Until today I thought that non-disclosure was only justified in reference to our sinful condition. The psychologist doesn't disclose her patients' problems because sinful humans are likely to treat her patients wrongly if they know about the problems. And so on.
But I was mistaken. First, there are cases not referring to our present sinful condition but a potential future sinful condition. For instance, even an unfallen human can be swayed by temptation, as the story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil shows, and a person can be tempted by the disclosure of benefits.
Second, there are cases where it is good to fail to disclose information either because the order of disclosure is important or because because it is better that the information be discovered by someone on her own. This is an important part of sound pedagogy, and this does not seem to be an aspect of the Fall. God did not, as far as we know, disclose Pythagorean Theorem to Adam and Eve before the Fall, and it was better that humans discover it on their own.
20 comments:
An unfallen person can be tempted; but they needn't be. Jesus successfully refused to be tempted by Satan. Moreover, I wouldn't call what Satan did a "disclosure", since both Eve and the apostle Paul indicate that what the serpent said was a "deception" (Genesis 3:13; 1 Timothy 2:14... the Hebrew and Greek terms both mean "to delude, to cheat, to deceive, to beguile"). The serpent said that they would not die. Clearly that was a lie. And he said that God was withholding something good from them, and yet Eve acknowledge afterward that that was deception. So, I don't know that I consider that a "disclosure". And, even if it had been, they could have freely resisted temptation just as Jesus ("the last Adam", 1 Cor. 15:45; also compare Hebrews 4:15).
As far as the second example, I think you are probably right. Just for the sake of argument, though, doesn't it seem that God equipped us with the cognitive capacities to discover the Pythagorean theorem and that He encourages us to discover these things... so that it's not really a non-disclosure so much as an open invitation to study and learn (I get this sort of feeling from meditating on verses like Ecclesiastes 3:11 and Psalm 19:1-4).
God did not, as far as we know, disclose Pythagorean Theorem to Adam and Eve before the Fall, and it was better that humans discover it on their own.
Well, I am not sure whether this follows. We do not know if, in case there was no fall, would A+E gain any motivation to discover such truths as Pythagorean theorem. Or we do not know whether God would like to learn them alone, without letting them seek for it on their own.
You know, there is a Hegelian-Chestovian thesis that the whole philosophy is a result of the fall. Maybe there was no philosophy or science at all had A+E resisted the temptation, or at least not in the same fashion in which we proceed it today.
Maybe there was no philosophy or science at all had A+E resisted the temptation, or at least not in the same fashion in which we proceed it today.
I tend to doubt that, since an inquisitive mind and a Universe ripe for investigation are all part of how God made us in the first place. For example, one of God's tasks for Adam was to name the animals, and he seems to have done so based on an analysis of their features or behaviors. This is the beginning of taxonomy and zoology. Lennox and others have suggested that this means God intended us to discover the Universe. Moreover, Robin Collins' newest version of the fine-tuning argument is based entirely on the special features of the Universe that make it discoverable by inquisitive humans.
Let's get the story of the fall straight here since misquoting God's word is an important component of what unfolds. Satan does not say "they would not die" which would clearly be a lie. I quote from the NIV here. Gen. 2:20 God says 'but you must not eat from the tree of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.'. Then in Gen. 3:2 Eve misquotes God's word and adds to it. Perhaps lying Eve says 'but God did say, " You must not eat fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.". Then Satan using God's word 'certainly' says "You will not certainly die". Is that a lie? Well we do not know if touching the fruit is deadly nor do we know which tree is in the middle of the garden so actually this is probably a true statement. Then comes the disclosure a true statement by Satan, Gen. 3:4 '...you will be like God, knowing good from evil.' Satan never says "God was withholding something good from them". Then comes the fall.
I should be a little more specific. In Gen. 2:9 we know 'in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.' so we do not know that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in the exact geographic middle of the garden.
You are taking quite a few liberties here. First off, Genesis 2:9 implies that the trees of life and of good and evil are both in the middle of the garden. So she is clearly referring to the tree of good and evil, and there's no reason to think otherwise. Indeed, thinking that Eve would lie *before* the fall is an obvious self-contradiction. Lying is a sin. In any case, the quote in Genesis 2:20 is probably not the only time God had spoken to Adam and Eve about that tree. Moreover, Adam and Eve probably discussed it together. So the "you must not touch it" part could easily have been the result of one of those other conversations. There is no reason to think that she was lying and embellishing, especially since she wasn't Fallen yet.
Then Satan says "you certainly will not die". We know that was a lie because they did die. Neither Satan nor God nor Eve ever implied that the fruit itself was deadly to touch or eat. God cause them to die if they disobeyed His command. And Satan's statements were not true, since the apostle Paul affirms that Eve was deceived by the serpent (look up 1 Tim. 2:14). Moreover, Jesus calls Satan the Father of the lie and says that truth is not in him and that he was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). All of this makes it clear that Satan was lying and directly attempting to cause them harm.
Finally, I never quoted Satan as saying the words "God is withholding something good from you". His statement was "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil". That is a direct implication that good things (being "like God" and "knowing good and evil") were being kept from them.
And to be specific: What difference does it make if it is in the exact geographic middle?
The point is that what Satan told Eve was a deception; not a disclosure. If Genesis 3:13, 1 Timothy 2:14, and John 8:44 don't make that clear, then I don't know what would.
