Examining Genesis 2 & 3 - Week 6
Notes
Transcript
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
What is God’s name for human-kind in this verse?
Man.
Not woman…
Not womankind… even though all people come from the woman.
Not persons
Not peoples.
Man.
And male and female He created them.
Imago Dei - both are image bearers.
What was purpose did God give them?
Exercise dominion.
In short, Man was created as royalty in God’s world, male and female alike bearing the divine glory equally.
Kings and Queens of Narnia!
But what about the fall?
How did this effect us as image bearers who were to exercise kingly rule over the creation?
Did sin result in us losing the divine image?
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
The implication is that Adam, made in God’s image, passed that image (though marred by sin) to his son Seth.
This means the divine image was present in individuals like Adam and Seth.
Therefore, the idea that the image of God exists only in man-plus-woman is incorrect.
Genesis 1:26–27 should be understood to mean that every individual created by God, both male and female, bears His image.
Why does this matter?
For several reasons.
1. Being made in the image of God is why we have value.
2. Many egalitarians try to argue that the image of God is only seen in the combination of man and woman.
Therefore, for church leadership to function properly you must have both men and women.
But even if that were true, which it isn’t, it still wouldn't lead the conclusion that woman should also be made pastors.
The fact i, God created male and female in His image equally, but He also made the male the head and the female the helper.
“In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.”
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (p. 159). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
“God calls the man, with the counsel and help of the woman, to see that the male-female partnership serves the purposes of God, not the sinful urges of either member of the partnership.”
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (p. 159).
Gazing into the garden
7 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.
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 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.”
Here we see both God’s abundant generosity and man’s moral responsibility to live within the large, but not unrestricted, circle of his God-ordained existence.
For the man to step outside that circle, to attempt an autonomous existence, freed from God, would be his ruin.
Then God blesses Adam even more
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
Question:
What does the way God created Eve tell us?
Equal
Not a rival or threat but an equal partner
As man’s other half that completes him.
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
This means then that at its very heart, marriage is not a human creation;
it is a divinely created institution, defined for all ages and all cultures in our shared, primeval, perfect existence.
Question
If marriage is created by God rather than humans, how does that change how we understand it?
At it’s core, marriage is about the union of one man and one woman.
Yes, this includes physical union
But it also meant to include union at every level.
Emotional union, where you share your deepest feelings, joys, and struggles.
Spiritual union, as you grow together in your faith and relationship with God.
Mental union, as you align your goals, values, and decision-making.Relational union, as you build a life of trust, partnership, and shared experiences.
Purposeful union, as you work together toward common goals, like raising a family or serving others.
A man may enjoy a form of companionship with a dog, but only on the dog’s level.
With a wife, a man finds companionship on his own level, for she is his equal.
But what does that mean to say that Adam and Eve were equals?
First off, what does it NOT mean?
It doesn’t mean:
equal at bench pressing
equal in height
equal in ability to bear children, etc.
equal in ability to be a helper or a spiritual leader.
It does mean equal in sense of worth and value,
but also equal in having attributes for wisdom and godliness.
Question
Why do we struggle with the Bible’s teaching on manhood and womanhood?
Male domination dressed up as male headship.
“If we define ourselves out of a reaction to bad experiences, we will be forever translating our pain in the past into new pain for ourselves and others in the present. We must define ourselves not by personal injury, not by fashionable hysteria, not even by personal variation and diversity, but by the suprapersonal pattern of sexual understanding taught here in Holy Scripture.”
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (pp. 164-165). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
Believing the the serpent’s lie from Genesis 2 that God’s plan won’t make us happy.
Ignorance
The truth is, the Bible’s account is both glorious and beautiful!
Adam welcomes Eve as his equal, “ bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”,
yet he also names her, “she shall be called Woman.”
God charged the man with naming the creatures and gave him the freedom to exercise his own judgment in each case.
In doing so, Adam brought the earthly creation under his dominion.
which extended to Adam’s naming of his helper Eve
Nevertheless, the name he gives her, “Woman,” springs from his instantaneous recognition of her as the counterpart to “Man.”
The point is, nothing is even hints of subjugation or inferiority,
Instead, God created a perfect union between two equal, but different creatures.
