Judgment and Idolatry

Image by Sue Hasker via Flickr

Image by Sue Hasker via Flickr

Why was the forbidden tree in the center of the garden called The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Since the Bible depicts eating from this tree as the reason humans are estranged from God and the cause of all that’s wrong with humanity, eating from this tree is obviously a terrible thing. But what’s so terrible about acquiring “knowledge of good and evil?” Why wouldn’t God want Adam and Eve to possess this knowledge?

The Hebrew concept of “knowledge” used here goes much deeper than mere intellectual knowledge. Rather, the concept of “the knowledge of good and evil” connotes an attempt by humans to define and experience good and evil on their own—apart from God. Eating from this tree represents a rebellion against God, for we are aspiring to be “wise like God” in the sense of grasping for moral autonomy—an exercise of sovereignty that is appropriate to God alone.

This is exactly what the serpent tempted Eve with. “[W]hen you eat of it,” he said, “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5). Eating from the forbidden tree represents our rebellious attempts to position ourselves as judges rather than leaving all judgment to God, as the bible consistently commands (e.g. Rom 14:10; James 4:11-12).

By eating from the forbidden tree, Eve was guilty of idolatry. Accepting the serpent’s false and untrustworthy depiction of God, Eve stopped trusting God to be her source of life and instead turned to the forbidden tree as a new source of life. This is idolatry.

Such idolatry causes us to define and experience as “good” all that gives us a sense of life. Conversely, everything that threatens our idolatrous sources of life is instinctively defined and experienced as “evil.” In other words, our idolatrous hunger unconsciously creates its own version of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We habitually see and experience the entire world through a filter of our self-serving judgments of good and evil.

The love that reflects the reign of God ascribes worth to others, at cost to oneself. In direct opposition to this, the judgment that reflects rebellion against God ascribes worth to oneself, at cost to others, and in rebellion against God’s own determination. Judgment, in other words, is the direct antithesis of agape love.

Put simply: We can’t possibly ascribe unsurpassable worth to others at cost to ourselves, while at the same time detracting worth from others to ascribe worth to ourselves.

Judgment is the antithesis of the kind of love that God always intended humans to receive and express to one another. It’s the antithesis of the kind of love that expresses God’s life and therefore the life of the kingdom.

I’m convinced this is why the Bible teaches that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was placed in the center of the garden with the Tree of Life. Life as God intends it revolves around trusting God for his provision while obediently honoring God’s prohibition. This means we are to trust God’s provision of life while honoring God’s prohibition against judgment. And we cannot trust God’s provision of life while we participate in judgment.

The forbidden tree wasn’t some arbitrary test God put in the garden to tempt Adam and Eve. We should rather think of it as a sort of “No Trespassing” sign God lovingly gave to his first children. God was, in effect, teaching them—and us as well—that for life to be lived the way he intended it, for our life to manifest the beautiful kingdom of God, we must never think we can define and experience good and evil apart from him. When we try to do this, we are no longer trusting him for life and we immediately lose our capacity to receive his life and thus love like he loves.

The moment we become judgers, we stop being lovers. The moment we eat from the forbidden tree, we’re blocked from access to the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22-24).

Related Reading

The Call to Suffer

Paul tells us that in all our relations, we are to “have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had” (Phil 2:5). Though he was “in very nature God,” he didn’t cling to this status. Rather, for our sake he set aside his divine prerogatives, took on the nature of a servant and “humbled himself…

Is Longing for Justice Inconsistent with Love? A Response to Paul Copan (#3)

In a paper delivered at the Evangelical Theological Society in November, Paul Copan spent a good amount of time arguing that aspects of the NT conflict with the understanding of love that I espouse in Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG). For example, Copan cites the parable Jesus told in Luke 18:1-8 about a widow…

Where Psychology and Theology Meet

Guest post by Ty Gibson The biblical narrative reveals that God bears our guilt—not merely in the penal sense that Reformed theology asserts—but in the sense that He bears our misconceptions of His character as we project our sins upon Him. To the degree that fallen human beings find it psychologically impossible to bear the…

Goodbye Beloved “Friend at First Sight”

I don’t believe in “love at first sight,” but I do believe that once in a great while, some fortunate people encounter “friends at first sight.”  Maybe you know what I’m talking about. There are certain people whose chemistry just seems to draw you in.  Minutes after meeting them you find yourself engaging with them,…

Homosexuality and the Church: Finding a “Third Way”

Here is a word I a shared this last weekend with Woodland Hills Church (where I’m senior pastor) in response to numerous questions I’ve received over the last several months. People have asked me why the leadership of WHC refuses to jump on the bandwagon of evangelical churches in the Twin Cities who rally their…

As We Approach the 4th

zen Sutherland via Compfight This is the time of year when we start hearing loud bangs at night and you have to ask yourself the following multiple choice question: Was that bang: a car backfiring? firecrackers? a gunshot? (OK, maybe most of you never think of that, but some of us do.)   It’s also…