Trust, Gratitude and the Joy of Obedience
Various theories have been proposed to explain the pervasive attitude of unhappiness that plagues our generation. I want to propose a new theory that can perhaps explain the negative mindset that is all too common. It is the advertisement industry that is to blame. The underlying message of every advertisement is: “You will not be happy unless you get this product/service/vacation etc.” in other words, since you don’t have what we are selling, you should be miserable.
It’s just a theory, take it or leave it. But it may help us understand the episode described in Genesis chapter 3 where the serpent persuades Eve to eat from the fruit of the forbidden tree. How did he do it? Adam and Eve were in paradise! What were they lacking?
The serpent used several arguments to induce Eve to violate God’s commandments. One argument that the serpent presented was that God gave them the commandment which forbade them from eating from the tree for their detriment. According to the serpent, the commandment was not presented with the best interest of man in mind (Genesis 3:5). Another underlying theme that is present in the serpent’s argumentation is that the system, as it appears on the surface, is flawed. The serpent reasoned that man “deserves” to know the knowledge that could be gained by eating from the tree, and that God is withholding this knowledge from them for reasons that are not in their best interest. The serpent proposes a method of bypassing the system and “rectifying” the situation. Instead of obeying God’s commandment, go and violate it, and that is where you will find your happiness. And finally, the serpent offers an exalted spiritual state, above and beyond the state that God had placed them in – “You could become like God”.
Two of the character qualities that Eve could have used to deflect the arguments of the serpent are; trust and gratitude. If Eve would have exercised a complete trust in God, she would not have been moved by the serpent’s reasoning. She would have realized that the God who created her is not “out to get her”. The God who so lovingly brought her into being, and supplied all of her needs and desires, is not withholding something from her that would bring her true happiness. The Creator of all did not create a flawed system that could only be bypassed with a “trick”. And the Giver of the Law did not give the Law to curse His creations.
If Eve would have exercised the quality of gratitude, she would have been thinking about all of the positive things that God put into her life, instead of allowing the serpent to draw her focus to the one thing that was forbidden to her. The serpent’s arguments magnified the one forbidden tree in Eve’s mind. With an attitude of gratitude, she would have seen that tree in perspective. She would have realized that there is a paradise full with beautiful trees that God allowed me to enjoy. She would have realized that the one forbidden tree was there for her benefit – in the sense of giving her room to express her love and loyalty to her Creator through obedience.
If Eve would have focused on the joy inherent in a created being hearkening to the voice of the Creator of all, she would not have eaten from the forbidden tree. It is only by distracting her from the sense of connection that we feel by obeying our God that the serpent was able to get Eve to eat from the forbidden tree.
The conflict between the serpent and Eve finds an uncanny parallel in the age-old conflict between the Jew and the Christian missionary.
The missionary argues that the Giver of the Law presented a Law which brings a curse down upon the human race (Galatians 3:13). The law, argues the missionary, is not something that can benefit man; it was essentially given for the detriment of man. According to the missionary, the system, as it appears, is flawed. Man “deserves” perfection and immortality, and God is withholding it from them. It is only by circumventing the system, through the acceptance of an unnatural belief; that man will get what he “truly deserves”.
The Jew resists the arguments of the missionary with the same tools that Eve should have used to resist the arguments of the serpent.
We have an implicit trust that God gave us the Law as a blessing not as a curse. We trust that our loving Father did not create a flawed system that requires a “trick” to get what He is “withholding” from us.
Our sense of gratitude towards God has us focus on the joy of life, on the holiness that God breathed into our souls when He originally created us. Our sense of gratitude allows us to enjoy the world that God created and the Law that He presented to us. It does not allow us to concentrate an unhealthy focus on concepts such as: “the impossible nature of the Law”, or “the depravity of man”.
And our joy in obeying God’s command prevents us from being moved by an argument that is utterly devoid of obedience to God. Did you notice, not one of the missionary “proof-texts” can be misconstrued to read as a “commandment” to believe in Jesus.