Even the term “one flesh” signifies this,
For in Adam’s rib-surgery,
God takes part of him away,
But in marriage, the woman who is man’s very flesh is reunited with him.
And so no, there is no inequality in having equal, but different roles within God’s plan for marriage.
And God’s triune nature proves this
God is one being in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—equal in power and glory but distinct in role.
The Father leads,
the Son submits to the Father,
and the Spirit submits to both (economic Trinity).
However, all three are fully and equally divine.
The Son submits, but not because He is God, Jr., or an inferior deity.
The ranking within the Godhead is a part of the sublime beauty and logic of true deity.
And if our Creator exists in this manner, should we be surprised and offended if He decides to pattern His creatures after this form?
We see this pattern all throughout nature:
Lions,
Elephants
Robins
It is the male robin who builds the nest and sits on the eggs,
it is the female robin who does this,
while the male robin establishes and defends their territory
“Male domination and feminism are the two viruses attacking our sexuality today. They vandalize God’s creation and multiply human misery. How can anyone who loves God’s glory, who feels for people, and who cherishes the gift of our sexuality not be inflamed at the enormities being committed by these two monsters, male domination and feminism?”
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (pp. 170-171). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
But how did the fall effect gender roles?
1 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.”
“Queen Eve,” the serpent inquires in astonishment and disbelief, “something is bothering me. Is it really true that God forbade you two to eat of any of these trees? That perplexes me. After all, didn’t He pronounce everything ‘very good’? And hasn’t He put both you and King Adam in charge of it all? Our loving Creator wouldn’t impose so severe a limitation on you, would He? I don’t understand, Eve. Would you please explain this problem to me?”
Eve hadn’t even known there was a “problem.” But the serpent’s prejudiced question unsettles her. It knocks her back on her heels. And so the serpent engages Eve in a reevaluation of her life on his terms. She begins to feel that God’s command, which Adam had shared with her, 39 has to be defended: “We are allowed to eat of these trees, serpent. But there is this one tree here in the center of the garden— God said, ‘Don’t eat of it; don’t even touch it, lest you die’.”
God had actually said, “You shall freely eat from any tree, with only one exception.” But Eve’s misquote reduces the lavish generosity of God’s word to the level of mere, perhaps grudging, permission: “We may eat from the trees.” Already the garden doesn’t look quite the same to Eve. No longer is the tree of life at the center of things (cf. 2: 9). She doesn’t even mention it. Now, in her perception of reality, the forbidden tree is at the center.
Life is taking on a new, ominous feel. Eve also enlarges God’s prohibition with her own addition, “you may not touch it.” In her mind, the limitation is growing in significance. At the same time, she tones down God’s threat of punishment: “you shall surely die” becomes the weaker “lest you die.”
With Eve’s view of the consequences of sin weakened, the serpent springs on that point: “You will not surely die.” Now we see that he hasn’t been seeking information at all. He knows exactly what God had said. And then the serpent pretends to let Eve in on an important secret:
“Eve, I’m going to do you a favor. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you deserve to know. God has a motive other than love for this restriction. The truth is that God wants to hold you back, to frustrate your potential. Don’t you realize that God Himself has this knowledge of good and evil? He knows what will enrich life and what will ruin life.
And He knows that this fruit will give you two that same knowledge, so that you will rise to His level of understanding and control. Eve, it may come as a shock to you, but God is holding out on you. He is not your friend; He is your rival. “Now, Eve, you have to outwit Him.
I know this garden seems pleasant enough; but, really, it is a gigantic ploy, to keep you in your place, because God feels threatened by what the two of you could become. This tree, Eve, is your only chance to reach your potential. In fact, Eve, if you don’t eat of this tree, you will surely die!”
