Only in this moment of decision can a person have the opportunity to truly fulfill his or her eternal destiny of becoming a faithful child of God through existentially and resolutely pursuing the true-self he or she was originally intended to be. Such a true-self is identified by eternity’s claim that the Creator has placed on each of our souls when He authored them before the commencement of the Eternal Story of Creation. Now we achieve such theological self-actualization only when we willfully turn the disposition of our souls towards the final end of glorifying our Heavenly Father. And it can only be done if we definitively choose to accept that part in the Eternal Story of Creation He assigned to each of us. Such a surrender to the will of the Author of our existence demands that we not only accept the role He has assigned to each of us, but that we devote ourselves to its corresponding standard of oughtness that delineates the how, when, and why in relation to the tasks and activities that comprise our role in His story. Thus, this standard of oughtness not only establishes what we should not do, but also what we should do, how we should do it, when we should do it, and what are the proper motives and reasons for doing what we should do and not doing what we should not do. This decision comes down to determining whether or not we trust that our Creator has for each of us our best interests at heart and whether we should place our faith in the truth that His Vision for our life story is the one that is the most befitting for our existence. It is a decision of whether or not we will wholeheartedly entrust our lives to His will, believing His plans for us are superlative.
In answering this question, a person decides if he or she will by faith rest transparently before the light of the Creator’s Vision, or else forfeit his or her true-self as demarcated by the Creator’s Vision and decide instead to become a secular self and fulfill a role defined by another vision and another standard of oughtness. In view of eternity’s claim upon each of our existence, the unfolding of our lives, from its commencement to its temporal conclusion, is the preliminary examination for receiving the right to become the theological self we were originally intended to become. Eternity has a claim on our existence because we were brought into existence from nothingness into something significant: to fulfill our eternal role in the Eternal Story of Creation. If this was not the case, then eternity would not be written on the human heart, since some or all individuals would not have been created for the Eternal Story of Creation. Only if a person was originally intended to become and remain a theological self is it an eternal transgression to forfeit his or her destiny for the sake of becoming and remaining a secular self.
Therefore, this preliminary examination is applicable to the initial duration of every individual’s existence beginning with our very first parents: Adam and Eve. For our first parents, this test was twofold. First it demanded that each of them carry out the specific role the Creator had written for them for the initial chapter of the Story of Dasein, which had for its stage the Garden of Eden. Second, it demanded that each of them be given a paradoxical duty that could not be unraveled by their limited understanding as created entities. This would be so that their faith and trust would be absolutely essential for carrying out this specific duty. It was through this test that the Creator could weigh each of their categories of inwardness and willingness to determine their faith in Him. In other words, only by this test could the deepest faithful, relational, and devotional elements of human existence in the individual God-relationship be weighed upon the scales of eternal humanness. The test determines whether or not they were wholeheartedly willing to ever-remain transparent before the Creator’s Vision, even when doing so would sometimes defy their own understanding and their own perception of what is or is not acceptable or what is best.
Now this final stage of the preliminary examination revolved around the unfolding of becoming stimulated by the commandment that one should not partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Regarding the basis for this particular commandment, it was made clear by the Creator’s warning that to partake of the fruit of this tree would result in death. Death was an alien notion to our first parents, because they dwelled in a world free of the cold realities of death, for the world they inhabited along with the living finite realities that occupied it with them was a world permeated by eternal life. It should not be considered that the ensuing inevitability of our first parent’s death was caused by the digestion and assimilation of the physical matter of this fruit. No, rather the root cause of their path towards death began deep in their souls. The inward ascent to this physical act of eating that instigated the inevitable outcome of death. Furthermore, such an understanding of death here referring to physical death should only be considered as the consequence of a deeper experience, of ineffectualness because of the soul’s new inability to produce eternal fruit. Eternal fruit refers to the results of the unfolding of the eternal destiny of the Children of God. It comes forth out of one who lives and abides in God’s will. Think of a branch attached to a tree. It must stay attached if it will ever produce fruit, if it is a fruit-bearing tree. If the branch fell off, it fails to produce fruit and withers away, good only for feeding a fire. So then, the Children of God must abide in God’s will like the branch must abide in the tree, or else they too will fail to bear eternal fruit and will wither up and die forever. Death then can be considered as the necessary forfeiting of one’s role in the Eternal Story of Creation, because only by participating in one’s specifically assigned role of bearing eternal fruit can a person have the capacity to participate in eternal life and thereby possess truly eternal vitality. From eternity’s perspective, a person who has forfeited his or her God given destiny descends into eternal untruth and ultimately becomes lifeless from eternity’s perspective. To forfeit one’s role in the Eternal Story means one forfeits his or her theological self. If we, for example, forfeit our theological selves, we would inevitably descend back into the nothingness from whence we came. The self would permanently remain a secular self, a completely lifeless existence from Eternity’s perspective.
