We all know that the Garden of Eden was paradise. No sin. No sadness. No error. Until, of course, that crafty serpent (Gen 3:1) came along. What was it that got us thrown under the bus?
It wasn't that the serpent was merely making suggestions. It wasn't that the serpent had some good ideas. It wasn't that God was a cosmic killjoy and the serpent was offering some new things. The problem started with "Did God actually say ...?" (Gen 3:1). It was followed by an outright assault. "You will not surely die" (Gen 3:4). "God's holding out on you." The argument and the offering seemed good to Eve and Adam in her wake, so here we are, under the curse.
Some people think that the serpent delivered on his promise. They got "the knowledge of good and evil" just like he said they would. They were "like God" in that sense. This is a mistaken notion. The truth is they did not lack the knowledge of good and evil. That's because "the knowledge of good" was whatever God said, and they had that. Conversely, "the knowledge of evil" was the opposite -- whatever God did not say, whatever God did not command, whatever God forbade. They knew, for instance, "evil" in the form of "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat" (Gen 2:17). They knew that. They had that knowledge. Satan, as it turned out, lied.
This prototype of the serpent's temptation of Eve in the garden is the template for all temptation. We use the term loosely, of course. "I'm tempted to eat another piece of cake." That sort of thing. But in terms of sin, temptation is always the same. 1) It is an assault on God. 2) It is a lie. Always.
We get confused sometimes. "Sin," we think, is "doing bad things." Sin is not. It is our assault on God. It is our rebellion against God. It is our insult to His glory. Always. And we don't need a snake for ours. "Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire" (James 1:14). We do this all on our own. The remedy, of course, should now be much clearer. It isn't "work harder" or "try harder". The problem is a heart problem. That is why Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15).
We can employ tools -- accountability, "keep out zones," etc. -- but what we need is a greater love for the Master, the kind of love that couldn't endure militating against Him. We are encouraged to memorize God's Word to prevent sin (Psa 119:11) because sin is always a lie, so God's Word gives us the truth. And we are indeed to flee sin (1 Cor 6:18; 1 Cor 10:14; 1 Tim 6:10-11) and resist Satan (James 4:7), but the direction we should go is toward Jesus rather than merely away from temptation. Always.
11 comments:
Is it not somewhat paradoxical to state the case that we sin when we are tempted by our own desires, and yet from this very same self we are encouraged to love the Master more.
the point of reference for our sinful desires cannot be the same point of reference for love for Christ. that would be a contradiction. the sinful nature cannot Love Christ More..nor does it care to. so i begs the question, to what nature are you referring? now i would venture to say that the child of God does have a new nature, that is to love Christ. Now if the child of God should discover that he is somewhat lacking in this area, he has a helper the Holy Spirit.
and apart from this Helper he can neither love nor do good works worthy of Christ.
i have to wonder; its it really two minds in opposition: or is it one mind and one flesh?
as i mentioned before; Paul makes the distinction: if i do what i do not want to do. it is Not i that do it; but rather the sin that is in me.
Could it be that the knowledge of good and evil wasn't about being able to distinguish good from evil, but to know it as only those that participate in it?
Also, "militating"? I think you're just making up words now. Plus, i don't think it means what I thought it meant. It appears to be an antonym for mitigate.
The point, then, Bob, is to have the "mind of Christ", to love God by means of Christ living in us ... right?
To know experientially, David? Sure.
To "militate" is to move militarily. Since sin is essentially an attack on God, we want a love for God that prevents us from moving against Him.
That's what I assumed by the context, but when I looked it up, that's not what it means. It's origin is in the Latin for being a soldier, but all definitions I could find called that an obsolete definition.
Militate: To weigh heavily; to have a substantial effect.
That's one I found too. But all the definitions I could find were with it being without a subject, which I'm not sure how that works grammatically.
Well, if to "militate against" something means, essentially, "to go to war to stop" something, perhaps you'll get it grammatically.
I mean, how do you have a verb without a subject?
I'm sorry that my writing technique is so obscure.
To "militate against" something is to go to war with, to marshal your forces against something. The sentence, "What we need is a greater love for the Master, the kind of love that couldn't endure militating against Him", includes that "militate against" concept. The subject of that sentence is "we", "us", that idea. So in the offending phrase that includes "militating against Him" (where "Him" is the object of the verb phrase "militating against"), the subject is us. To make it wordier but perhaps more precise, it could say, "What we need is a greater love for the Master. What we need to have is the kind of love that would preclude those of us who say we love God from going to war against Him." The verb subject is implied "us", where "we" are militating against Him.
I apologize. I was trying to make the point that sin is war with God and that we who love God should have sufficient love for Him that we don't go to war with Him. I was trying to do it briefly and with style. I succeeded in doing it confusingly and without success.
Oh, you misunderstand. I understood what you meant by it by the context when I first read it. But since I'd never seen it before, I looked up the definition. And in all of the definitions, they had a header that said "no subject". That was where my confusion lay. Yours is fine, it's the dictionary that's confusing me.
Post a Comment