It was a lie big enough to reinterpret all of life and attractive enough to redirect Eve’s loyalty from God to Self. The lie told her that obedience is a suicidal plunge, that humility is demeaning, and that service is servility. And so Eve begins to feel the aggravation of an injustice which, in reality, does not exist. Having planted the lie in her mind, the serpent now falls silent and allows Eve’s new perception of reality to take its own course (3: 6). With Moses’ enablement, we can imagine what her thoughts might have been:
“It doesn’t look deadly, does it? In fact, it makes my mouth water! How could a good God prohibit such a good thing? How could a just God put it right here in front of us and then expect us to deny ourselves its pleasures? It’s intriguingly beautiful, too. And with the insight it affords, I can liberate us from dependence upon our Creator. And who knows? If He finds out we’ve caught on to Him, He’ll take this tree away and we’ll be stuck in this prison forever! Let’s eat it now while we have the chance!”
After his careful, detailed description of Eve’s deception, Moses describes the actual act of Adam and Eve’s sin very simply, as a matter of fact, without a hint of shock: “. . . she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (3: 6b).
What actually happened is full of meaning. Eve usurped Adam’s headship and led the way into sin. And Adam, who (it seems) had stood by passively, allowing the deception to progress without decisive intervention— Adam, for his part, abandoned his post as head. Eve was deceived; Adam forsook his responsibility. Both were wrong and together they pulled the human race down into sin and death.
This is why this matters.
So many Christians think it was simply eating the fruit that subjected humanity into sin,
but that was just a part of it.
because the truth is,
it was gender-based role reversal that led humanity into it’s rebellion.
Adam failed to lead and disobeyed God,
Eve failed to follow and was deceived,
And ever since then,
We have been buying the same lie over and over again,
That God’s plans for us won’t make us happy.
and so if we want to be happy, we’ll have to sin to get it.
Satan struck at Adam’s headship. His words had the effect of inviting Eve to assume primary responsibility at the moment of temptation: “You decide, Eve. You lead the way. Wouldn’t you rather be exercising headship?”
Just as Satan himself fell through this very kind of reasoning, so he used it to great effect with Eve.
Presumably, she really believed she could manage the partnership to both Adam’s and her own advantage, if she would only assert herself.
Adam, by contrast, defied God with eyes wide open.
Interestingly enough, in Romans 5, Paul doesn’t blame Eve,
Instead, who does he blame for humanity’s fall?
Adam.
Because Adam was the one given the responsibility to lead, not Eve,
and he failed.
and this can be seen all the way back to Genesis chapter 3,
After Adam and Eve sin,
When the Lord God comes walking in the garden,
What does He call out?
“Adam and Eve where are you?”
No...
“He calls out, “Adam, where are you.”
And, when God confronts them both, who does He begin with?
Adam.
Not Eve, who is actually the one who led the way here.
And how does Adam respond to God?
Does he lie?
No.
When confronted by God, Adam shifts the blame to God and Eve:
Genesis 3:12 (ESV)
12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
When Eve is challenged, she can only hang her head and admit, “The serpent deceived me” (3: 13). In 3: 14– 15).
God curses the serpent, condemning him to humiliation and to ultimate defeat under the victorious offspring of the woman.
and so because of Adam & Eve’s failure,
our only hope as a fallen race is God’s merciful promise to defeat our enemy, which He will accomplish through human instrumentality.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
First, as a mother, the woman will suffer in relation to her children. She will still be able to bear children.
This is God’s mercy providing the means by which He will carry out His death sentence on the serpent.
But now the woman will suffer in childbirth. This is God’s severity for her sin. The new element in her experience, then, is not childbirth but the pain of childbirth.
Second, as a wife, the woman will suffer in relation to her husband.
The exact content of her marital suffering could be defined in either of two ways.
Either she will suffer conflict with her husband, or she will suffer domination by him.
This reminds of Cain in the next chapter:
Genesis 4:7 (ESV)
7 … sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”
To paraphrase and amplify the sense:
“Sin has a desire, Cain. It wants to control you. But you must not allow sin to have its way with you. You must rule over it.”
Just as sin’s desire is to have its way with Cain, God gives the woman up to a desire to have her way with her husband.
Because she usurped his headship in the temptation, God hands her over to the misery of competition with her rightful head.
This is justice, a measure-for-measure response to her sin.
We can interpret Genesis 3:16 in one of two ways:
God’s Call for Godly Leadership:
In this view, God is saying, “Eve, you will desire to control your husband, but he must not give in to ungodly pressure. He must rule over you.”
Here, “rule” refers to the exercise of godly headship, where the husband leads as God intended.