I must mention that this choice of whether or not to become and remain a secular self was available only to our first parents who were not initially secular selves. For the rest of the human race, the choice has been whether or not to become and remain a theological self, seeing as we are born as a secular self. The reality of this inherent human situation becomes clearly evident after one seriously considers the innate egoism that we all inherit from the moment of our conception. It is well known that no one has to teach the child to put self first. Such an egocentric [“I”- centered: “my will be done, my kingdom come;” “my standard of oughtness is established by selfish inclinations;” “truth, the good, and my destiny is determined by my vision of reality and what should be,” etc…] selfhood is the selfhood most opposed to a theocentric selfhood.
Concerning the final examination of our first parents, when our first parents failed the preliminary test or when any of us, who are their children, fail our final examination, this does not mean that anyone of us completely ceases to exist on every level and are doomed to dissipate into nothingness. It should be emphasized once again that to fail this examination means to become lifeless, non-operant, and ineffectual from eternity’s perspective. A person’s existence becomes permanently void of the capacity to fulfill any role in the Eternal Story of Creation, because such an individual volitionally forsook the only part he or she had in the Eternal Story of Creation. These individuals then become responsible for the removal of their own originally allotted name from its corresponding destiny in the Book of Life. It is that book that contains the names of those who have become and remained one’s trueself as a faithful child of God. Thus, someone left with no other role to carry out in the Eternal Story of Creation, becomes useless and unfit for eternity. Only death and hell [Sheol: a trash heap for those who have willfully become useless before their Creator] will accept him now. The reason human existence necessarily endures even for those who forfeit their part in the Creator's Eternal Story is because in the beginning God breathed eternal life into the immaterial essence that allows for human existence to be formed in the image of the immaterial Creator. Such an imputation of immortality is one that cannot be canceled for the breath of God necessarily persists eternally and consequently it absolutely cannot expire. Even though these individuals do not willfully chose this eternal destination, it is allotted to them because it is the only other destination lying outside of the Eternal Story of Creation. Remember that to forfeit the God-relationship is to forfeit one's part in this Eternal Story, so consequently in refusing to humbly submit to Providence and become a theocentric self, one has forfeited eternal life. Furthermore, all roles pertaining to humanity necessitate that the person who carries it out is Holy, just as the Author of this story is Holy, which is a designation only endowed upon those who have freely become and remained theological selves. Thus, to become an unholy secular self, necessitates that such a person descends into the domain of untruth, a realm that is void of the presence of the Creator, consequently it is a realm devoid of Shalom (order/harmony/peace) in it as it is a realm of chaos like a book full of meaningless words.
