Thank you for the excellent discussion on Genesis 3.
If I could go backwards a bit and ask a different question --
Is there a historical consensus on the proper reading of Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2 (specifically, 2:1-9)?
- I have seen some folks argue that there is a direct conflict between these two passages (creation of Man on Day 6 vs Day 3); and have seen it argued that the two accounts come from different sources.
- For me, some of the confusion stems from the ability to read Genesis 2:5-7 differently depending on the translation and punctuation (for example, KJV vs ESV).
If you answered this during the Hillsdale online course, then I apologize for the repetition. I went through the course a few years ago and don't recall this discussion (or didn't grasp enough nuance to appreciate it). I may go back a watch a few of those lectures again....
There are lots of reading gs out there. Because I enjoy the literary aspect, and assume the ancient world did as well, I don't worry much about the historical aspect (how it's accurate, etc.). I assume that there are those whose salvation depends on a reading of Genesis (and the rest of Scripture) as being completely accurate and thus constitutes their vision of salvation, and I'm fine with that. I just don't know that your question solves the problem. I think you have to figure out what your Christological position is. Then you can read that into (eisogesis) Genesis and see what your position turns up. That's the whole point of my lectures. Have some fun and tease those things out!!
But to your point, I'd have to know what you see as being irreconcilably different. When your inerrant source gives you stuff in poetry over a thousand years or so, well, I think we ought to be patient. God speaks in His ways.
In Deuteronomy 1:32, we're told that children have "no knowledge of good or evil." So I think you're exactly correct that **they were innocent** before eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God eventually intended for them to eat of it.
Furthermore, let's look at Isaiah 7:14-16:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young maiden is with child and will bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curds and honey he shall eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.
In its historical context, Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a woman who is already with child. But the point here is that **he would be given the best possible grounding (since curds and honey were luxury foods back then) to learn to discern good from evil**.
It's a repeat of the Garden of Eden, only THIS time, this child gets it right! He doesn't eat from the tree before he's ready. And of course, that's why it foreshadows Jesus.
In its historical context, this passage is talking about a child of Isaiah's who would ultimately restore those who had been exiled, back to God. Turn to Isaiah 49:1 and 5-6:
“Listen, O coastlands, to me,
And take heed, you peoples from afar!
The Lord has called me from the womb;
From the matrix of my mother He has made mention of my name."
The only person in all of Isaiah who was known and named from his mother's womb is Immanuel. Not Maher-shalal-hash-baz from Isaiah 8:1-4, who was named even before he was conceived, or Shear-Jashub in Isaiah 7:3, or Hezekiah.
Here are verses 5-6:
“And now the Lord says,
Who formed me from the womb to be His servant,
**To bring Jacob back to Him,
So that Israel is gathered to Him**
(For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the Lord,
And my God shall be my strength),
Indeed He says,
‘It is too small a thing that you should be My servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”
Yes, death was mercy upon Adam and Eve who had sinned and had been exiled. Death would've also been mercy for the scattered northern Israelites, too. **But God sent a HISTORICAL redeemer in the form of Immanuel to bring back those who had been scattered, and bring them back to God in repentance, along with many Gentiles as well.**
Jesus does the same in Matthew 10:5-6:
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather **to the lost sheep of the house of (northern) Israel**.
In addition, the idea of God using Adam to domesticate the animals is spot-on. But there's a lot more to it than that. Back up to Genesis 1:26 and 28, where God tells man to "take dominion" over all of the created order. **Domesticating the animals is how man does that.**
What is this trying to tell us? Well, it foreshadows how King David would conquer the nations surrounding Israel and rule over them as a king of kings. God disapproved of David shedding excessive blood to do so. Rather, **David was supposed to "domesticate" them.**
Naturally, this foreshadows the coming Kingdom of God set up on earth, where God rules over the "domesticated" nations as a King of kings.
Dr. Jackson,
Thank you for the excellent discussion on Genesis 3.
If I could go backwards a bit and ask a different question --
Is there a historical consensus on the proper reading of Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2 (specifically, 2:1-9)?
- I have seen some folks argue that there is a direct conflict between these two passages (creation of Man on Day 6 vs Day 3); and have seen it argued that the two accounts come from different sources.
- For me, some of the confusion stems from the ability to read Genesis 2:5-7 differently depending on the translation and punctuation (for example, KJV vs ESV).
If you answered this during the Hillsdale online course, then I apologize for the repetition. I went through the course a few years ago and don't recall this discussion (or didn't grasp enough nuance to appreciate it). I may go back a watch a few of those lectures again....
Thank you!
There are lots of reading gs out there. Because I enjoy the literary aspect, and assume the ancient world did as well, I don't worry much about the historical aspect (how it's accurate, etc.). I assume that there are those whose salvation depends on a reading of Genesis (and the rest of Scripture) as being completely accurate and thus constitutes their vision of salvation, and I'm fine with that. I just don't know that your question solves the problem. I think you have to figure out what your Christological position is. Then you can read that into (eisogesis) Genesis and see what your position turns up. That's the whole point of my lectures. Have some fun and tease those things out!!
But to your point, I'd have to know what you see as being irreconcilably different. When your inerrant source gives you stuff in poetry over a thousand years or so, well, I think we ought to be patient. God speaks in His ways.
In Deuteronomy 1:32, we're told that children have "no knowledge of good or evil." So I think you're exactly correct that **they were innocent** before eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God eventually intended for them to eat of it.
Furthermore, let's look at Isaiah 7:14-16:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young maiden is with child and will bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Curds and honey he shall eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.
In its historical context, Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a woman who is already with child. But the point here is that **he would be given the best possible grounding (since curds and honey were luxury foods back then) to learn to discern good from evil**.
It's a repeat of the Garden of Eden, only THIS time, this child gets it right! He doesn't eat from the tree before he's ready. And of course, that's why it foreshadows Jesus.
In its historical context, this passage is talking about a child of Isaiah's who would ultimately restore those who had been exiled, back to God. Turn to Isaiah 49:1 and 5-6:
“Listen, O coastlands, to me,
And take heed, you peoples from afar!
The Lord has called me from the womb;
From the matrix of my mother He has made mention of my name."
The only person in all of Isaiah who was known and named from his mother's womb is Immanuel. Not Maher-shalal-hash-baz from Isaiah 8:1-4, who was named even before he was conceived, or Shear-Jashub in Isaiah 7:3, or Hezekiah.
Here are verses 5-6:
“And now the Lord says,
Who formed me from the womb to be His servant,
**To bring Jacob back to Him,
So that Israel is gathered to Him**
(For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the Lord,
And my God shall be my strength),
Indeed He says,
‘It is too small a thing that you should be My servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”
Yes, death was mercy upon Adam and Eve who had sinned and had been exiled. Death would've also been mercy for the scattered northern Israelites, too. **But God sent a HISTORICAL redeemer in the form of Immanuel to bring back those who had been scattered, and bring them back to God in repentance, along with many Gentiles as well.**
Jesus does the same in Matthew 10:5-6:
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather **to the lost sheep of the house of (northern) Israel**.
In addition, the idea of God using Adam to domesticate the animals is spot-on. But there's a lot more to it than that. Back up to Genesis 1:26 and 28, where God tells man to "take dominion" over all of the created order. **Domesticating the animals is how man does that.**
What is this trying to tell us? Well, it foreshadows how King David would conquer the nations surrounding Israel and rule over them as a king of kings. God disapproved of David shedding excessive blood to do so. Rather, **David was supposed to "domesticate" them.**
Naturally, this foreshadows the coming Kingdom of God set up on earth, where God rules over the "domesticated" nations as a King of kings.
Thanks, Damon.