Geoff's Miscellany

Miscellaneous Musings

Geoff

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

by Leave a Comment

Main Point:

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is meant to impart knowledge of good and evil through the constant practice necessary to say, “No” to the desire to eat from a tree with tasty fruit.

Minor Point

God never offers instant wisdom in Scripture, but instead treats wisdom as a good to be sought over time. So whatever Adam and Eve receive when their eyes were opened in Genesis was either evil in itself or evil because they were not ready for it.

In my effort to make those two points, things got circuitous.

The Tree

And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
(Genesis 2:8-9 ESV)

Was there really a tree with fruit that conferred knowledge upon its eater? Initially, the idea seems silly. But eating an apple confers knowledge of the taste of an apple. And if you eat a fig and it kills you, your fellow tribesmen know that the fruit is poison. If it does not poison you, you now know a reliable food source. In this sense, knowledge is conferred by the consumption of fruit.

Knowledge of Good and Evil?

But how is it possible that the Bible, which lauds the value of knowledge of good and evil, starts out with a command from God not to eat of a tree which allegedly confers this very knowledge? In Genesis, it appears that God is opposed to the very knowledge that is apparently necessary to please him.

If we read this story in its canonical context, we can see some of what the Biblical authors thought it meant to obtain “knowledge of good and evil.” The Bible is clear that growing in knowledge and wisdom is a process which God intended to take place over time. For instance:

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
(Hebrews 5:14 ESV)

 

And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
(Colossians 1:9-12 ESV)

Maturity of the sort which allows for solid food (explanation of deep knowledge of God) comes from “constant practice” of discerning good from evil. And being filled with knowledge of God’s will is implied to be a process when it leads to “bearing fruit in every good work.” The road of easy knowledge and instant wisdom is a road unknown in Scripture. We know from elsewhere in Scripture that God’s will is that people grow in wisdom over time. We also know that God forbids some things that aren’t intrinsically immoral. An example of this can be found in various dietary and fashion restrictions in the Old Testament. So it’s not knowledge of good and evil that is forbidden. It’s knowledge of good and evil that could result from not eating of the tree.

My thinking is that in Genesis, the tree is named “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” because having a moral prohibition helps human beings learn moral reasoning, particularly in a world in which things are made to be a hierarchy of goods (Genesis 1). For instance, many things God did not command are morally wrong. God never told anybody not to murder. Yet, Cain’s murder of Abel was immoral and led to punishment.

Similarly, God never commanded anybody to worship, but Cain and Abel innovated sacrifice. In fact, eating meat was neither commanded nor prohibited, Abel did it (as is evident by his sacrifice from his flock) and was not reprimanded. And so it appears that the point of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to show that in the hierarchy of goods there are many conflicts and difficulties (it’s wrong to kill humans but not animals), but that explicit rejection of God’s instructions is usually bad (though at times, God has spoken things he apparently did not want obeyed or put into practice at all, see Ezekiel 20:25-26 and Exodus 32).

Possible Corollaries

If what I outlined above is true, it seems that the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were made innocent, but not perfect. This makes more sense to me. In Genesis 103, it is clear that they are not immortal. They understand death and they also can only obtain immortality by eating from another tree (the tree of life).

This is helpful for general theology/anthropology/theodicy as it is evidence to the effect that God’s purpose in making man was to make a being who would/could grow into moral and spiritual maturity in the face of risks to that process. In other words, the pay off for the possibility of moral development is worth significant potential and actual downsides.

It also helps us understand the fall. A being of perfect righteousness and wisdom would not be able to fall from grace.

 

 

Christianese: Don’t think about it, just let God tell you what to say

by Leave a Comment

The Christianese

Some Christians are unjustifiably skeptical of putting deep thought into their faith. This stems from misunderstanding key Bible passages, in this case, we’ll look at Matthew 10:16-20. I’ve written a lot about  this passage, but with regard to being wise like serpents.

The Passage

Let’s read the passage:

16 Behold, I am sending you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. 17 Now, beware of people. For they will hand you over to the Sanhedrin, and in their synagogues they will flog you; 18 then they will bring you before rulers and kings because of me in order to be a testimony to them and the nations. 19 Now, when they hand you over, do not be anxious over how you will speak or what you will say; for what you will say in that hour will be given to you. 20 For you are not the ones speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaks by you. (Matthew 10:16-20) [1]

A Course Correction

I’ve heard this passage interpreted to mean that “the Holy Spirit will give you what to say and not to think about what to say when you share the gospel” several times.

