Family Relationships Before and After the Fall

Let's look at what Genesis says about the male/female/family dynamic, and for the purpose of this exchange, let's look at it in two parts - the 'before-sin' and the 'after-sin' relationship.

FACTS BEFORE THE FALL

Fact 1. Before sin, Adam observed that everything on earth came in matching pairs, and he had no match.

Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Fact 2. God, who could have made Adam's match any way he wanted to (having made Adam from the very elements), chose to use a piece of Adam, and a specific piece at that. He chose a rib - a part of the body that gives structure to a man and protects his heart (and other vital organs) -a part of the body that is located at the side of man.

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

Fact 3. God delivered her to Adam - Adam didn't go looking.

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Fact 4. Adam's response was to conclude (and declare) that his match was verily himself and that she was the perfect match - literally a part of him. For this reason - that a woman and man are a perfect match - the man would leave all that was meaningful to him up until that time and "cleave" (to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch) to his wife, and the two would actually become (or be as) one flesh.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Fact 5. They were completely at ease with each other physically/sexually.

Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

FACTS AFTER THE FALL

Fact 1. Eve trusted her own judgment rather than the explicit word of God.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Fact 2. Adam put his love for/trust in Eve ahead of the explicit word of God.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Fact 3. With the introduction of putting something ahead of God, both began to be uncomfortable with who they were.

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Fact 4. Even though they knew something was wrong, they avoided dealing with it directly, instead choosing to avoid, cover up, and deny the reality of their circumstances.

Genesis 3:7,8 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Fact 5. When confronted with the reality of their circumstances, while they initially admitted what they had done, they immediately began blaming anyone but themselves for their circumstances. The upshot being that they were actually blaming God.

Genesis 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Fact 6. The result of all their failure to put God's word above all else (and I emphasize result) was that they were changed from the 'before-the-fall' relationship. The effect of sin on them would be a chronic tension between the forces of good and evil in the lives of all mankind. (Thankfully the ultimate resolution was promised at the same time.)

Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Fact 7. They would lose the natural oneness that had been the gift and the plan. In its place, woman would look to man for her sense of self worth rather than to God. Her life would be filled with sorrow in general, in sex in particular, and even the unfettered joy of bearing children would now be tainted with heartache.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Fact 8. Man would no longer cleave to his wife, but rather work would consume him. He would be so obsessed with making a living that he would have little time for his family. Because of this, life would be hard all his days, bitter to his natural end, when he would die, leaving everything that had consumed his focus for all those years to be fooled away by those who came after him.

Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Fact 9. Grown men and women would be dependent upon their parents for some of the most basic needs rather than being able to provide for themselves.

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Fact 10. Parents would ultimately need to put up barriers between themselves and their children for the overall good, going so far as to put them out of the house and cut them off from inheritance in extreme cases.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Now let's review and draw some conclusions.

Before the fall, Man craved the company of a mate. He yielded his choice to God, who then provided him with the perfect mate, rather than seeking to solve the problem for himself. Having waited upon God and having received the perfect, God-given mate, he not only cleaved to her himself, but prophesied that all mankind to follow would do the same. (Remember, he was prophesying for sinless man.)

He intuitively (in his sinless condition) recognized that Man was to leave all else and to become one with his mate (excepting God, of course). Even the name he gave her indicated by its very meaning that she was a part of him.

The fall came about because both Man and Woman put their self interest ahead of God's explicit word. (This point cannot be overemphasized, either in understanding what went wrong or in recognizing the solution to undoing the harm that was done.)

The characteristics that have plagued and destroyed families ever since, very rapidly became apparent.

1. Acting on one's own volition rather than consulting/communicating with spouse
2. Denying and covering up the results of bad choices and enabling the spouse to do the same by not making him/her accountable for their choices
3. Blaming others rather than taking responsibility for one's choices/actions
Additional problems that plague and destroy families were foretold.

For women:

1. Insecurity, lifelong unfulfillment that even childbearing ultimately can't assuage, domination by the stronger sex

For men:

1. A lifetime of all-consuming hard work and sweat that takes all his focus and energy and makes him intolerant and impatient for gratification when he gets a few minutes to relax. See anything you recognize there? :-)

In the end, it is only by aiming at the 'before-the-fall' ideal, while at the same time recognizing the 'after-the-fall' realities, that we can begin to realize the wholeness that God had and has in store for us.

God didn't make women to need a man's support in order to feel good about herself, and he didn't make man to be so preoccupied with life that he can't nurture his wife - sin did that. Our work in this, as in every area of our lives, is to offset the effects of sin insofar as is possible by seeing what God's ideal was and by His grace trying to achieve it.

© Dennis Farley

July 2007

The Bible and Happiness

"That your joy may be full."