The prophet Jeremiah encourages us with God’s words – look back at the exodus from Egypt, when God carried us through the wilderness. Were we lacking anything? All of our needs were met both material and spiritual. We enjoyed the embrace of our Creator, what more can we ask for? (Jeremiah 2:5).
The curse refers to man – represented by the Jew – in spite of the fact that he is unable to fulfill the law. “It shall come about…if you not obey the Lord to observe to do ALL his commandments and his statutes…that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you” (Deut 28).
But, if we cannot fulfill the law, if we have no capacity to do all that God commands, why will He curse us? This is hard to understand for both the Christian and the Jew, But, this does not mean that the law was given for the detriment of man; as you say above: “The law, argues the missionary, is not something that can benefit man; it was essentially given for the detriment of man.”
On the contrary, this is not the Christianity of the New Testament. Here is the Christian position: it is man, not the system (the law), who is flawed. Much more, he is estranged, cut off, from God because of sin. For this reason he does not deserve “perfection and immortality;” what he deserves is judgment and condemnation. Man’s sin is the reason why God withholds eternal life.
(This is an excerpt from my post at onedaringjew).
Pingback: A Jewish view of the Christian’s view of the LAW « OneDaringJew
Oh lordy bography…
Firstly, I reject the premise that “we cannot fulfill the law.” I’d love to see the OT source for that. The very fact that not all commandments can apply to one person (ie. some to priests, etc.) negates the “all” commandments issue. Ie- meaning that whatever commandments apply to someone, and can actually be observed, that is what one is judged on- not commandments that are not even applicable or possible (ie. no temple). Not only is that biblically unsupported, it makes your god a trickster god who could easily pull the same trick on you. After all, this G-d said the Law is followable, is sweet like honey, and spends the entire OT chastising Israel for not following it. And then this Deity turns around and reveals that we were never capable in the first place? Well, bography, you’re pretty silly if you believe the words of that Deity if he would be that duplicitous to His own people.
Secondly, where does the Hebrew Bible ever require perfection as a prequisite to atonement? In other words, where does the OT say that repentance is impossible, that people cannot ever make mistakes, and yet repent from them?
Thirdly, the death of Jesus would provide no atonement in any case, but that’s an entirely separate issue.
The commandments are most certainly possible- Ps 119 is a most touching poem about the Law. But this bastardizing of OT theology is much deeper- you are saying G-d requires blood, whereas Scripture says He wants obedience.
Dr. James McGrath, chair of NT Language at Butler University, sums it up rather well. I’d recommend it to you:
“First, the Bible regularly depicts God as forgiving people. If there is anything that God does consistently throughout the Bible, it is forgive. To suggest that God cannot forgive because, having said that sin would be punished, he has no choice but to punish someone, makes sense only if one has never read the penitential psalms, nor the story of Jonah. The penal substitution view of atonement takes the metaphor of sin as debt and literalizes it to the extent that one’s actions are viewed in terms of accounting rather than relationship. It is not surprising this is popular: in our time, debts are impersonal and most people have them, and it is easier to think of slates being wiped clean and books being balanced than a need for reconciliation. But the latter is the core element if one thinks of God in personal terms. And for God to forgive, all that the Bible suggests that God has to do is forgive.”
Thomas, your – I reject the premise that “we cannot fulfill the law.”
Do you know of any person ever fulfilling the law, which of course means ALL the law?
Bography
You provide your own definition of the law (“all the law”) – but that is not God’s definition – God points to David as an example to follow in fulfillment of the law (1Kings 11:38) even though David did not “do the law” according to Bography’s definition
Yisroel, your “You provide your own definition of the law (“all the law”).” Ok, let us assume that God overlooks breaking some of the law, what about adultery and murder (in David’s case). Doesn’t the law (of David’s time) say that someone who commits adultery should be stoned to death?
Hello again Thomas.
“It shall come about…if you not obey the Lord to observe to do ALL his commandments and his statutes…that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you” (Deut 28).