But here are some points from the passage and elsewhere in the Bible that give us a more well-rounded point of view:

  1. In Matthew 10:18, the disciples will be a testimony. In the New Testament, that word is typically used to mean testimony to the facts of the case regarding Jesus. In other words, Jesus expects his disciples to communicate his message to these people.
  2. Jesus says, “do not be anxious over how you will speak or what you will say.” This is not the same thing as saying, “do not think.” Do not be anxious means, do not obsess over it to the point of not making any decision to speak (see how Matthew 6 shows that Jesus’ teaching on anxiety about tomorrow assumes that his disciples will be working and planning for tomorrow).
  3. Finally, in John’s gospel, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will “remind you of everything which I said to you. (John 14:26)”

In context, it appears that Jesus can tell his apostles this precisely because they have been putting thought into how they will speak the whole time they’ve been with him. Not only so, but elsewhere, the Holy Spirit is said to help remind Christians of Jesus’ teachings. So in that sense, the disciples time with Jesus preparing. I’m not trying to say that there isn’t a prophetic element in the passage, but as I pointed out in #2 above, Jesus’ pattern for overcoming anxiety starts with observing the birds and comparing how they have food despite not sowing, reaping, and storing to our own circumstances. If we are doing what we ought, there is no reason to be anxious. Similarly, if Jesus’ disciples are doing as they ought, and memorizing, internalizing, interpreting, discussing, and synthesizing his teachings, they won’t need to prepare lengthy court defenses when asked questions like, “What are you doing/saying/teaching? Explain yourself for contradicting Torah. Why don’t you do the Sabbath? etc.”

Any interpretation of Scripture which claims that reflection about your life or about the gospel should be viewed with skepticism. Frequently, I think, the incorrect interpretation of Matthew 10:19 is used as a spiritual cloak for intellectual laziness, but I hope I’m wrong.

References

[1] Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Mt 10:16–20. “16 Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ὡς πρόβατα ἐν μέσῳ λύκων· γίνεσθε οὖν φρόνιμοι ὡς οἱ ὄφεις καὶ ἀκέραιοι ὡς αἱ περιστεραί. 17 Προσέχετε δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· παραδώσουσιν γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰς συνέδρια καὶ ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν μαστιγώσουσιν ὑμᾶς· 18 καὶ ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνας δὲ καὶ βασιλεῖς ἀχθήσεσθε ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. 19 ὅταν δὲ παραδῶσιν ὑμᾶς, μὴ μεριμνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε· δοθήσεται γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ τί λαλήσητε· 20 οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν.”

Human Sex Differences

by 2 Comments

Last night at a Bible study the question of sex differences came up. Specifically, we discussed whether there were traits/virtues that were either feminine or masculine in the Bible.

The consensus was yes, but upon being asked to give specifics, only my wife and I named anything other than the special bond of motherhood.

I named courage in battle as a prototypical masculine trait. She named a quiet and gentle spirit as a feminine trait I don’t think anybody thought what we said was accurate. But for clarity, from a Biblical point of view, the virtues in Scripture are for every person and from a philosophical point of view, justice, courage, temperance, and prudence and for both sexes as well. But with that background, the question is this, does the Bible praise certain traits as particularly masculine/feminine (despite their being virtues for all)? And does the Bible condemn certain traits in one sex more than another? Those two questions, if the Bible does either or both of those things, might yield a picture of what traits/virtues/vices are masculine and feminine. With respect to having a quiet spirit, while 1 Peter 3:1-4 extols this traits with respect to a wife’s relationship to her husband, the Bible portrays it as a general virtue for all humanity in Psalm 131 and in 1 Peter 2, Peter attributes a quiet spirit to Jesus.

