Tag Archives: Genesis 3

Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.27b

16 Thursday Feb 2023

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Genesis

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

The prior post in this series may be found here.

Having argued that the word  know in the phrase “knowing good and evil” could mean choose, Kuyper now returns to the Genesis to consider whether taking “know” (Hebrew ydh) as “choose” would make sense of the passage:

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”

Genesis 3:22 (ESV) Change the word “know” to “choose”, “man has become like one of us in choosing good and evil”. Kuyper contends that the understanding makes good sense of the passage. He asserts that it does and he bases that conclusion upon this contention, “The distinction between God as Creator and man as moral creature consists precisely therein, that God assesses and determines what is good and what is evil and that man must not do this but must accept it from God.”

Kuyper does not prove that point, but I think it can be derived from the remainder of Scripture, particularly Romans 1:18-3: we humans run absolutely independently of the law.

Here is the key issue: God alone has the right to determine what is good or evil. By taking upon himself the power to make that determination –I, Adam, will decide for myself what is good and evil—Adam rebels against the Creator-Creature distinction. Adam seeks to usurp a position which belongs to God alone.

He then develops this thesis throughout the narration between Adam’s creation to the Fall. Prior to the Serpent’s intrusion, Adam what was good. There was a correspondence between what God required of Adam as good and what was objectively good. I think at this point, Kuyper’s argument may have a wrinkle: If Adam was doing what was God commanded (which was good) because it was objectively good, doesn’t that mean that Adam was making a choice prior to the Fall.

I think the way to avoid Adam choosing the good does not result in an autonomous choice is that there was no countervailing pull. It seems to be sort of an attraction, it wasn’t a choice it was so “obvious” to Adam that it was not a choice. If I look at a ball and realize it is a ball, I’m not making a choice to decide that it is a ball: it just is; I can’t conceive of it otherwise.  So, Adam is not really deciding to choose the good; he simply can’t conceive of it as anything other than good and attractive. It is no more a choice than my inability to conceive of the sun as anything other than the sun.

How then will God put Adam to the choice: Will you live by the evaluation of God alone as to what is good or evil?  Merely telling Adam to do good would prove nothing more than telling Adam he must breath air and drink water. Therefore, God set a task which was not good or evil except for the fact that God commanded it. Eating from the Tree was wrong because God forbade Adam from eating from the Tree. This put Adam to a choice: Will I accept God’s evaluation of this Tree, or will I make my own?

Adam decided that he could determine what was good or evil. That power to make my own decision spread to all moral concerns.

This leaves human beings the conflict of having two laws, two judgments competing for our decision. Conscience is the struggle of the competition of judgment: our own judgment and God’s judgment seeking to establish a final judgment which leads to some action.

I elaborate this proposition a bit more to make plain that our evaluations are not baldly cognitive rational considerations but are messy and involve desire. The conflicting judgments are, in more Augustinian terms, conflicting loves.

He ends the chapter by introducing what is meant by you shall surely die. He distinguishes die from exist. A plant can cease to exist. Satan is not in the least alive, but unquestionably exists. Rational beings having come into existence cannot cease to exist.  So death and existence are not the same.

Kuyper, Common Grace 1.27a. What is the “knowledge” of good and evil?

08 Tuesday Nov 2022

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Genesis

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The previous post on Kuyper’s Common Grace, volume 1 may be found here.

Now on to the first question of chapter

Genesis 3:22 (ESV)

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”

What then is meant by the statement that the tree from which Adam and Eve were not to eat was the tree of the “Knowledge of Good and Evil.” The obvious answer, at least when we consider the frequency with which it is raised, is that the knowledge is the knowledge of experience. How could Adam and Eve “know” evil without being evil? I could know about arson or embezzlement or any number of crimes, without knowing what is like to commit such crimes. And perhaps the experience of evil would give me a different knowledge of the “good.”

Kuyper says that the held this position until he faced two objections with the explanation could not meet. Before we come to the objections, I would like to stop at Kuyper’s epistemic modesty, “it is fitting that one not begin by rejecting the work of one’s predecessors but by associating oneself with it.” Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace: God’s Gifts for a Fallen World: The Historical Section, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, Melvin Flikkema, and Stephen J. Grabill, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman and Ed M. van der Maas, vol. 1, Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press; Acton Institute, 2015), 236.

What then are the objections. The first derives from the word of God respecting the effect of Adam and Eve eating from the tree, “they have become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” God cannot have experiential knowledge of evil, therefore, the comparison does not work. Thus, the knowledge cannot mean “experiential” knowledge.

The second objection is that sinning gives us no experience of “good.” But I believe that objection can be met by merely stating experiential knowledge of evil throws experiential knowledge of good (which Adam did have prior to eating) into relief and thus one gains a sort of experience of good with could not be had before.

Kuyper suggests that the knowledge here refers to not the experience of the thing but the choice:

4           Let us choose what is right;

let us know among ourselves what is good.

