Although the creation of man in Genesis 2 was dealt with somewhat in the previous post, attention must be paid to the parallel account in chapter one. In Genesis 1:26-27 we encounter some very significant language.
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.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Much has been said by others concerning the significance of man as “image bearer” of God.[1] What is most relevant to the present discussion is the fact that when combined with the dominion mandate of 1:28 and the commission/admonition of 2:15-17, man’s pre-fall situation and identity begins to come into focus. Far too often a strong emphasis is placed on his ethical innocence at the neglect of his covenant responsibilities and promises. While man was without sin in Eden, he was still in that posse peccare state, with the possibility of failure and the threat of death ever over his head.
God had something better for him. Man has always had an eschatological hope, even in the Garden.[2] Eden was not a perpetual arrangement; it was a period of probation and propagation.[3] Adam’s covenant fidelity was tested (the admonition of 2:17) and he had the responsibility as God’s image bearer/vice-regent to expand Eden to the ends of the earth, filling it with worshipers of the LORD (1:28, 2:15). J.V. Fesko writes
God had something better for him. Man has always had an eschatological hope, even in the Garden.[2] Eden was not a perpetual arrangement; it was a period of probation and propagation.[3] Adam’s covenant fidelity was tested (the admonition of 2:17) and he had the responsibility as God’s image bearer/vice-regent to expand Eden to the ends of the earth, filling it with worshipers of the LORD (1:28, 2:15). J.V. Fesko writes
Adam’s covenantal work is not merely that of farming for six days and then resting on the seventh. Rather, God covenanted with Adam to: (1) multiply the image of God through procreation; (2) fill the earth with the image of God and expand the garden-temple to fill the earth – to bring the garden-order to the earth where there was no order – to subdue the earth; and (3) expand his viceregency throughout the whole earth by having men, made in God’s image, rule over the entire creation.[4]This information serves to establish the context for the discussion of sin’s entrance into the world. Genesis 3:1 introduces the reader to another new character, yet rather than God’s image bearer and vice-regent, this one comes as a distortion of the originally good creation bent on subverting Eden and all it represents.[5] Indeed, the Serpent’s intentions are diametrically opposed to the revealed will of God and the covenant commission of Adam. His first recorded act is to usurp lordship over Eden and its inhabitants, a lordship which is the sole purview of Yahweh-Elohim. He is described as crafty (3:1) and assumes the role of a sort of prophet, proclaiming a supposed alternative path to wisdom and blessing.[6] Jesus rightly spoke of him that he was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44b).
Under the malicious guidance of the Serpent, Adam and the woman bring themselves into breach of their covenant responsibilities. In a way, this transgression does indeed have the immediate effect promised by the Serpent: their eyes are opened and they know good and evil (3:5, 7). Tragically, the evil which they discern is their own (3:7).
At this point there is a fundamental shift in man’s relation to God which impacts every subsequent word of divine revelation. Man can never again stand before God in unmediated innocence, a truth well illustrated by the utter inadequacy of fig leaves to balm the conscience or cover guilt (3:7).[7] Gone as well is any chance to obtain the eschatological promise through personal works. Yet God (for whom nothing is impossible according to Luke 1:37) stoops to man in his ruin and turns his eyes from his own failed works to a future grace. An eschatological hope remains, one to be revealed in the very judicial pronouncements occasioned by the Fall itself.
In the next installment we will look at the third element of our gospel outline: Christ in the Garden.
At this point there is a fundamental shift in man’s relation to God which impacts every subsequent word of divine revelation. Man can never again stand before God in unmediated innocence, a truth well illustrated by the utter inadequacy of fig leaves to balm the conscience or cover guilt (3:7).[7] Gone as well is any chance to obtain the eschatological promise through personal works. Yet God (for whom nothing is impossible according to Luke 1:37) stoops to man in his ruin and turns his eyes from his own failed works to a future grace. An eschatological hope remains, one to be revealed in the very judicial pronouncements occasioned by the Fall itself.
In the next installment we will look at the third element of our gospel outline: Christ in the Garden.
[1] Robert Gonzales Jr. provides a good summary of man as image bearer in Man: God’s Visible Replica and Vice-Regent. His footnotes provide many further sources on this topic.
[2] “From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving… (Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 16; quoted in Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 3.)”
[3] See note 33.
[4] Last Things First, 101.
[5] Kline accurately refers to the entrance of Satan into the garden as the “Advent of the Antilord.” Kingdom Prologue, 119.
[6] The reader should note the parallel to Proverbs 9, with “Lady Folly” proclaiming a counterfeit version of the message of “Lady Wisdom.” Perhaps the wisdom literature has more to offer to the Redemptive Historical development of the struggle between the Seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent than it has been traditionally assigned.
[7] Meredith Kline poignantly writes that “For the guilty pair in Eden to flee in terror from the Glory-Spirit, in whose presence those faithful to the covenant find their ultimate bliss, was an open confession of their alienation and divorce from their holy Lord (Kingdom Prologue, 130).”
"Far too often a strong emphasis is placed on his ethical innocence at the neglect of his covenant responsibilities and promises." Well said, Nick. This very mistake is also often found in our understanding of the Gospel in our own lives. We focus very much on our righteousness in Christ, and so often neglect our covenant responsibilities. And in the name of grace no less.
ReplyDeleteRoy, thanks for this interesting and challenging insight. I agree wholeheartedly that it is very unnatural to sever repentance from faith; sanctification from justification. Distinction, rather than division, is key in these matters. It is important to note, however, that Christ is our second Adam, and so the covenant responsibilities referred to above have been fulfilled by Him on our behalf (I know you agree). He has secured the covenant promises of God for us through his active and passive obedience. Yet as you rightly point out, His grace has not left us without responsibility.
DeleteShall we sin that grace shall abound.... by no means (Romans 6:1)!