I started to wonder, how might one find traits that were, on average more feminine and on average more masculine. I think it would look something like this:

  1. Same-Sex Admiration/Aversion
    1. Ask members of both sexes what they admire in same-sex friends, role models, co-workers, politicians, etc. You’ll have to define the traits to ensure, as much as possible, that the traits are seen in the same way. It may also be possible to use questions using trait behavior from other valid constructs.
    2. Ask members of both sexes a similar question but with respect to aversion, mockery, avoidance, etc.
    3. Have members of each sex take personality inventories.
    4. Compare the results cross-culturally to determine which traits are most likely culturally conditioned and which are not.
  2. Opposite Sex Attraction/Aversion
    1. Ask members of both sexes what they find attractive in an opposite-sex mate. Control for the difference between short term attraction and long term attraction.
    2. Ask members of both sexes what they find repulsive in the opposite sex.
    3. Also ask what is admirable in the opposite sex friends, co-workers, leaders, and politicians without reference to sexual attraction.
    4. Compare the results cross-culturally to determine which traits are most likely culturally conditions and which are not.

In doing this I think you could get a feel for what traits, on average, are more likely to be instantiated in each sex (they cluster male or female) and which traits are considered admirable in each sex. But you may also get a feel for what is virtuous in a man or woman as well as what is blameworthy. At least with respect to social credit and attraction.

Any thoughts on this? I’m purely in the friend zone when it comes to psychometricians.

Rebuilding the Foundations

by Leave a Comment

Bruce Charlton has a good post about the nature of the spiritual battle in the west:

Modern Man is sabotaged by an evil metaphysics – in other words, it is our fundamental assumptions that undermine and subvert good living for us.

We therefore need to discover, first that we actually do have a metaphysics; secondly what it is; and thirdly we need to reconstruct it so as to become true – insofar as we can discover true assumptions (which is a matter of intuition, revelation, direct knowing).

What are some of our evil metaphysical assumptions?

  1. That matter is primary reality.
  2. That meaning is imposed on the world by our minds rather than intrinsic to it.
  3. That life is therefore meaningless.
  4. That the scientific method is the only source for the only kind of knowledge.
  5. That cause and effect is only material.
  6. Truth is real.
  7. Truth is desirable enough to lose something to find it or say it.

It will generally be found (at least at first) that even when we have revised and improved our metaphysical assumptions; we nonetheless tend (partly by sheer habit, partly because of past social training and the prevalent surrounding culture); we nonetheless continue to use the old/ wrong metaphysics.

What he says here is one of the fundamental problems of most protestant forms of Christian discipleship. The protestant view is typically that belief leads to gratitude which leads to sincerely good works. But in reality, we get beliefs right on the level of intellectual assent or at least, pseudo assent for social acceptance. But we skip the fact that beliefs of that sort must be experienced to be true in practice. In other words, belief in doctrines not only leads to, but comes from practicing Christian practices. As an aside, the word translated “doctrine” in the King James Bible means, as far as I can tell, something closer to “apprenticeship.” It’s training in a whole way of life, not just transfer of beliefs.

One might observe that the metaphysical assumptions I mentioned above are not explicitly Christian, and that’s okay. In one sense, every true thing is Christian. But one need not be a Christian to hold to true metaphysical ideas. The gospel entails and assumes all of these ideas and one will have a hard time practicing the gospel without something like them in their minds. But many who do believe and live like those assumptions hold are not Christians.

What have I left out?

I’m Bigger Than You

by Leave a Comment

A friend recently texted, as a joke, “Calvinism is true because I’m bigger than you.”

But being big has advantages.

Physically

Being obese is unhealthy. And being too tall can be harder on your heart as you age.

But being physically bigger is good.

Height provides advantages to lawyers, salesmen, teachers, principals, managers, and most athletes.

Not only so, more muscle mass makes you harder to kill, even for diseases.

It makes you look more competent, to an extent more attractive, and requires a lifestyle that will typically improve your health all around.

Mentally

Becoming more expansive in your way of thinking, more capable of entertaining new evidence, strange ideas, or unexpected outcomes is generally better.

Reading more books, though not too many, gives you the thought world of another person without your having to go through their experiences.

Learning new skills gives you more opportunities to make money, to bless others, and to have fun. Man was made to tend to things, this can only be done with a skilled and active mind, lest reality become boring.

Psychologically/Spiritually

Growing bigger spiritually is something like this: “with every challenge or disaster, you learn to conform ever so slightly more to the logos or to nature in order to avoid that disaster next time.” This is very close to what Marcus Aurelius says. Jordan Peterson also says something like it. So do Nemeck and Coombs in their books.

