Beginning Musings
In recent months, I have enjoyed studying the details of Genesis 1-11. My primary purpose was to note the relationship between the Genesis account of creation and the etymology of certain Chinese characters, which material has been (and continues to be) compiled in The Genesis Echo. In the process of my research, I was reminded of a few interesting, but seldom mentioned tidbits from these early chapters of Genesis. I'd like to share them briefly herein.
WHAT DID GOD SAY?
Genesis 3 begins with a question posed by the serpent to the woman. He simply inquired, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?'" (verse 1). From here, the conversation builds, until the woman is convinced by the serpent to eat of the fruit of which God said, "You shall not eat of it!"
I find the woman's response to the serpent curious. She stated:
We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.' (Genesis 3:2-3)
Did God say that? Genesis 2:17 reads:
...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.
Indeed, God commanded that they not eat from the tree, but where did Eve get the "...nor shall you touch it..."? I suppose it is plausible that such a command was given, and simply not recorded in Moses' account. It is equally believable that Eve reported God's command to the serpent incorrectly.
What's the big deal? Quite simply this - if we do not know God's commandments, or we are not concerned with the exact meaning of His words, then we cannot or will not obey Him. There is no doubt that Eve knew what God had commanded; but it would appear that she either did not consider the details of the command to be important, or she, for whatever reason, wanted to "strengthen" God's law.
It is important to know and obey exactly what God commands. It is not sufficient to have a general idea of God's law - shall we treat the word of life with such disregard?
Equally, it is not our place to either strengthen or weaken a commandment of God. Both the Old and New Testaments tell us that we cannot add to or take from God's word (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19).
Friend, we must know what God says, believe what God says, and obey what God says.
HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU
After Adam and Eve ate the fruit of which God commanded them not to, the Lord speaks to the serpent, the woman, and the man, stating the consequences of their actions. The woman was told:
I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. (Genesis 3:16)
It is important to distinguish the consequence of her sin from the Lord's statement of her proper abode in relation to man. The woman having affection for her husband and submitting to his leadership was not part of Eve's punishment, but a reminder of the position from which she strayed - resulting in the sin itself.
Genesis 3:6 reveals,
...she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
It would seem that the woman, on her own, fell to the temptation of the serpent, and then gave the fruit to her husband after she had taken from it. This perhaps indicates that she stepped out from her proper place, being in subjection to her husband, and as a result, heeded the voice of the serpent rather than the voice of her husband and the word of the Lord.
“...a few interesting, but seldom mentioned tidbits from the early chapters of Genesis.”
GOD MAKES ATONEMENT
Man could no longer live in the garden of Eden. He had corrupted himself with sin, and now access to the tree of life would be taken away. However, God did not send Adam and Eve into the world dead in sin - He made atonement for them.
Often, we focus on Genesis 3:21 as an indication that God clothed Adam and Eve in a modest fashion, in contrast to their own immodest apparel (Genesis 3:7). It may be that they clothed themselves immodestly with the sewn fig leaves - I don't know. That is mere conjecture. It may be that God was providing them with more permanent and durable clothing. But, may I suggest that if all we focus upon is the clothing of their bodies, we've miss something important in Genesis 3:21.
God did not clothe Adam and Eve with a pair of polyester or cotton coats. He provided "coats of skin". A pair of animals died for Adam and Eve's sake. God made atonement for them, having provided sacrifices, and the skins of those sacrifices, God used to clothe the man and woman.
MAKING SACRIFICE TO GOD
As we enter the fourth chapter of Genesis, we find Cain and Abel, the two sons of Adam and Eve, coming before the Lord with their respective offerings. I have often heard the offerings characterized in this way: Cain gave an offering of his own choosing, not what the Lord had commanded, but what pleased him, and thus the Lord did not respect Cain or his offering; but Abel gave according to the Lord's command, and thus the Lord respected him and his offering.
I don't doubt the possibility of that, but believe there is a better explanation. Notice Genesis 4:3-5 from Young's Literal Translation:
And it cometh to pass at the end of days that Cain bringeth from the fruit of the ground a present to Jehovah; and Abel, he hath brought, he also, from the female firstlings of his flock, even from their fat ones; and Jehovah looketh unto Abel and unto his present, and unto Cain and unto his present He hath not looked; and it is very displeasing to Cain, and his countenance is fallen.
It would appear, according to Young's Literal Translation, that Cain brought a single offering - the fruit of the ground, whereas Abel brought two offerings - an offering of the fruit of the ground, and also an offering of his flock. Notice:
...Abel, he hath brought (ie. as Cain did), he also, from the firstlings of his flock...
Cain's offering was basically what would eventually be known under the law of Moses as a grain offering - an offering of the fruit of the ground, produce. Abel brought the same, but he brought another offering also - an animal sacrifice - a sin offering.
Abel acknowledged his sin, and willingly brought a sin offering to the Lord. Cain, on the other hand, did not bring an offering for sin; perhaps unwilling to acknowledge that he was guilty of sin. Just a few verses later, the LORD speaks to Cain:
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it. (Genesis 4:7
Cain's transgression was not bringing an offering of fruit to the Lord, but was refusing to bring a sin sacrifice - he refused to confess that he was a sinner.
I realize that the perspective introduced herein is maybe not orthodox, but perhaps gives us some insight into some of the details provided regarding the early days of man's history. I'd be happy to hear any comments you might have.
Article Navigation:
Answering The Atheist
Complaint:
Is the law of God perfect? Some verses indicate yes (Psalm 18:30; 19:7), but Hebrews 8:6-7 says no, it was not. Is there a contradiction?
Response:
Psalm 19:7 clearly tells us that "...the law of the Lord is perfect..." With such a direct statement, we must conclude that indeed, the law of the Lord is perfect.
What then shall we make of the statement in Hebrews 8? There we read:
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if the first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
The writer indicates that the new covenant, the gospel through Jesus Christ, was given because it is a "more excellent ministry", it is a "better covenant", it contains "better promises".
That begs the question, what was wrong with the first? Was it an imperfect law? The writer does state in Hebrews 8:7,
...if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
Was it the covenant itself, God's law, that was the problem? Not at all. The questioner needed to read one more verse, and the answer would be provided. Hebrews 8:8 reads:
Because finding fault with them, He says: 'Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -
The problem was not the Law of Moses, but those who were subject to it. The law was perfect, but those who were under the law were weak, and thus fell to transgression.
There is no contradiction.
This article is in response to an Skeptic's Annotated Bible.