Job 34:4 (ESV) In this passage, choose is parallel to know, as right is parallel to good. He gives as an example,  “For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” Genesis 18:19 (ESV) The ESV does the work for Kuyper, because the word translated “chosen,” “For I have chosen him” is the word ydh: the verb commonly translated as “to know.”  The KJV (for instance) has “For I know him.”

This at least makes the argument plausible: that we should understand ydh (commonly translated “to know”) as to choose. The next test is whether that translation makes sense of Gen. 3:22

Kuyper further clarifies this use of “know” for “choose”: I know a thing, I evaluate, I then choose. Does that make sense of Gen. 3:22?  Yes, the human being – rather than accept the valuation of God as to good and evil – has appropriate this power to himself.

Thus, the probation of Adam was, Will you allow God to make the determination of what is good or evil? Will commit moral valuation to me, or will you seek to make this determination yourself.

The tree thus provokes conscience, because conscience can only have play if there is a potential conflict between moral choices.

This leads to an understanding of human psychology. First, there is the evaluation. The evaluation of a thing as good or bad then brings the will to act based upon that judgment. However, that determination is subject to a further judgment of God. Conscience rightly working concurs with God on the moral valuation of a behavior, “Conscience is a conflict between two judgments: the judgment of man himself and that of God.” (242)

Such a determination corresponds well to the use of similar language by Paul:

Romans 1:28 (ESV)

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

The first verb in that sentence, “see fit” comes from a verb which means to test and approve [dokimazo]

δοκιμάζωc: to regard something as genuine or worthy on the basis of testing—‘to judge to be genuine, to judge as good, to approve.’ μακάριος ὁ μὴ κρίνων ἑαυτὸν ἐν ᾧ δοκιμάζει ‘happy is the man who doesn’t cause himself to be condemned by what he judges to be good’ Ro 14:22; καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει ‘since they did not approve of retaining the knowledge of God’ or ‘… of acknowledging God’ Ro 1:28. For another interpretation of δοκιμάζω in Ro 1:28, see 30.98.

Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 363.

The word translated as “debased” mind means “not” tested or approved. If you will not evaluate God correctly, you will be evaluated as condemned. By not accepting God’s evaluation of good and evil, we become evaluated as evil (or we have a mind that cannot properly evaluate). This is then matched by Romans 12:1-2

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Romans 12:1–2 (ESV). Notice verse 2, you will be given the Spirit and thus in this transformation will begin to be able to test things to discern (by testing discern is the same verb dokimazo as used in Romans 1:28.

By eating the of the tree, Adam rejected God’s evaluation and was cast from the Garden. Romans 1:28 explains that having rejected God’s evaluation we are evaluated as debased (or we are unable to judge) and only in renewal of our mind can we begin to regain a right evaluation (by following God’s valuation).

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.26

14 Tuesday Jun 2022

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Genesis, Glory

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Chapter 26

This chapter raises two issues, first the serpent. Kuyper takes it that Eve was surprised to hear from the Serpent. This is a disordering of nature: humans speak to and about animals, but speech moves in only one way.  She should have or must have realized this was some alien power. In Genesis 2:15, God instructed Adam to “keep” the Garden.  That would infer that something dangerous was about.

The verb sh-m-r, to keep, does mean (in appropriate places) an action to protect or preserve.  For instance, in 1 Samuel 25:12, David speaks of “guarding” Nabal’s property. As Wenham explains, “Similarly, שׁמר “to guard, to keep” has the simple profane sense of “guard” (4:9; 30:31), but it is even more commonly used in legal texts of observing religious commands and duties (17:9; Lev 18:5) and particularly of the Levitical responsibility for guarding the tabernacle from intruders (Num 1:53; 3:7–8). Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 67.

This leads to the question, “Guard against what?” It does seem odd, at first glance, to see a command to “protect” when all is very good Adam is in Paradise. Thus, Kuyper is correct to see the implied danger in the command “to keep.”  Kuyper thinks she must have known of

When a beast appears disrupting the natural order, he should have been recognized immediately as the danger previously warned against. Kuyper asserts Eve did know this was the alien power.

The second issue addressed in this chapter is the counter-factual: What if they had withstood the test? They would have known God better as their king and law giver. Their sin did open up a world of knowledge to them. It was an actual form of knowledge, because God sought to bar them from the Garden by armed Cheribum.

Adam and Eve were deluded in what they obtained: they did not actually raise to the preeminence of determining right and wrong in an absolute sense; merely in a rebellious manner refusing to accept God’s pronouncement.  This disruption of the proper relationship with God has left us poor humans with a bad conscience.  He refers to that status as a “holy sensation to feel shame.”

We are thus left with shame were there was once honor.  It perhaps useful to note at this place that we are promise “honor” at the return of Christ (1 Peter 1:7) and we destined for “glory”. (Rom. 8:30) Such honor and glory will then replace all shame which we now experience.

