How perfect is Genesis 3?

[busterdog]

Adam and Eve hide. God walks and calls out with a question. Why a question? "Where are you?" God must know where they are. Knowing that, why ask? What is it about that location where Adam and Eve are? Well, its not with God. And its a darn sight short of being "like God", as had been promised. And, if God already has the answer, then the question implies that Adam and Eve are the ones who are in need of the answer.

The ensuing 65 books of scripture attempt to bring man back to a location or position. I use the word "location" as a decent approximation of a category that would distinguish being in the presence of God from not being in the presence. Perhaps "location" makes our problem most salient as translators and pilgrims. If we are really talking about location in physical sense, we obviously have big questions. Gen. 3 however, begs the question.

As a problem of location, Genesis 3 is either a bit quaint or considerably over our heads. The latter tends to make more sense.

Of all the questions that could be asked by God, a few would be, What were you thinking? What are you thinking? Don't you think I am angry? Do you feel stupid? Are you sorry? Have you thought about trying to fix this?

All of the foregoing questions are matters addressed under the law established for the Jews. Now, while we are thankful for a road back through the law to Jesus, what did Paul say about the law? That it creates sin and death.

If we imagine the presence of perfect love, we would would also be able to imagine why "where you are" is so much more appropriate than anything that has the flavor of "what are you going to do about it?" The solution is present along with God Himself.

One problem with the question "Where are you?", for us, is that apparently the appropriate location is just about impossible to conceive of or experience. Presumtively, death is the answer. No one has been there (generally) and no one really knows the way there (except rather vaguely), which is obvious from how people are.

A couple of scriptures on location are as follows:

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.
(And see Heb. 11:5)

Jhn 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

Luk 10:39 And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus'[fn11] feet and heard His word.

Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, [here] I [am].

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Rev 21:3
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.

The 66th book, is of course the resolution of the location problem.

Buried in that book is a question contained in the word "nicolaitan." The fact that it appears untranslated presents a problem. Was Jesus deliberate in his choice of words? Is it just be a history problem? It combines two words in Greek Nikos and laos: victory and people. As a doctrine, it appears to be an aspect of Christian theology. Victory means that there is a winner and a loser. Victory over what would be worthy of God's "hate"? Victory over God by the people? That would be a poor aim indeed.

How about victory over people? Victory in war is the control of territory, in part. If location is so close to God's heart, a Nicolaitan doctrine may be just that, being territorial (or creating boundaries) regarding the presence of God. Some writers attack Church hierarchy rather directly on the basis of this translation. http://www.doctrinesofchrist.com/The%20Heresy%20of%20the%20Nicolaitans.htm There is implied in this complaint of Jesus a desire to be present, apparent from every boundary, even that of a priestly hierarchy. That is very close indeed.

Even the separation of a few fig leaves is too much. Genesis 3 is pretty perfect. THere is little if any art this good.

 

[busterdog]

Isnt it amazing, that the first Words spoken by God post fall are a test of the theory advanced by the snake? The snake promises knowledge. God asks Adam whether he even has any idea where he is.

Man determined to know for salvation for Himself. In a way God honors that decision by asking man what he knows of his salvation by, in essence, where he is in relation to what true salvation is.

The form of the question lines up with the doctrine of grace quite well. The first question is about what man knows, suggesting that the curse is essentially the lack of answer to the question. God has an answer, which is His mercy. Man, in His knowledge, doesnt get it. He doesnt understand that his answer is walking in the garden.

(Yes, walking literally. Otherwise, the spiritualized version of Genesis is far less insightful and far less satisfactory. If there is an answer for man, a spiritualized version is hardly something the poor man is likely to handle. As a matter of grace, the physical presence of the answer is the best answer, because it is the simplest answer for the mentally challenged man.)

God's first covenant with Abraham is one in which God performs both ends of the covenant. He is the smoking pot and the furnace. At the cross, God becomes again both ends of the deal: the son of man atoning for His class or kin but also the perfect offering, which only God could be. As such, God is the complete answer. The first question in Gen. 3 also implies that the complete answer is present in the most readily available sense possible.

 

[Merlin]

The question is more rhetorical than literal.
Parents often ask 'where are you' or 'what did you do' etc. to get the child to acknowledge or confess, not because of an unknown.

 

[Merlin]

The question is more rhetorical than literal.
Parents often ask 'where are you' or 'what did you do' etc. to get the child to acknowledge or confess, not because of an unknown.

 

[ArmyMatt]

it's sort of like when God asks Judas, you would betray Me with a kiss? the Church Fathers say that God asking where are you was Him asking rhetorical where are you in relation to Me? in other words, do you realize what you have done? and also giving them one last shot at repenting.

twas the same with Judas. He knew why Judas was there, and asked him a rhetorical question to give Judas one last shot to repent.

His mercy is great.

 

[sentipente]

The question was asked because Adam had deliberately missed an appointment. Further, God was not bothered by the fact that they had eaten of the tree. They already knew what the consequences of that act would be. Hiding from their Creator added a component that was not indicated in the original warning.

 

[busterdog]

it's sort of like when God asks Judas, you would betray Me with a kiss? the Church Fathers say that God asking where are you was Him asking rhetorical where are you in relation to Me? in other words, do you realize what you have done? and also giving them one last shot at repenting.

twas the same with Judas. He knew why Judas was there, and asked him a rhetorical question to give Judas one last shot to repent.

His mercy is great.

I think the assumption has generally been in lots of theology that the die was cast until Jesus came. I think that is a poor assumption, and so I would agree with you. Even though Jesus prophesied regarding the fate of Judas, yes, indeed, this was a last chance to repent. Even if the full weight of the curse of death could not have been removed in the garden, repentance would certainly have offered some benefit. How much might have been available in that moment? How much more is available to us now?