What caught my attention in this verse is that the fact that Eve seems to have thought her excuse for sinning - having been deceived, to be a valid one. Now, it is true that she was deceived. However, what follows in the account shows that the fact that her sin happened as a result of deception did not exempt her from suffering the consequences of disobedience.
When we are under deception we act in a certain way because we believe it is the right way. We really believe we are doing what we should. Once we realize something is deception (in time to hold back), then we are not deceived. So, to be deceived means to act upon conviction that something is right.
There are two aspects of this that could affect our relationships with God that I perceive deriving from this:
(1) A potential tendency to justify sin
At times we, too, may be tempted to think that our sin can be excused if it is the result of deception. We may not phrase it quite like that, but we could be prone to think that if we did what we REALLY deemed to be right, we should be somehow excused. We may rely on the idea that what we really think is right (in other words, acting unintentionally against His command) is the standard by which God deals with sin. Yet we learn from Eve’s case that this is not true. *
After all, isn’t temptation most of the times disguised? Isn’t the devil always trying to cover things, to make them look like something else than they really are? And therefore isn’t sin most of the times the result of deception?
So what chances do we have then?? Well, in his justice, God does not require from us anything more than obedience to what He has revealed to each one of us. The light we have been given is different from person to person and progressive, but always compelling. (A question to consider is how seriously we take that which has been revealed to us)
**
(2) Subtle implicit blasphemy
When God’s command is made plain, doing something we think is right that opposes God’s command is admitting that what we think is right is more important than what God thinks/said. It is raising ourselves above God (self-idolatry?) And trying to excuse sin on grounds of deception implies holding that it is reasonable to place our thinking above God’s.
So, what I am learning from Genesis 3:13 is that it’s crucial to obey God’s word. Even when we don’t’ feel there are satisfactory explanations on a requirement, even when we don’t really understand everything, we are called to a genuine obedience of his commands.
And, although obedience of God includes keeping the Ten Commandments ***, it is not limited to them. Obedience to God is called for in everything He said - again, whether in the Bible or to us individually, in whatever manner.
And if we keep in mind that God has the entire picture before Him, while we only see pieces of the puzzle, we will find it easier to trust Him. Also, the choice to obey Him is truly a sweet savor when made with the awareness that all God requires from us is for our best, that his commands are not some arbitrary manipulative orders, but infinitely loving providential guidance.
And now three side notes.
*A question to ponder – is sincerity of heart enough of a criteria by which our actions are weighed up? Eve probably thought sincerely that what she was doing was OK; her disobedience was not intentional rebellion against God... So I don’t know.. “The serpent deceived me”, she said. He deceived her to believe that it was OK to eat of the fruit. And she thought it was OK. While it’s true that God looks upon the heart, is that to be understood as canceling out the duty of a command made known to us?
** I need to mention that my reference to sin as action is only serving the purpose of generalizing a pattern, with Eve’s example as starting point. The same extends over anything that is sin, including merely internalized thought. So this is not a legalistic plea for salvation through works. We are saved through grace, by faith in the blood of Jesus (to which I add Ellen White’s often used statement “We are saved from sin, not in sin”). But obedience is a requirement that extends beyond the issue of salvation, because obedience to God is a timeless necessity. It was required before the fall, after the fall, and will be required after Jesus’ second coming, throughout eternity.
*** I don’t really understand people when they try to defend God, by redefining the Ten Commandments into positive statements - to make them look more loving. Again, it’s implicitly stating "God, you could have said it better". And to think that is the one part of the Bible "carved" by His very fingers! Is prohibition unloving by definition?
2 comments:
You bring up a lot of good questions and I was curious what Ellen White had written about Eve in Patriarchs and Prophets. It is an interesting chapter, but this stuck out to me in particular:
“Eve really believed the words of Satan, but her belief did not save her from the penalty of sin. She disbelieved the words of God, and this was what led her to fall. In the judgment men will not be condemned because they conscientiously believed a lie, but because they did not believe the truth, because they neglected the opportunity of learning what is true.” (PP55)
In my understanding, part of Eve’s mistake is that she thought the act of eating the fruit was her sin – and yes, she was deceived into that. But her true sin came before that, when the serpent suggested that God had been holding back on her and didn’t have her best intentions in mind… she decided not to trust God, and she was not deceived into that.
As for the Ten Commandments being restated positively, I can see where you’re coming from, but maybe there is room for both. After all, Jesus stated them both negatively (you’ve heard it said don’t murder, but I tell you don’t hate) and positively (love God and your neighbor as yourself).
Thanks for this thought-provoking blog!
Thanks Jason!
I am glad you’ve looked up the chapter in Patriarchs and Prophets! I myself was curious what she had to say on this, but, momentarily, I don’t have access to her writings.
And you make a pertinent observation based on her words: that Eve’s fault was primarily that of distrusting God -which was a choice she made. Believing a lie is consequent to disbelieving something true; for truth was there first. One cannot be deceived to believe something that is not true unless there is first some truth to be distorted (it's like the illustration of a hole in the carpet: the hole exists only because there is a carpet; if there was no carpet, there was no hole) So, deception is a result of a choice to reject the truth we’ve been given – which is really the sin, and this also invalidates any excuse of sin on grounds of “deception”. Makes sense. I really appreciate this clarification. Thanks!
I agree with you that there is room for positive, as well as negative ways of expressing commands. And like you mentioned, Jesus used both. I guess what I am a little concerned is that sometimes we feel like we need to excuse and defend God before other humans, because we feel kind of ashamed that He did not say it the way we’d think it to be most appropriate (could be a cultural thing too) In a Revelation class, one of my professors said some things along these lines: “God is not ashamed of the vocabulary in this book; nor of the symbolism; neither of the actions. He inspired it, and is perfectly aware of what it sounds/looks like. But we are ashamed, and we feel like it is our duty to excuse God before others.” I think it is the same with the Ten Commandments, or other parts of the Bible we don’t’ feel very comfortable with... We try to defend, but "he who defends accuses", as the saying goes..
Post a Comment