For the Christian the spiritual growth must go further than this because the logos is not only available in nature, but is specified in Jesus Christ and revealed in bits and pieces through the Bible as well. And so we not only grow spiritually by seeking to avoid the catastrophes of nature in order to perfect our will and then impose it upon the world, but we also conform ourselves to the character and calling of Christ.

To grow bigger in the Christian sense is in some ways to shrink as Christ grows in our estimation (John 3:30). It is to go into the depths of ourselves and say no to every evil thing which resides there. But it is also to grow larger than we could imagine as we approach the full stature of Christ (Ephesians 4:13). There is often a chasm in the teaching of the church between the aspirational values of Proverbs and the condescension pattern set by Christ. In reality they are not opposed but in a hierarchy. But my main point is this, when the Christian faces the disasters of life and responds with love to God it will work to the good, especially the good of becoming like Jesus (Romans 8:28-29).

Being bigger is better.

David and Bathsheba: An Example of Narrative Plasticity in the Old Testament

by 2 Comments

In a previous post, I mentioned that the Bible itself includes multiple interpretations of the same passage from earlier in the Bible. Update: the technical term for narrative plasticity (my own term) is intentional ambiguity.

Now I want to see if I can demonstrate a moral ambiguity in a Biblical story which is meant to lead to reflection upon more than one moral issue. Below is the story of David and Bathsheba:

In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel. And they ravaged the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem. It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. (Now she had been purifying herself from her uncleanness.) Then she returned to her house. And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, “I am pregnant.”
(2 Samuel 11:1-5 ESV)

 

Immediately we’re led to suppose that there is a moral problem on David’s part: “In…the time when kings go out to battle…David remained at Jerusalem.” Now, David is married and so is Bathsheba. So both sin with respect to the law of God if we assume that each character is sexually interested in the other from the beginning. So from the get go, there is the “adultery is sinful and difficult to hide, even for kings and the wives of powerful, presumably rich soldiers.” But there are two more angles, all of which can be supported by the text and all of which are moral failures the Bible warns against:

  1. Simple adultery (mentioned above).
    In this scenario, both parties are guilty and the question of who initiated the affair is moot. But as I said above, the story can be seen from more than one angle.
  2. The Royal Rape Angle
    This interpretation is more popular today. The idea is that David, when he “sent messengers and took her” sent messengers to seize her and because she knew from whence they came, she acquiesced to avoid being murdered. So in that respect, the passage is purely an indictment of David’s character and a criticism of the very idea of a human king without checks and balances. And indeed, in the story it takes a seer with an advisory role to correct David and that seer is nervous enough that he uses a parable. And so the idea is that David did what the law said kings should do, he allowed his heart to be exalted above his countrymen (Deut 17:19-20)
  3. Don’t Give Your Strength to Women
    It could also be the case that Bathsheba bathed on the roof specifically to tempt David. This scenario is also familiar to the Biblical authors (Proverbs 7). It also matches up with the potential to be tempted to cheat on a husband hypergamously, with which the Biblical authors are familiar (Genesis 3:16). It’s also a direct warning in several places that men should not marriage idolatrous wives and that kings should not give their strength to women (Proverbs 31:3). And so the story, read from this angle, is about the fact that if you do not manage power correctly, and use your resources to avoid responsibility, then temptations which might have otherwise been easy to withstand become impossible to resist. In this version, both parties are complicit, but Bathsheba initiated.

All three versions provide useful warnings:

  1. Generally, don’t commit adultery.
  2. Don’t trust kings to be morally perfect and never allow political power to be absent accountability, especially moral/spiritual accountability.
  3. Seduction is real, but the moral failures that come from attempted seduction are usually the result of the situation the target placed themselves in.

Any of these interpretations is defensible from the text and all of the warnings that come from them can be found elsewhere in Scripture. Also, the exact details to say which version happened or which version did not happen were available to the writer.

If the goal had been to limit “the moral of the story” to an absolutely clear point, he would have. We know this because he does at other points (Eli’s sons, for instance). So either the story ends with the child of the union dying without any clear moral reason (obviously untrue), or the exact reason other than sexual sin of some sort leading to murder was left partially ambiguous for the moral education of the reader.

Update: I found this article Fraught with Background: Literary Ambiguity in II Samuel 11.

I had no idea that anybody had written about this particular issue before. My practice is usually to come up with my theories based on primary sources, then check the secondary literature. In this case all I looked up was “literary ambiguity in ancient literature.” Apparently this passage is a major test case.