This interpretation aligns with the reasoning in Genesis 4:7 and suggests that God is affirming the husband’s role as the head of the household.
This would mean the verse could be translated as, “Your desire will be for your husband, but he must rule over you.”
A Consequence of the Fall:
Alternatively, God may be saying, “Eve, you will desire to control your husband, but he will respond with domination.”
In this case, God is describing the brokenness resulting from sin, where the woman’s desire for control leads to the husband’s ungodly domination.
Here, “rule” reflects a misuse of authority as a consequence of the Fall.
This interpretation would translate the verse as, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Each interpretation hinges on how we understand “rule”—as either godly headship or sinful domination—and what God intended to convey about the dynamics of marriage after the Fall.
As the woman competes with the man, the man, for his part, always holds the trump card of male domination to “put her in her place.”
But however 3: 16 should be interpreted,
nothing can change the fact that God created male headship as one aspect of our pre-fall perfection.
While many women today need freedom from being controlled by men, the solution isn’t for women to compete with men or do whatever they want.
Instead, it’s about husbands leading well and wives supporting them. Christian teaching doesn’t change the way God created men and women;
Christian redemption does not redefine creation; it restores creation, so that wives learn godly submission and husbands learn godly headship.
Adam’s curse
17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 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.”
God gives Adam up to the painful and ultimately futile attempt to eke out a living from the cursed ground.
Notice a few things in the text.
First, work is not Adam’s punishment, just as childbearing was not Eve’s punishment.
The new harsh element is his pain in working the ground and his ultimate defeat in it.
After a lifetime of survival by the sweat of his brow, the ground from which he was first taken will swallow him up in death.
But notice God’s rationale for this punishment.
God does not say, “Because you have eaten of the tree which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it’. . . .”
God does say, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree. . . .”
Adam sinned at two levels.
At one level, he defied the plain and simple command of 2: 17. That is obvious.
But God goes deeper.
At another level, Adam sinned by “listening to his wife,” instead of listening to God.
He abandoned his headship.
According to God’s assessment, this moral failure in Adam led to his ruination.
God says, “It is because of you, Adam, that the ground is cursed” (verse 17).
God does not say, “It is because of you both, Adam and Eve,”
as if they shared equal responsibility in an unqualified sense.
The fourth point here is that God told Adam alone that he would die.
But Eve died, too.
Why then did God pronounce the death sentence on Adam alone?
Because, as the head goes, so goes the member.
20 The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Adam understood this truth.
Instead of turning away from the bar of God’s justice in bitterness and despair, Adam turns to his wife and says, “I believe God’s promise.
He has not cast us adrift completely.
He will give us the final victory over our enemy and we will again enjoy the richness and fullness of life in God.
And because you are the mother of all those who will truly live, I give you a new name— Eve, Living One.
I believe God, and I honor you.”
In contrast to the cruel, cutting words of verse 12,
Adam reaches out in love to Eve and they are reunited in faith and hope.
There is no necessary relation between personal role and personal worth. Feminism denies this principle. Feminism insists that personal role and personal worth must go together, so that a limitation in role reduces or threatens personal worth. But why? What logic is there in such a claim? Why must my position dictate my significance? The world may reason that way. But doesn’t the gospel teach us that our glory, our worth, is measured by our personal conformity to Christ?
The absurdity of feminism lies in its irrational demand that a woman cannot be “a serious person” unless she occupies a position of headship.
Is it any wonder that we see all around us a mass stampede for power, recognition, status, prestige, and so on? But the world’s reasoning is invalid. Authority does not authenticate my person. Authority is not a privilege to be exploited to build up my ego. Authority is a responsibility to be borne for the benefit of others without regard for oneself. This alone is the Christian view.
Ironically, feminism shares the very premise upon which male domination is founded, namely, that my personal significance is measured according to my rung on the ladder, and my opportunity for personal fulfillment enlarges or contracts according to my role. By this line of reasoning, the goal of life degenerates into competition for power, and no one hungers and thirsts for true fulfillment in righteousness. No wonder both male domination and feminism are tearing people apart!
But the truth is,
our glory is found only in the image of God within us, as we are made to resemble His holy character in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
