Do things tend to make more sense looking back? For me, this is about 50/50, because I find I'm often still confused later, after the dust settles. The Creator of all matter, the One calling the things that are not into existence, He doesn't always explain Himself to me. I suppose part of the reason for this is that His answer wouldn't make any sense to me. This weekend I was challenged to view another reason, that I'm viewing creation and reading about the Creator from a perspective after the fall of humanity.
Okay, so what does that mean? I was asked by a fairly astute high school student yesterday, why would God put such a dangerous tree in the Garden of Eden? Why give us a choice, when we could have been ignorant and happy without one? It's not a new question, but it prompted me to consider the question. That question only makes sense on this side of the fall. Before that, before the snake lied, it didn't occur to Adam and Eve that the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" (the Tree of KoG&E) was an option. God said they would die, and that settled it.
Only now, when children opt for what is out of reach (the cookie in the cookie jar they've been told they can't have), that which is unknown, who seem driven to explore the dangerous, on this side of the fall, do we ask "why?" of our Creator. Because that question gets asked, and because we give it oxygen, it troubles us. Why create a "rigged system"? But, it wasn't rigged. It was fine until someone introduced another option, an option that contradicted the Creator at every point:
What are the limits?
God says any tree, except...
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; (Genesis 2:16 NASB)
The snake says no trees
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1 NASB)
Why the exception?
God says they will surely die
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:17 NASB)
The snake says you will surely not die, but will become like God
The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5 NASB)
What's the point of debate?
Think through these changes? The snake redefines for the couple what the tree of death means. Their Creator defined it as the knowledge of good and evil. The snake says that's not death, it actually makes you like your Creator. That may be a little hard to follow, but read through the verses again. The tree of Life and the tree of KoG&E were together in the middle of the garden. We would expect the tree opposite of life to be death, and, as it turns out, our Creator warns that death is actually the result of the tree of KoG&E.
But the snake challenges that. This "shrewd" animal claims that the tree of KoG&E simply gives what the name states, and nothing more. Inherent in that claim is also a challenge to what it means to die. The Creator claims they will surely die, and the snake says they will surely not die.
I find it ironic to a sad degree that most people agree with the snake. We tend to believe that the tree of KoG&E did what the snake said, and not what our Creator said. Why do we believe that? If that were true, why are there any more chapters? Why more books? Why send Jesus? I suspect that, deep down, we still want the cookie in the cookie jar.
I suspect that we still want the knowledge of good and evil for ourselves. We may be comforted by the thought that we simply have it now, inherently, and can't give it up. And yet, I think the whole point of walking with our Creator and Savior is that we leave off our KoG&E. We enter into this walk through a death, the substitutionary death of Jesus. And we continue this walk through power of His resurrection, in the presence of the Holy Spirit living within us.
We acknowledge that, but sill want to choose for ourselves to be like God knowing good and evil. But what's the alternative? What does this walk look like if it's not choosing the good and eschewing the evil? Do you believe that your Savior wants you to choose every day to do "good" stuff and avoid "bad" stuff? That can't be it, that can't be sufficient. If it were, then much of Scripture is wrong.
It's not choosing to do good, it is choosing to obey. Symantec difference, you say? When I obey someone I have a relationship with that person, it requires communication, understanding. If I'm doing whatever is good in my own eyes, then I'm the one choosing good & evil, and I'm eating from the wrong tree.
Obedience to my Savior requires me to communicate with Him. Obedience requires me to earnestly seek Him (Heb. 11:6). Obedience means that I listen to Him, I learn from Him, that I spend time with Him. I can obey rules, which requires no real relationship. But to obey a person requires more. And yes, I must choose to obey. But that choice is not deciding on the good and evil, but on the walk with a Person. And what I do is the good in His eyes.
So, I suppose the question for you this morning is from which tree will you eat? The call is to choose to walk with your Savior in the garden in the cool of the day. Bon apatite!