Thus goes the well-known Christian chorus, quoting John 15:11,12,
"This is my commandment
that you love one another,
that your joy may be full."

Great song, but a tremendous simplification of Jesus' message in John 15, which is an amazing call to enter into the thought and actions and will of God, just as Jesus had experienced with God the Father.

The phrase "that your joy may be full" occurs several other times in the New Testament (John 16:24, 1 John 1:4, and 2 John 1:12). Lets look a little more closely at 1 John 1:4 in context. While it says that this scripture was written that our joy may be full, the context indicates that a specific message was being imparted to provide joy to its hearers. Both the message preceding and following this text have implications for happiness.

The verses prior to 1 John 1:4 tell us that Jesus revealed to us the Father, and that Christian fellowship is in fact to participate in the connectedness that Jesus and the Father share. This resonates with the message in John 15, our first instance of the "joy may be full" phrase. The verse after 1 John 1:4 specifically states what this message of happiness is. It is that Jesus revealed to us that God the Father is good. All good. Not Yin and Yang. Not predominantly good. All good.

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

How is that simple bumper-sticker message, "God is Good", the basis of complete human joy? Surely there is more to living a joyous life than perceiving God's character? Perhaps God's gift of marriage helps us understand this truth? True joy in marriage is not in things, money or circumstances, but in knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that one's life partner is a good person.

Lets ponder the linkage, if any, between an understanding of God's goodness and complete human joy.

© Alister L Hunt PhD

The Bible and Health

If we surveyed people, asking them to list religions and spiritual writings in rank order of their linkage to a healthy life, where would Christianity and the Bible come? Top of the list? Dead last? Or, somewhere in the middle?

Christian faiths have not developed traditions of breathing, stretching, exercising, concentrating, meditating, etc. Other religions have stolen the march on the concept of spiritual enlightenment as a path to health. Bible-believing Christians stand wide-eyed, flat-footed, and with mouths gaping as the Western world launches headlong after Chi, Chakras, Ayurveda, the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism, and the whole nine points of the Bahai'i star.

Deepak Chopra is working on his 30th book on spirituality and health, long after the Christian New England Memorial Hospital, from which he launched his spiritual health career, has closed its doors. Christian Science churches are empty, save for a few appreciators of fine music. Mary Eddy is not resonating with the populace. When the world seeks healing through spiritual insight, they read the Dalai Lama, or Chopra -- not the Bible.

Why is that?

Worse than scoring a big, fat zero for health outcomes, Christianity is often cited as the source of the guilt and work ethic that is allegedly causing the demise of Western Civilization's health. Big neg, not just big zero.

Christianity clearly differs fundamentally from many other religions in its approach to spirituality and health. Maybe causality is reversed? Is it possible that the Bible focuses on spiritual enlightenment with implications for the body, whereas other religions focus on the body as a means of achieving spiritual enlightenment?

We certainly need to move past misquoting Prov 23:7 as a Biblical basis for the mind-body connection (read it in context and you will see what I mean), and toward a Christian theology of healing. In this regard, we have an excellent study here. Enjoy.

© Alister L Hunt PhD

Revelation From Heaven

What a revelation it was to read this scripture (Romans 15:4) in context! Sure, Paul's words beautifully portray scripture's role in establishing Christian hope, but the context provides a powerful message.

Read the prior chapter and you will see that scripture was being used to tear apart the emerging Christian church. Paul powerfully states the freedom we have in Christ, and then passionately pleas for his fellow believers to not destroy the faith of weaker members through either
(a) imposing deeply held scripturally-based convictions on others, or
(b) exercising Christian freedom in ways that are damaging to Christian faith or unity.

Then, in Chapter 15 Paul says we have to empathize with the concerns of others, just like Jesus did. And he applies Psalm 69:9 to Jesus and to us -- just as Jesus was one with God in bearing the blasphemous insults of those around Him, we also should empathize with the cares and concerns of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Right in the middle of making this point, he slips in verse 4, which is central to this study. In context, he is saying 'notice how I just used scripture to edify the church, rather than divide it. Lets use scripture to bring encouragement and hope into each other's lives, rather than to bring others into bondage.'

How have each one of us used scripture to bring others into bondage? Or, into hope? In your community of faith, is scripture a source of endurance, encouragement and hope, or is it a source of division and bondage?

Angela's Christian faith was molded in a church fond of quoting from a book called Christ's Object Lessons,
"Those who accept the Saviour, ..., should never be taught to say or to feel that they are saved. This is misleading."