Solomon’s Prayer for Wisdom 1 Kings 3:9

12 Saturday Mar 2022

Posted by in 1 Kings

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

1 Kings 3 records an appearance of God to Solomon with an interesting request, “What do you want?”

5 At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and God said, “Ask what I shall give you.” 6 And Solomon said, “You have shown great and steadfast love to your servant David my father, because he walked before you in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward you. And you have kept for him this great and steadfast love and have given him a son to sit on his throne this day. 7 And now, O Lord my God, you have made your servant king in place of David my father, although I am but a little child. I do not know how to go out or come in. 8 And your servant is in the midst of your people whom you have chosen, a great people, too many to be numbered or counted for multitude. 9 Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”

1 Kings 3:5–9 (ESV)

There are many peculiar things about this passage, such as it involves God asking what someone wants – rather than God providing instruction. But what interests me here is Solomon’s request, “Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”

The commentators typically emphasis the direct nature of this request, Solomon asks for the ability to govern:

“Solomon’s desire for an obedient, listening heart is based on his wish to administer justice in Israel. Justice can only emerge when the king is able “to distinguish between right and wrong” (lit., “good and evil”). Justice can become a quite complicated goal, as 3:16–28 proves. Only knowledge of what God considers fair and unfair can guide the king to act justly with any consistency. Though Solomon has already exhibited political craftiness, he knows that long-term wisdom and success reside where David found it—in an ongoing relationship with the Lord.” Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings, vol. 8, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 110–111.

“ ‘For judging thy people, discriminating between good and evil’: it is precisely the ability to distinguish good from evil, truth from falsehood, that is indispensable in the administration of justice. “For who is able to judge this thy difficult people (את־עמך הכבד הזה)”: not only was the civil life of Israel filled with strife and contention toward the end of David’s reign (cf. 2 Sam 15:1–4), but the political situation likewise continued unstable. This prayer was definitely answered in the sense that Solomon did find the means to suppress all outward show of rebelliousness to the end of his reign.” Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, 2nd ed., vol. 12, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Inc, 2003), 52–53.

The Pulpit commentary opens up an interesting cross reference to Hebrews 5:14, “That I may discern between good and bad [i.e., right and wrong, true and false; cf. Heb. 5:14).”

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 1 Kings, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 52.

But there is another cross-reference which think is far more instructive to understand Solomon’s prayer:

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Genesis 2:16–17 (ESV)

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:1–5 (ESV)

Peter Leithart picks up on this cross-reference:

“Solomon asks for wisdom, more specifically for “discernment of good and evil” (להבין בין־טוב לרע) (3:9), using a phrase similar to that found in Gen. 2–3 to describe the tree in the garden (עץ הדעת טוב ורע), a tree that gives wisdom (Deurloo 1989, 12). Solomon’s request can thus be described as a request for access to the tree forbidden to Adam.”

Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006), 44.

I think Mr. Leithart is correct about the reference which underscores this prayer. But I think he got the allusion backwards (I will here quickly note that no one has requested that I publish a commentary and that Dr. Leithart is far better credentialed than I (D. Phil. Cambridge).)

And thus with appropriate trepidation, I make my case.

The immediate correspondence between his prayer and Genesis is the knowledge of good and evil. With that interesting phrase, we can begin to draw a comparison:

Before the FallAfter the Fall
Approached by the SerpentApproached by God
Speaks with Eve, Adam’s wifeSpeaks with Solomon, a type pointing at Christ & Adam
God does not want your goodWhat can I give you?
God has forbidden the tree of good and evilGod has forbidden nothing to ask
God does not want you to have wisdomGod is pleased Solomon asks for wisdom
The temptation is you will be like God and you will be able to determine for yourself good and evilGive me the ability to discern good and evil

Rather than Solomon asking to eat from the eat; I think it better to see this as Solomon asking to reverse the temptation of the Fall. The Serpent came to Eve and said God does not want you to have wisdom. But if you eat from this tree, you will be able to be like God and you will be able to independently exercise your moral judgment.

Solomon is approached by God. Solomon is well passed the Fall. Human beings have fully rebelled – in fact, the refrain of 1 & 2 Kings will be “he did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord.” (When I read through these books with my daughter and I came to another evil King who did evil in the eyes of the Lord, she said, “Oh no, not again!”)

And the book of Judges recording the horror human sin ends with this epitath:

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Judges 21:25 (ESV)

As Paul will write summarizing the degradation of human beings:

“21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Romans 1:21–23 (ESV)

The act of making one’s own decisions of good and evil lies there at the heart of the horror of human history. (Even the most depraved actions are always justified in the eyes of the perpetrator.)

But Solomon prays for a reversal of the noetic effect of sin: God, I am not going to strike out on my own. In fact, I recognize my inability to judge. Rather than a tree to just know good and evil; I am asking for your intervention that I may discern good and evil.

And in this we see an aspect of how Solomon typifies the Christ to come.

Edward Taylor: What Feast is This.1

28 Monday Jan 2013

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Isaiah, Lord's Supper, Meditation, Puritan

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What Feast is This?