Perhaps you’ll take a peek at “A Jewish view of the Christian’s view of the LAW.” http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/a-jewish-view-of-the-christians-view-of-the-law/
The “curse” of humankind is one of becoming convinced to follow the cunning theory of the serpent, that disobedience is what gets us closer to God. According to the “serpent”, God’s Law is an evil that is to be rejected, because the “outlaw serpent” can then become the master. But without law (or in the bible it is called God’s Word), people remain or become more barbaric. According to one pagan philosopher, he felt no remorse about persecuting other people or even killing them. Dog eats dog and it is the decent & the innocent that should suffer for the “good of the evil ones”. Somehow this Roman came to believe that God’s Word or law itself was what created his evil. To appease a god of wrath someone had to sacrifice or be sacrificed. Sun god, man gods, dualistic faiths of a good god and a bad god, salvation cults (including those with self-sacrificing gods), are all apart of that mentality. To some people, salvation is only through a narrow gate through an intermediary spiritual being. To gain the “other world” one had to give up this world. Giving up your money & your life in this world and doing the impossible in an effort to be “perfect” was the only hope of escaping not only the “horrible world” that some god created here on earth, but the eternal horror of a torturous afterlife.
But the God of Israel was different from the Canaanite, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, etc gods. Law with Justice, fairness. Rule by a Merciful One, who wanted not slaves but faithful servants who worked for justice, who were fair and kind and compassionate. Children of a Holy God who created them as good and in the God’s own “image”. Children who would serve as a Light of God to the nations who lived in the darkness of man’s own creation (not a darkness created by God nor by some retrobate, evil angel somehow created faulty by an omnipotent).
God is not an evil, unjust, cruel taskmaster, unmerciful, uncompassionate being that is the image of a “devil” (lucifer, “morning star”) and a keeper of a “torturous hell”. According to the bible, God is Justice & Mercy. God can easily forgive. God is Holy and we were commanded to be Holy. Be ye Holy, cause God created you with that ability. Even Cain had the ability. He knew. But he was free to chose the narrow gate that led to another possibility.
Great article. You got to wonder if you can blame eve for not feeling gratitude to g-d and not just trusting him.we know what g-d is all about bec we look back at 5000 years and we know g-d did this all for us to enjoy. Back when eve ate from the forbidden fruit,the world was so new. Was eve really supposed to know that g-d was all good intention?
To Yourphariseefriend , as you can see I followed your link. You made some good points in the story above. This is how a view the Eve story :
God tells his child that there is a cookie on the middle shelf in the cabinet. God then leaves the room. Just as soon as God is out of sight the child gets a chair climbs up and finds the cookie just where God said it was. The child was thinking the cookie can’t hurt me and God is going to let me get away with not doing what he said. Cause he is my Dad and he loves me.
God comes back into the room and finds the kid hiding in the closet. He says, “Did you eat the cookie.” God knows darn well you ate cookie, but he asks anyway.
Now if God hadn’t said anything about the cookie or if he hadn’t put the cookie in the cabinet there would’t have been a problem. So why did God put the cookie in the cabinet and then say don’t touch it? Do children always obey their parents? Or do children test their parents love for them by doing things they can get away with?
After all it’s just a cookie!
Melanie–Here is another way to view Eve story.
God tells his child that there is a poisinous fruit in the middle shelf in the cabinet. God then leaves the room. Just as soon as God is out of sight the child gets a chair climbs up and finds the poinious fruit just where God said it was. The child was thinking the poinious fruit can’t hurt me and God is going to let me get away with not doing what he said. Cause he is my Dad and he loves me. The child eats the fruit and eventually dies.
Now if God hadn’t said anything about the poinious fruit he would have been a neglient father. So why did God put the poinious fruit in the cabinet and then say don’t touch it? Do children always obey their parents? Or do children test their parents love for them by doing things they can get away with.
After God created many things he told his creation, -man-, because he loved him, that there are some things that are very dangerous for you.
After all, it was mans very life he was concerned about!
Bography
The death penalty is the community’s responsibility when two witnesses come forth and testify to the act. Silence in the face of a public sin is tantamount to consent – and with two witnesses testifying the sin is public enough. The Bible does not say that God does not accept repentance – in fact it emphasizes over and over again that God accepts repentance
Pingback: Fourth Response to Dalton Lifsey | 1000 Verses