According to the mind’s perception of our first parents, this commandment to not eat the fruit of this particular tree was illogical according to their own understanding. It would not make sense to any of us why it is that one should not eat fruit from one specific tree out of an orchard of trees, that all except for one were permissible to eat. The fruit of this tree as every other tree appeared appetizing, and every other sensory appearance of this tree communicated that this tree produced good and healthy fruit just as well as the others. I am sure the question must have entered their mind why such a tree was created and put in the Garden of Eden in the first place, if indeed it bore fruit that was fatal if eaten. As time went on, they were reminded that the tree was off limits. This sense of off limits seemingly increased on its own because the Creator’s commandment to not eat of the fruit became synonymous in their minds as the commandment to not touch the tree. Indeed, God never said to not touch the tree at all. Yet, Eve said “God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’(Gen 3:3)] Consequently, it came to the point that in their mind this one stipulation of what they ought not to do became definitive, because the overbearing restrictions imposed upon them by their Heavenly Father. Such a psychological happening in the soul paves the way for the possibility of entertaining thoughts of discontent and rebellion. These ideas soon become more likely to be actualized; only awaiting something to further aggravate this sense of being held back from the possibility of good. Like a dog on a leash, who after sniffing, convinces itself that defying the limitations of the Master’s restraint keeps it back from something tasty.
So, according to Adam and Eve’s heart’s perception, it became a commandment entailing self-restraint not just over taste but also over the other senses. It made them feel even more restrained and restricted because of the palatable appearance of the fruit that seemed quite fit for eating for nourishment and for pleasure and of the tree that appeared good for maybe even climbing, touching, or laying under. Maybe this tree was the biggest in the orchard, and so it became an ever looming reminder of the restraints imposed upon them by God. The words “no you may not” are the most disliked words in the human language, because of the psychological effects it brings about in a person. It causes irritation, a sense of entitlement, and sometimes a slight bitterness of over not being in control, all of which are the beginnings of selfishness. Thus, the Evil One first attempted to aggravate this proneness to selfishness, making them believe and encouraging them to take hold of what is rightfully theirs, and giving them a false sense of entitlement that breeds pride. Their main goal was no longer serving their Heavenly Father out of a humble submission to His will, which entails freely laying down their all before Him and recognizing that before Him they are nothing, for He brought one into existing from nothing, consequently one does not even deserve the breath of life He gave them. Now it became a matter of taking what they thought they deserved with the inclination that self-consumption and selfish gain is the highest to achieve. This transition in the souls of our first parents is what introduced pride and stubbornness as inclinations shaping their will’s ascent to action. These consequences, however, did not play out until the deception was introduced, because in the beginning what made this commandment much more bearable was the fact that in the garden they had plenty of fruit to eat anyways that also appeared appealing. In order for the partaking of this forbidden to really become enticing, the benefit of eating of its fruit must provide a benefit beyond bodily nourishment and physical gratification.
The final stage of Adam and Eve’s preliminary examination did not begin until someone introduced deceitful ideas into the thoughts and ways of their mind that could potentially alter both their appearance of what was good for them and their attitude and relations towards their Creator and His Vision. Such a deception would have to be one that would initially alter the awareness of their mind’s eye to a soulish good and not the awareness of the senses that stimulate carnal desire. Only then would the benefit of partaking of the forbidden fruit attain more than temporary benefits but rather a benefit of a permanent value, one that would enhance the inner unfolding of consciousness via heightening the inner senses of the soul to partake in higher and lasting eternal goods. Only then would the act of eating from this tree become actually much more advantageous than the other trees, as it would continuously make one’s life more complete and fulfilling. Or so they thought. Such a prospect if entertained would paint a picture of a vision of how one’s part in the Story of Creation ought to unfold in contrast with the Creator’s vision of how it was meant to. As a result of the imagination and the induction of new data illuminated by such a deception of future possibilities, a true examination of the deepest inner regions of faith would be weighed in order to make a final accounting of the fidelity of a free creature to his or her Creator. Consequently, for Adam and Eve, the moment of true becoming of participating in eternal truth and becoming true children of God did not come until the either/or was present before them: to either accept the Creator’s Vision in faith as most befitting and obey God, or to lean onto their own limited understanding and accept the notion that the Creator’s Vision is not the most befitting and to place their faith instead on their own assessment of why they should not obey God’s commandment and so commit an eternal transgression.
No comments:
Post a Comment