Isaiah 25 is a poem of praise to God for reversing the power of sin and death. The power of wicked who use violence to crush the poor and powerless will be undone and also the power of death which animates the oppression will itself be destroyed (the poem is written in a “prophetic perfect” — that is, it represents a future state, but speaks of it in past time: it is a thing so sure as to be counted complete before it happens in time).

In place of death, God will raise a feast; rather than a funeral, there will be a marriage celebration:

6 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. 7 And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. 9 It will be said on that day, “Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”

This image of a feast replacing death is used by Jesus to speak of the coming world (Matthew 8:11 & 25:1-13). The Bible ends with the invitation to a marriage feast (Revelation 19:9). Thus, the Bible opens (Genesis 2:24) and closes with a marriage. Death has intervened (Genesis 3), but God has overcome death in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Taylor takes this imagery of the feast in celebration of death being overcome and uses it to contemplate the Lord’s Supper (communion):

A Deity of Love incorporate
My Lord, lies in thy flesh, in dishes stable
Ten thousand times more rich than golden plate
In golden service on thy table,
To feast thy people with. What feast is this!
Where richest love lies cooked in e’ry dish?

Deity of love incorporate: The Son of God incarnate: John 1:14, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. John 3:16, “For God so love the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
1 John 4:9-10: 9 “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

Dishes stable/Where richest love lies cooked in e’ry dish: This is a reference to the communion service (the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper):

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26.

In short, Taylor sees himself before the Lord’s Table (another name for communion), where the feast is the Lord whose death overcomes death. By means this meditation, he is seeking to see “spiritually” (if you will) — to see the truth of thing, itself; and bring his heart to a state to relish it rightly.

Stable/table: The second lines contains 11 syllables, the fourth, 9.

My Lord, lies in thy flesh: the accent should fall on “lies” & “flesh” -“–`-`-`-

Some Points of Comparison Between Ecclesiastes 6:10-7:2

02 Wednesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Ecclesiastes, Genesis, John

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1. Whatever has come to be has already been named (Eccl. 6:10).

Cross References: Genesis 2:19–20 (ESV):  19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field….

Notes: (1) All that exists has come to be from God’s effort – it all pre-exists Adam. God created, then Adam named. Ironically, it is the second Adam who created the first Adam’s world (Luke 3:23 & 38; John 1:3).

(2) Naming: Adam named everything – we all live in that world. Whatever Adam names the thing “that was its name.”

 

2. …and it is known what man is (Eccl. 6:10).

Cross-references: then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Genesis 2:7 (ESV)

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Genesis 3:19 (ESV)

And: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

And: And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done” Genesis 8:21 (ESV). This point returns with Jesus: 24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people 25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man. 1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. John 2:24–3:1 (ESV).

 

Notes: Bitter irony, Adam (male & female, Gen. 5:2) created in the image of God, raised from the dust by the breath of God return to the dust for their rebellion. Adam’s son Seth was born in Adam’s image (Gen. 5:3; there is some dispute concerning the full scope of the meaning here: the very least, we must recognize that Adam could convey nothing beyond what he possessed). The human being is corrupted – and God knows it.

 

3. And that he is not able to dispute with one stronger than he (Eccl. 6:10).

Cross-reference: But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” Genesis 3:9 (ESV)

Notes: Adam could not dispute with God. Adam’s rebellion brought on Adam’s ruin. The serpent’s promise (Gen. 3:4-5) turned out to be utterly untrue.  Scripture repeats this them: Job 38:1-2; John 19:11).

 

4. The more words, the more vanity, and what is the advantage to man? Ecclesiastes 6:11 (ESV)

Cross-reference: Genesis 3:10, “And he [Adam] said ….”

Notes: We have never been able to talk our way out of our problem.

And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Matthew 6:7 (ESV) Job 38:2. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 7:21 (ESV)

 

5. For who knows what is good for man while he lives the few days of his vain life, Ecclesiastes 6:12 (ESV)

Cross-references:

Genesis 2:10, “and God saw that it was good.” Etc.

Genesis 2:18, “It is not good that the man should be alone …..”

  Notes: We do not know what is good, despite our eating from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Gen. 2:9, 27; 3:5 & 8. The irony that having sought to determine good – we can no longer determine good. Rom. 1:28. Why not relativism? How can claim a privileged place to actually understand the world? God knows  what is good – but we no longer do.

Ecclesiastes 7:1 et seq answer these questions. Things have become so topsy-turvy, that now death is better than life! Note that before sin, death was solely the evil promised (Gen. 2:17, 3:19).

