|
Distortions of Love
|
Ron Corson
|
Jun 26, 2004 09:54 PDT
|
Our Sabbath School class has been going over Max Lucado’s book “A Love
Worth Giving” which is a book about 1 Cor. 13. Not a great discussion
book but ok for a devotional book for those who like such books.
In this week’s chapter 12, “A cloak of Love”, Max while trying to tell
us how much God loves us that He protects us with His love Max tells us
the following:
“The Lord God made clothes from animal skins for the man and his wife
and dressed them” (Gen. 3:21) [It appears he is using the CEV Bible, it
is one of the few that includes animal in the verse
(NKJV) Genesis 3:21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics
of skin, and clothed them.
(NASB) Genesis 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his
wife, and clothed them.
(KJV) Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make
coats of skins, and clothed them.
(CEV) Genesis 3:21 Then the LORD God made clothes out of animal skins
for the man and his wife.
]
Max continues:
That simple sentence suggest three powerful scenes.
Scene 1: God slays an animal. For the first time in the history of the
earth, dirt is stained with blood, Innocent blood. The beast committed
no sin. The creature did not deserve to die.
Adam and Eve did. The couple deserve to die, but they live. The animal
deserves to live, but it dies. In scene 1 innocent blood is shed.
Scene 2: Clothing is made. The shaper of the stars now becomes a tailor.
And in Scene 3: God dresses them. “The Lord…dressed them.” (page
119-120}
So in Max Lucado’s process of teaching us about the love of God he
depicts God as the first killer of life on earth. Not just any life, but
innocent life. He depicts God as the first confirmed liar on earth.
Since Max has assumed that the “day you eat” does not represent the
ultimate consequences of actions using the idiomatic “when” you eat of
it you will surely die. Instead Max views it as a punishment for eating
the fruit, but then instead of immediately killing them he kills an
innocent animal. If God had meant that very day of eating they would die
and they did not then God has lied to them.
Max’s suggestions while perfectly acceptable to the tradition bound
Christian is actually without warrant. First the bible does not say that
any animal was slain in the incident, by either the hand of man or of
God. Common sense will tell us that one does not just kill and skin an
animal then sew it into a garment. It is a much more complex process to
treat a skin so that it will remain supple then just skinning it. A
process taking days. So to have them dressed that very day as the story
seems to indicate God would have to perform a miracle to prepare the
skin for use. Of course all this assumes it is an animal which the Bible
does not indicate. Skin is used of covering of man or animal. So it
could be just as acceptable to assume it was from the hair cut from an
animal. It is equally conceivable that it may be an indication of the
covering of some type of plant.
Needless to say the whole God killing the innocent scenario is made
because of the subsequent acceptance of the Substitutionary theory of
the Atonement. In which God kills the innocent Jesus Christ so that
Christ suffers the punishment for sin. As in Max’s suggestion the
innocent beast suffered the punishment for the sin of Adam and Eve so
that they can be covered. It is this type of rewriting history which
leads to a complex and unsustainable view of God. It paints God as
unjust, cruel and punitive. Which was certainly not the way the story
was believed by Israel of Old?
|
|
 |
|
