it's hindering more than helping, would we just be better off without it? For example, I don't see how the doctrines the Catholic church teaches about Mary or this hierarchy headed by the Pope could possibly help someone grow closer to Jesus.
Frankly, Mormons and Catholics create a conundrum for me. Not from all the history, doctrines developed over time, evidence for/against the claims of each, etc. -- I mean more the "day to day average" Mormon or Catholic church goer. The conundrum is this -- all of us claim belief in a Jesus that died on the cross for our sins. Okay, good. What else is needed? If it's "Jesus' sacrifice plus something", that's wrong from what I read and believe. But let's say we all line up there in our own personal understanding (some don't of course, but that's a different argument). Okay, now what? You have three people of very different "religions" if you will that bank their salvation on their faith in Christ. What if all three believe different extra stuff? What if all three believe something different about the nature of Jesus? You know what? I don't really know. I know some would say you're going to hell if you don't have that down right, but I can't go there. I mean, really, how much did the thief on the cross or those early believers "get" about the nature of Jesus? I read the Bible, and it says to put your faith in Christ to be saved, not get your theology spot on.
So, it troubles me. It troubles me because Mormonism and Catholicism has a bunch of extra stuff I don't see when I read the Bible, and I see a lot of that extra stuff taking people away from Christ and pointing to religious ritual (and when I write this I am thinking more of "folk Catholicism" prevalent in other areas of the world, but the idea applies elsewhere). So that's where I come from when I say strip it all away -- it seems to be unbiblical, unnecessary, and even unhealthy spiritually for many. That's why I say you just need Jesus and your pointer to him, the Bible. Start throwing extra things around it, and you have to be careful they don't take away from what you really need.
And now to the part I wrote first...
If you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, I don't think it can be an extra, but an absolute necessity. It's our guide and measuring stick. That doesn't discount the work of the Spirit in our lives, but, as the Bible says, our hearts our deceitful and Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. So when we get thoughts in our minds about something, we have a point of comparison. Jesus said that "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" and frequently quoted scripture. If Jesus held the Bible (the Old Testament anyway, which pointed to him) so highly, how can his followers not?
I don't think if you're born again of the Spirit you can fall into grievous error trying to follow the Bible, as the Spirit illuminates, guides, and convicts a person as well. Where I think a person falls into bad error is when they either are trying to follow the Bible under their own power without being led by the Spirit, or they are twisting the text to fit their own ideas rather than letting it shape them. This happens more easily when someone takes a verse or passage out of context rather than taking it in context with the chapter, the book, and the Bible as a whole. I've you've got the "big picture" I don't think you can go wrong when you approach the Word properly with a humble and open heart.
Yet, we live in a fallen world, so sadly we have these divisions over the Words -- people disagreeing over (usually) minor points and making mountains out of them -- and then further not following what it says and chalking their disagreements up to "disputable matters" and staying united.
I hope that helps -- I don't know how to adequately explain it better with words than that. All I know is that I was living a self-indulgent life with a rotten heart, I came to believe the Bible was true and believe that Jesus was Lord and died on the cross for my sins, and I cried out to him to save me. When I did I experienced an overnight transformation and was hungry for more knowledge about God, which I get from the Bible. It helps me better understand God's character and how I should think and act. The biggest problems I have are accepting deep down how to be more like Christ, and how to love people deeply, and executing. My flesh fights against that daily.
For example, think about Romans 9 where Paul writes about how he wishes that he was cut off from Christ for the sake of his own people. I can read that and understand the words he is saying. But I can't possibly see how he could love people that much, and he urges others to imitate him as he imitates Christ. Or think about where Jesus commends the poor widow for giving more than the religious dudes because she gave everything she had to live on while they gave out of their extra. Who are we more like, especially in this culture? Easy to understand, but to really and truly live it is another matter. Thank God for patience and grace.
You are not sounding argumentative at all. I'm happy to talk with you, and I absolutely get how the LDS parts will trigger something and suck you in. :-) I felt I was a little harsh with some of my words in my previous comment also, so forgive me if I come across badly as well. It's both easier to be more hard and misread tone in writing than in person I think.
I'm happy to talk about whatever you would like, except maybe politics and basket weaving.
Take care my friend!
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Don't worry about sounding "harsh" when talking to me. I won't be offended even if you do so on purpose to emphasize a point that you feel strongly about.
It sounds as if we're basically in agreement that people can be on the right track or the wrong track in any organization. It's hard for me to say which structures, rituals, teachings, books, and traditions found in various religions ultimately help, distract, or harm people. Sometimes it seems obvious, but not always.
"If you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, I don't think it can be an extra, but an absolute necessity."
I don't mean to discount the Bible's importance to Christians--what I was getting at is even within the books of the Bible are things that I'd see as "extras." For me, a more careful reading of the Bible has led me toward the view that it's a mixture of truths and cultural baggage. That and my interest of late in books about the origins of the Biblical books and how they came together over time.
Now I'm curious. Any examples you'd care to share? We don't necessarily need to start a whole other thread on whatever you post (though you know me...) but I think it would help me understand your point of view better.
I see all the books all fitting together to talk about man's state apart from God, God's character and promises, how to live and relate to others, and so on. Definitely many different styles of communication and perspectives, but all pointing at the same overall things.
Admittedly I'm probably thinking intentionally at a more zoomed out level and really have done in depth looks at any one book (or set of books) itself.
Take the book of Jonah for example. Kind of an odd short tale to be in there that seems to be about this guy name Jonah. But reading it with the big picture in mind (a number of times for thick heads like me...), you see that it really serves primarily to illustrate God's unrelenting grace (and compassion and sovereignty, and some other stuff that is all over the rest of the Bible as well) -- hence the lake of a Jonah chapter 5, as the book really isn't about Jonah. Maybe that doesn't help at all, but I thought I'd throw it out there. :-)
Oh, I'm not talking so much about how the books fit together conceptually, but how they were actually assembled historically. Which ones were included and why, who actually wrote the books vs. whose name is on them (much of which is speculation, of course), and so on.
There are certainly threads that seem to unify the books, especially within the New Testament, but there are also things that seem pretty incongruous, perhaps most notably the portrayal of God's character from book to book and between the Old and New Testament.
Just to cite one example, did God really tell the Israelites to kill everyone in Jericho? Why not use nature to do it rather than have people do something so terrible? And why was it necessary at all to kill even babies? Sure doesn't sound like something Jesus would endorse.
Post a Comment