M.G.: one of God's tasks for Adam was to name the animals, and he seems to have done so based on an analysis of their features or behaviors. This is the beginning of taxonomy and zoology. Lennox and others have suggested that this means God intended us to discover the Universe.
Interesting idea, thanks. But from this still does not follow that we were intended to philosophise: we could be intended to discover the material world only, so to do only the science (in modern meaning of that word).
What do you think: would A+E or any of their followers ever came to a question of something as free will given that no bad deed was commited?
Indeed, thinking that Eve would lie *before* the fall is an obvious self-contradiction. Lying is a sin.
Well and what about interpretation that the fall was commited already by Eve´s sole starting discussing with serpent, or by that "lying", and that the consumation of apple was only a result?
JM: What do you think: would A+E or any of their followers ever came to a question of something as free will given that no bad deed was commited?
I don't think you need evil in order to wonder whether our actions are free. However, I doubt we would have needed to ask that particular question, since God would have made that much clear to us (even in telling us "if you eat this fruit, then you will die" and warning us against it, He is already implying free will). But we might have philosophized about something else, like the nature of consciousness or the ontology of mathematics. There is no indication that God intended to simply answer all those things for us. It's an interesting question I hadn't thought about much before.... I'll have to look up the points from Hegel that you mentioned.
Well and what about interpretation that the fall was commited already by Eve´s sole starting discussing with serpent, or by that "lying", and that the consumation of apple was only a result?
I've never heard of that interpretation before, but you would again have to contend with the verses I've cited which specifically say that Eve was deceived. Moreover, it doesn't seem to make much sense that Jesus would identify Satan as the Father of the lie, if Eve was actually the one telling the first lie. And I also don't see why the account would begin by specifically identifying the serpent as the most "cunning" or "crafty" of the creatures, if the story is that Eve fell by choosing to lie completely independently of anything the serpent did.
MG:
Don´t you think that sencence
I don't think you need evil in order to wonder whether our actions are free.
and sentence
even in telling us "if you eat this fruit, then you will die" and warning us against it, He is already implying free will
contradicts each other? Because in the second sentence an evil (of death as result of disobedience) is introduced to A+E and so evil is needed regarding freedom.
But thanks, it maybe helped me to clarify things a little. Because it seems now that in order to acknowledge something as notion of free will you need evil in some sense (to know about it), but you do not need to commit it. I have to think more about it .
I'll have to look up the points from Hegel that you mentioned.
To be honest, I know about it not from Hegel but from Leon Chestov´s book "Kierkegaard and existential philosophy", where Chestov mentions Hegel regarding this problém.
Moreover, it doesn't seem to make much sense that Jesus would identify Satan as the Father of the lie, if Eve was actually the one telling the first lie.
Seems logically, thanks.
Because it seems now that in order to acknowledge something as notion of free will you need evil in some sense (to know about it)
Today I came to this thought experiment: imagine that God said to A+E: there are two trees in the middle of the garden: the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. You can eat either from first or the second, but when you eat from one, all fruit from the other one will disappear.
Here it seems that none of the choices is evil. So it seems now that in order to defense free will you do not need evil - it is not necessary option. But if it is not necessary option, then it seems that all the defense of free will based on statements as "if there was no evil option, then there wouldn't be any freedom" is false!
(I know I am already little O.T. but I find this important)
When Satan uses the word 'certainly' in the phrase 'You will not certainly die.' this tells me he was aware of the conversation God had with Adam when God said "...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." The question is did Satan lie when he said "You will not certainly die.". Perhaps Satan is aware that God could change his mind and this is a story about a cosmic struggle pitting God against the intensions of a very real adversary.
Jakub: You are right that I should have used a different example than the choice of the tree to show that free will can be clearly shown without evil. Perhaps the fact that God let Adam freely choose the names of the animals would work instead. I think Adam and Eve would always have considered themselves free agents, given the way God dealt with them (giving them tasks and allowing them to make decisions about them).
Mark: If there were any chance that they might not die, then God was a liar when He said "you will certainly die". Since Satan is called the "Father of the lie" at John 8:44, and the Scriptures make it clear that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). So it was indeed certain that Adam and Eve would die.
There is no "certainly" in the Hebrew. Instead, we have the idiomatic emphatic "you will die the death" expression. One can interpret the emphasis as "certainly", but I am not 100% sure that's the right interpretation.
But in any case, since God says that they will die the death and the serpent denies that they will die the death, there sure seems to be a contradiction.
Hi Michael! Good points, very good points. Surely God does not lie. I was wondering then how you interpret John 14:16-17?
Mark: This is actually Jesus talking at John 14:16, 17, but I believe he wouldn't lie either (and I'm really just being cheeky by poking my Unitarian poker at potentially raw flesh).
Anyway, Jesus was talking about God's holy spirit, and that it would function to both help them discover spiritual truths, and bring those truths back to their minds (and, in that role, Jesus refers to it as "the spirit of the truth"). I say this because of the following other comments that were made: Matt 10:19, 20; 1 Cor. 2:10-13; also compare statements like Heb. 9:8 and Acts 15:28.
Ahh Unitarian, that explains much. Well I am Church Of Christ. I am here to keep Dr. Pruss theologically sound and proselytize him over. Perhaps I can get you to the light as well. It is much harder work than I thought it would be.
I'm always up for a little discussion. I'd hate to hijack Pruss' blog entry for it, though. As it is, I made several small defenses of a Unitarian position in his recent post about causation and the Trinity. You could read some of my points there, if you like. :-)
Post a Comment