6. which he passes like a shadow? Ecclesiastes 6:12

Cross-reference: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

Notes: shadow, sel, sounds like image, selem. The words also bear a relationship to one-another:

Sel, comes from the root verb s-l-l, to be shaded or dusky.[1] The words by sound and concept are related to the word for shadow[2] – hence either an image or something insubstantial.[3] Hence a pun on the nature of Adam: He was created the image of God (selem) but became a mere shadow (sel). Man created for eternity becomes insubstantial and false (selem, a mere image, an idol).[4]

 

7.  For who can tell man what will be after him under the sun? Ecclesiastes 6:10

Cross-reference: Genesis 2:17 (ESV)

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Genesis 3:4 (ESV)

4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.

Genesis 3:19 (ESV)

19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Genesis 5:5 (ESV)

5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

Notes: God knows what will happen – even if we do not.  God told us what would happen with sin – and we sinned nonetheless. God binds the future we death; we can know nothing  beyond what discloses (John 3:12). Our attempts to gain knowledge around God leave us with idols:

Isaiah 41:21–24 (ESV)

21 Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. 22 Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. 23 Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. 24 Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you.

Concluding notes:

The human being has become bound in and bound with death, with vanity. The human being created to be a selem, an image of God, is now a selem-sel, a mere image or shadow. The ideas are brought together in Psalm 39:6 (Heb. 39:7):

Surely a man goes about as a shadow [selem, “image” in Gen. 1:27] Surely for nothing [Heb., hebel, “vanity” in Ecclesiastes] they are in turmoil; man heaps up wealth and does not know who will gather!

Indeed, Psalm 39 acts as a sort commentary on Ecclesiastes 6:10-7:14; or conversely, Ecclesiastes functions as a practical meditation on Psalm 39. Both are built around the rise and fall of Adam and our present status in this world. We cannot respond rightly to our circumstance until we take in starkly how painful we find our circumstance. Hence, the counsel which begins in Ecclesiastes7.

[1]

צֵל m. (f. Isa. 37:8, compare the form צִלָּה), with suff. צִלִּי (from the root צָלַל No. III) a shadow (Arab. ظِلُّ), Jud. 9:36; Ps. 80:11, etc. Metaph. Job 17:7, “all my members (are) like a shadow,” i.e. scarce a shadow of my body remains. Also—(a) used of anything fleeting and transient, Job 8:9; Psal. 102:12; Ecc. 8:13.—(b) of a roof which affords shade and protection (compare Lat. umbra); hence used for protection and defence; preserving sometimes however the image of a shadow, Psalm 17:8; 36:8; Isa. 16:3, “make thy shadow at noon as in the night,” i.e. afford a safe refuge in glowing heat. Isa. 23:4, “thou (O Jehovah) art a shadow in heat;” sometimes not retaining the image, Nu. 14:9; Ecc. 7:12. In plur. is used the form צְלָלִים.

 

Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2003), 709.

[2]

צֵל: probably a primary noun (Bauer-L. Heb. 454b), > III צלל; SamP. ṣål (Babylonian vocalisation צַל); MHeb., DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 187); JArm. טֻלָּא, טוּלָּא, טְלָלָא; Sam. טל (Ben-H. Lit. Or. 2:578), טלל (see 3/2:240); טל and similarly in the comparable dialects of Aramaic, → BArm. parallel with טלל; Ug. ẓl (Gordon Textbook §19:1052; Aistleitner 2371; Fisher Parallels 1: p. 220 entry 270; on ẓlm (Dietrich-L.-S. Texte 1, 161:1) see Dietrich-Loretz UF 12 (1980) 382); Akk. ṣillu shade, covering, protection (AHw. 1101; CAD Ṣ: 189); cf. ṣillûlu cover (AHw. 1102; CAD Ṣ: 194) and ṣulūlu roof, canopy (AHw. 1111; CAD Ṣ: 242); Arb. ẓill; ? OSArb. ẓlt (Conti Chrest. 160b, uncertain) roof, roofing; Eth. ṣĕlālōt (Dillmann Lex. 1257); Tigr. ṣĕlāl (Littmann-H. Wb. 632a) shadow: shadow: sf. צִלִּי, צִלְּךָ, צִלֵּךְ, צִלּוֹ, צִלֲּלוֹ (Jb 4022, Bauer-L. Heb. 570t), צִלָּהּ, צִלָּם; pl. צְלָלִים (Bauer-L. Heb. 570t), cs. צִלְלֵי־; (Bauer-L. Heb. 570t), Is 388 and 2K 2011 (gloss) fem. :: 2K 209.10 masc. (THAT 2:223: 53 times); Bordreuil RHPhR 46 (1966) 372-387.

 

Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 1024-25.

[3]

צָלַם an unused root, Æth. ጸልመ፡ TO BE SHADY, Arab. ظَِاَِم to be obscure, ظامةُ darkness. Hence—

 

צֶלֶם m. with suff. צַלְמוֹ—(1) a shadow, Psalm 39:7; metaph. used of any thing vain, Psal. 73:20. Hence—

(2) an image, likeness (so called from its shadowing forth; compare σκία, σκίασμα, σκιαγραφέω), Genesis 1:27; 5:3; 9:6; an image, idol, 2 Kings 11:18; Am. 5:26. (Syr. and Chald. ܨܠܰܡܐܳ, צַלְמָא id., Arab. صَنَمُ an image, the letters נ and ל being interchanged.)

