Following on from my blog article, ‘What is a Covenant?’, comes the next instalment. It asks, ‘Is there a covenant at creation?’
To whet your appetite, here’s a short excerpt:
If there is a covenant at creation, sin is an infringement and salvation is about being assigned a new status. But if there is no covenant at creation, sin breaks humanity’s inherent nature and fractures the entire relationship between God and creation. This requires nothing less than God becoming human flesh and recreating humanity.
You can read the whole article HERE.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
That is a great article, and I like how you tied in how a parent does not need a covenant to establish their role.
I would like to enhance this point a bit further. In my studies I see Genesis 2 communicated in terms that the people at that time would have understood.
You are well aware of the Jewish bet-ab. I will not bore you with the details.
God would be likened to a Patriarch, and Adam His first born son. God places a prime importance and leadership on Adam. god creates and brings Adam to His sacred space. God gives him responsibility to take care of His Land, God gives Him authority to name the animals, and God instructs him. When he is ready, then he is provided a wife.
Very similar to a Patriarch and his oldest son who would from a tender age shadow and learn from his dad until he was ready to lead the family.
Thanks for your thoughts, Naama. The only thing I’d be reticent to endorse in what you’ve proposed is the notion of God giving the man authority to name the animals, after which is ready for a wife. The narrative doesn’t put it that way. The man names the animals in order to find a helpful companion, but none is found. Then God creates the woman from his own flesh and bone as a comparable partner. Naming the animals isn’t seen as a rite of passage, but part of the search to find him suitable company.
Thanks for your reply, George. I was a little quick on the keyboard and just wrote a simple general description. There is a lot of information being communicated in just a couple of verses.
The naming of the animals shows the dominion God gave to mankind over the animal kingdom. This would be in relation to God naming His creation in chapter one.
This is pretty simple, but I have had people ask if Adam was responsible for a species name like cat, or individually like “fluffy”. This is in my opinion making the text walk on all fours.
I don’t believe that God placed the animals in front of Adam to name them in order to find him a suitable companion….sorta. Let me explain my quick generalization
You are correct that the text is tying the naming of the animals with not finding a suitable partner. the subject is book marked with these words before and after:
“18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
“But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found.”
God knew that the animals were not a suitable partner for Adam, He is not doing this for His own understanding, he is teaching Adam a lesson. It would become very obvious to Adam that he had nothing in common with animals as a partner, and was a special creation. After this God created a suitable partner for him, also created in the image of God.
God would have revealed Himself in the culture of the day, and to my studies, this has a tone of a Patriarch teaching his first born.
food for thought