 

צֶלֶם, צְלֵם Ch. emphat. state, צַלְמָא m. an image, idol, Dan. 2:31, seqq.; 3:1, seqq.

 

צַלְמוֹן (“shady”), [Zalmon, Salmon], pr.n.—(1) of a mountain in Samaria, near Shechem, Jud. 9:48; this apparently is the one spoken of as covered with snow, Ps. 68:15.

(2) of one of David’s captains, 2 Sa. 23:28.

 

צַלְמוֹנָה (“shady”), [Zalmonah], pr.n. of a station of the Israelites in the desert, Nu. 33:41.

 

צַלְמָוֶת f. pr. shadow of death (comp. of צֵל shadow, and מָוֶת death), poet. for very thick darkness, Job 3:5; 10:21; 28:3; 34:22; 38:17, שַׁעֲרֵיצַלְמָוֶת “the gates of darkness.”

 

צַלְמֻנָּע (perhaps for צֵלמְמֻנָּע “to whom shadow is denied”), [Zalmunna], pr.n. of a prince of the Midianites, Jud. 8:5; Ps. 83:12.

 

Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2003), 710-11.

[4]

  : I *צלם (Bauer-L. Heb. 458s; THAT 2:556f :: W.H. Schmidt WMANT 172 (1967) 1331: צֵל + מ‍); SamP. ṣā̊låm; MHeb. image, statue, idol; DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 187; THAT 2:562); JArm. צַלְמָא; Sam.; Ph. (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 245; THAT 2:556); EmpArm. ṣlmʾ, ṣlmh the effigy, his effigy (Donner-R. Inschriften text 225:3, 6; text 226:2; Jean-H. Dictionnaire 245; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 968: statue); Ug. ṣlm pny (Gordon Textbook text 1002:59 = Dietrich-L.-S. Texte 2, 31:61; Aistleitner 2319; cf. Gordon Textbook §19:2059); Akk. sbst. ṣalmu statue, figurine, image (AHw. 1078f; CAD Ṣ: 78): in particular: 1. the statue of a god; 2. the statue of a king; 3. a statue in general; 4. a figurine; 5. a relief, bas-relief; 6. metaphorical, a constellation, shape, likeness, representation; BArm. →צְלֵם; Syr. ṣalmā, ṣəlemtā; CPArm. ṣlm; Mnd. ṣilma (Drower-M. Dictionary 393b) image, idol, shape, form; Nab., Palm. Hatra ṣlm, ṣlmʾ and ṣlmtʾ statue (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 245; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 968, ṣlm I; see also BArm. under צְלֵם); OSArb. ẓlm (Conti Chrest. 161a) and ṣlm (Conti Chrest. 224b) likeness, statue; Arb. ṣanam idol (Arm. loanword, see Fraenkel Fremdwörter 273): cs. צֶלֶם, sf. צַלְמוֹ, צַלְמֵנוּ, צַלְמָם; pl. cs. צַלְמֵי, sf. צְלָמָיו, צַלְמֵיכֶם: THAT 2:556-563.

  —1. statue, inscribed column 2K 1118/2C 2317.

  —2. idol Nu 3352 Ezk 720, Am 526 (text uncertain) צַלְמֵיכֶם probably meaning effigies of the Kēwān, Babylonian astral deities (see AHw. 420b kajjamānû; CAD Ṣ: 38a line 6ff kajamānu adj. b: “steady” as a name of Saturn) and sakkut (Sumerian dSAG.KUD, see E. Reiner Šurpu tablet 2 line 180; Rudolph KAT 13/2:207; Wolff BK 14/2:304; THAT 2:557).

  —3. pl.: —a. images, figures: צַלְמֵיזָכָר effigies of men Ezk 1617, צַלְמֵיכַשְׂדִּים pictures of the Chaldaeans carved into the wall Ezk 2314; —b. replicas, likenesses of the boils and mice 1S 65.11 (see THAT 2:557f).

  —4. a. transitory image Ps 397 (parallel with הֶבֶל), Ps 7320 text uncertain (parallel with חֲלוֹם) cj. for צַלְמָם prp. צַלְמוֹ (BHS) :: Würthwein Wort und Existenz 169: MT “their idol”; —b. the צֶלֶם of Ps 397 7320 belongs to II *צלם rather than to I, and so means silhouette, fleeting shadows, so e.g. Humbert Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute 156; cf. Kopf VT 9 (1959) 272 and in general W.H. Schmidt WMANT 172 (1967) 1331.

  —5. likeness: —a. of a man as the צֶלֶם of God Gn 126f 96: for bibliography see Westermann BK 1/1:203-214; see further Barr BJRL 51 (1968) 11-26; Stamm “Zur Frage der Imago Dei im Alten Testament” (in Humanität und Glaube. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Guggisberg 243-253); Mettinger ZAW 86 (1974) 403-24; O.H. Steck FRLANT 115 (1975) 140567; O. Loretz Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen; THAT 2:558-562: man, God’s likeness, God’s image, i.e. he is God’s viceroy, representative or witness among the creatures; —b. the son as the צֶלֶם of his father Gn 53. †

 Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 1028-29.

God Owes it to His Eternal Sovereignty

21 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by in Genesis

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

God owes it to His eternal sovereignty to place all His intelligent creatures in a state of dependence and responsibility. God wills an established order in the moral, as well as in the physical world. Further, God wills, as we see in every page of His word, that His creatures should render him a free obedience, a worship of the heart, which would be destroyed by the absence of all responsibility, or by the impossibility of sinning. God acts towards His creature, as a good father towards his child, whom he does not leave to his own uncertain will, or to the hazard of his destiny.

 L. Bonnet, The Exile from Eden; Meditations on the Third Chapter of Genesis, With Exegetical Developments, trans. W. Hare (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1839), 35-36.

They Buried Themselves

21 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by in Galatians

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

O what fatal ravages had sin already made in their hearts! That God, whose favour and presence they had hitherto enjoyed, now became an object of terror and alarm. They fled from Him! They buried themselves amidst the thick shades of the garden! They could not support His look! What a deadly thing is sin! How it separates from God, thrusts the sinner away from Him, and inflicts terror upon the conscience! Thus Peter trembled; “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” And thus Isaiah exclaimed, when the glory of the Lord was revealed to him (Isaiah 6:5:) “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell among a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the king, the Lord of Hosts!” From the fatal moment when man ate the forbidden fruit, all his sinful offspring have by nature instinctively dreaded a Holy God. See, my brethren, the immediate consequences of transgression! See our first parents hiding their guilty heads amidst the trees of the garden, and learn from that humbling sight the dreadful nature of sin!

 

Francis Close, The Book of Genesis Considered and Illustrated in a Series of Historical Discourses, Preached in the Church of the Holy Trinity, Cheltenham (London: Thomas Arnold, Paternoster-Row, 1841), 31-32.

Lessons on Prayer and Counseling from Genesis 3

17 Thursday May 2012

Posted by in Accountability, Biblical Counseling, Confession, Genesis, Prayer

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In Genesis 3:9-13, God confronts Adam and Eve (and the serpent) over sin. Dr. Rosscup, in his book An Exposition on Prayer, writes, “God enters into a counseling session with the two” (11). He notes that this also contains prayer by Adam and Eve, “Since they are talking to God, this in essence is prayer” (11).

            Biblical Counseling

            Before God does anything with Adam or Eve, he seeks to probe their sin to gain confession and acknowledgment of that sin. This demonstrates a characteristic difference between biblical counseling and various psychological methods: The Bible portrays the essential problem between humanity as a problem of sin: whether the effects of our own sin, the effects of sin by others against us, and sin generally present in the world.

            Consider a contentious couple: a psychologist would train the pair to speak with one another in a more constructive fashion. Perhaps they would negotiate a settlement over some particular issue, or they could learn to “communicate”. Perhaps they would learn relaxation techniques to moderate their anxiety before they see one-another.  Let us assume that the psychological techniques are 100% successful and the two never fight again.

            Problem solved? No, because God has been omitted from the process.  In Ephesians 4:25-32, Paul instructs Christians on how to speak with one-another. However, he does not merely address the content of their speech, he explains that the wrong done is the wrong against God, himself:

29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Ephesians 4:29–30 (ESV)

The speech is wrongful, because it grieves the Holy Spirit. This is not to discount the pain to the individual humans. Yet, the real wrong in sin is the wrong against God. In Genesis 9:6, God requires a capital punishment for murder, because murder is an attack upon the image of God. When David sins, he writes that his sin was (Ps. 51:4, “Against you, and you only, have I sinned”).

            We must realize that sin is the greatest possible evil – it is far worse than suffering. Jesus was willing to suffer for the sin of others, but he would never sin of himself.

            When it comes to the matter of change in the counselee’s life, it must always begin with repentance – and repentance cannot begin until one sees sin as sin.  When a husband excuses his anger on the basis of wife’s demands, he fails to see his anger as sin. He must see sin in its wretched sinfulness, if he can repent. And until he repents, he cannot change.

            Prayer

            Likewise in our prayer, we must come to God realizing that we are unfit for his company aside from the work of Jesus Christ. We have access to God only through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1-2). Accordingly, coming to God with confession and acknowledgment of our sin is a necessary first step. It fixes our minds upon the majesty of God, the holiness of God and the wretched weakness of man. We are to humble ourselves, that he may lift us up (1 Pet. 5:6-7).

            How God Provokes Confession and Acknowledgment:

            God asks three questions, “Where are you?” “Have you disobeyed?” “What have you done?” He asks such questions “to stir them to accountability” (Rosscup 11). We must interrogate our own hearts in prayer. We must ask such questions in counseling, so that we can stir others to accountability before God.

            Confession Defined

            Rosscup defines confession: “What he (Adam) confesses is, at its roots, what confession is in 1 John 1:19. It is agreeing with God, seeing eye to eye so to speak, about sin. All that God draws from him is a frank, open admission of the stark truth” (11).

            The Consequences of Sin

            God ends this stage of the counseling: “Briefly, the Lord follows up counseling interchange by stating His consequences for each of the guilty parties” (12). In counseling, an important aspect of the teaching is to show from scripture (and often their own experience) the consequences of sin. In Proverbs 5-7, Solomon repeatedly demonstrates the consequences of sin. Thus, the counselor must identify the sin as sin – calling it by its biblical name – and then teach on the consequences of the sin. While knowing the consequence is not sufficient to bring sanctification, it is a necessary element of the counseling process.

            Summary Lessons

            Rosscup identifies two principles of prayer from this passage: “First, confessing sin is a step forward – to God and with God. It is best to go all the way in this closure of the heart with Him, deal with the guilt squarely and fully and not shift blame to someone else. Second, when we confess frankly to put sins behind us, we find the Lord more willing than we are that things be right between us”( 13-14).

 

           

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Gospel in Genesis.3

13 Tuesday Mar 2012

Posted by in Genesis, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Gospel in Genesis, “Fig Leaves”

I)        Introduction

A)     Genesis 3 presents us with a message from God.

1)      The Bible presents truth in an existential manner, “and that means that I cannot afford to sit back and consider it casually in a detached way. The Bible says you cannot do that because you were in an uncertain world, in your whole life is certain.”

2)      In the Bible, God speaks to us and asks, as he did to Adam in Genesis 3:9, “Where art thou?”

B)     Genesis 3 presents us with the historical truth.

C)     In the prior sermon, we saw that the Fall affected the minded intellect of man:

1)      “He is ready to swallow the most dogmatic assertions that lack any vestige of proof whatsoever because they have great names attached to them that because they are made with a great show of certainty.”

2)      Man still defies God and rebels against him merely on the basis of some theory or some dogmatic statement, and then he repeats the whole sorry process.

D)     The very fact of the history of mankind demonstrates the proof of the Fall as recorded in Genesis 3.

E)      Because of the effect of sin, we are unable to see the remedy provided for sin.

II)      The first consequence of sin.

A)     The loss of glory in the body.

1)      At the moment of rebellion, Adam and Eve realized they were naked.

2)      “I do not know, but I inclined to agree with those who suggest, as an exposition of this, that man at the beginning, as he was made perfect by God, had a kind of glory about his body even as there was about his soul. Man, what he felt, not only for the spirit, but he also felt his body…. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost that glory and left with bodies as we now know them, but they were aware that they had deprived of something.”

B)     Even now we have an innate sense of our loss caused by the Fall.

1)      We have an innate feeling that we were meant for something bigger and higher….There is in every one of us our recollection, a memory, of what we once were. We were all in Adam….I though we have lost this and though we have never known it, a memory lingers. It is in the whole of human nature. It is in all humanity, a sense of something else.

2)      We all have this idea that we were meant for happiness, and that they were meant for peace, that we were meant for a life of joy, but somehow this has been taken from us.

3)      We cannot believe, that we were just made to die. We of the sense of destiny, sense of bigness, a sense of glory, we cannot get rid of it; we could not get away from it.

III)    The response to sin.

A)     They sewed together fig leafs is covering.

B)     We continue to sewed together fig leaves.

1)      We do this with cultural structures.

2)      We do this with knowledge and philosophy.

3)      We do this with politics.

4)      We do with false religions.

5)      Human beings continue to use these means, even though, throughout the course of history, we have proven false and failing.

IV)   The result of sin: fear.

A)     In Genesis 3:8, we read that Adam and Eve hid from the presence of the Lord. The promise that they should not die proved false.

B)     “And the whole tragedy of the human race today is that it is in this contradictory position. We say we are not afraid, and yet we are terrified. We say we do not believe in sin and in God, but we have a sense of condemnation. We have a voice within us that accuses us condemns us. We’re filled with a sense of shame. We are unhappy.”

C)     Try as we might, we cannot avoid the sense of conviction.

1)      We use psychologist, to explain away to hide from our sense of guilt. It does not work.

2)      “Say, if you like, but you do not believe in God, he nevertheless have a sense of God, and you have to argue with yourself.”

D)     You are afraid of death.

E)      The saddest thing about man, is that he runs away from God.

1)      Why? Well because he does not know God, because he has believed a lie about, because he is altogether wrong with respect to him, because he does not realize the very God against whom he has rebelled and whose face he has spat is the only one who can save and that is prepared to do so…. He runs away from God, his only benefactor, his only Savior.

2)      This is the tragedy and disaster of the world.

3)      The only solution for our circumstance is to reconcile ourselves to God in Jesus Christ.