This statement was never placed in the context of dozens of bible verses and quotes by the same author that present an abiding, enduring relationship with Christ as a present reality. See
http://www.andrews.edu/~jmoon/Documents/GSEM_534/Class_outline/Assurance%202004.pdf

Nigel, a school friend of mine, shot himself in the head with a rifle (which takes a bit of doing) because what he had been taught from the Scriptures robbed him of endurance, encouragement and hope.

Yes, Romans 15:4 is a beautiful testimony to the Bible as a source of hope, but it comes right in the middle of a heartfelt warning against using scripture to divide and destroy the body of Christ.

© Alister L Hunt PhD

The Word in Our Lives

Years ago, Angela and I were frequent guests in the Canadian home of a man whose success I admired. He and his wife were wonderful hosts to us, but he expressed disdain for some of our behaviors that he found peculiar. For example, I recall being addressed from the other end of a long dinner table;
"Alister, when when you grow up, you will find this to be a fine whisky."
Advice duly noted, ... and discarded.

Last year Angela and the girls visited our erstwhile hosts and found not a hint of disdain. He asked whether he could say bed-time prayers with our girls, and his conversation with God and the girls confessed to a relationship with God that he had previously resisted and rejected.

What made the difference? Can the Bible re-create a person?

Could evidence of re-creation speak more for the Bible's validity than does evidence for Creation?

What is the Bible's track record as a change agent in human lives? I lived in Rwanda for a year, a country that had more members of my Christian denomination than any country on the planet. When church was out, the city's traffic ground to a halt! But all those Sabbath School lessons and Bible-based sermons didn't preclude the subsequent brutality of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.

You may have acquaintances with encyclopedic Biblical knowledge and no evidence of a relationship with Him who is Love. Does this argue for rejecting the Bible? Are our acquaintances likely to seek out Bible truth because of what they see it doing in our lives?

© Alister L Hunt PhD

The Bible and Science

A vivid childhood memory is of sitting amongst members of Dad's sales team on Sabbath afternoon, listening to discussions of God, the Bible and how the world works.

Chris, a member of that group, had an engineering background and an expansive mind. I recall Chris' excitement as he pursued a picture of God emanating from Genesis 1:3, "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light." Chris understood that the physical matter of this universe can be conceived of in terms of energy and waves, much like visible light. So, the next thing he was busily calculating out in his head the energy equivalence of the earth's mass -- energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

Chris was in awe of this picture of the power of God's word that could bring physical matter into being. The numbers he came up with meant nothing to me as a child (and probably wouldn't now), but the vivid picture of a person earnestly seeking out an understanding of God through scientific insight remains with me.

How do you gain glimpses of God in the 'science' of your vocation?

As an economist I am constantly amazed at the beauty of market equilibrium. The "invisible hand" of Adam Smith's 1759 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' provides me with a glimpse of the free, self-ordering nature of God's universe -- a picture of the "Great Architect of the Universe", as Smith put it. Others don't share my excitement with equilibrium, suggesting that markets are from the dark side of 'dog eat dog' competition instead of heavenly harmony. But I can see the beauty of "voluntary market exchange such that both parties are better off" as part of the creative order of God's universe. Karol Wojtyla, better known as Pope John Paul II, was prominent among many Christians in recognizing that free economic creativity is part of what it means for us to have been created in God's image.

This study asks us to consider how the Bible can contribute to our understanding of science. I encourage you to consider how the Bible affects your view of scientific knowledge in your field of daily endeavor. Do you see pictures of God where others see randomness and chance?

© Alister L Hunt PhD

When the Rocks Cry Out

While this study primarily examines archaeological support for the Bible's historicity and authenticity, it also examines the nature of Christian faith. Interestingly, this week the US is examining the basis for Mormon faith, with considerable coverage of Mormonism on both Public Television and National Public Radio. A recurring theme is that all religious revelation is somewhat mystical, so we need not press on the details too hard -- Nephi Plates, or the Bible.

What part does the Bible's authenticity play in your Christian experience?

How seriously have you evaluated the Bible's authenticity?

How seriously should we?

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond and author of 'By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion'. Read through the excerpt and consider whether you could insert 'Bible' in place of references to the Book of Mormon.

'My idea going into this study of the _____, ..., was if the _____ is true, then it has to stand up to the most rigorous assaults and critiques that skeptics and nonbelievers can make. So I made every effort to honestly, fully investigate every criticism, every objection that's ever been made to the historicity of the _____. One has to suspend judgment in a number of cases, because it's hard to say when the evidence will all be in, but at the present there are still a number of unresolved anachronisms and problems and ambiguities in the text.

But I felt satisfied that there was in every case a corresponding weight on the other side of the equation, which actually led me to, I think, some very important insights into the nature of faith and how faith works. I came to the conclusion, ..., that for faith to operate, and for faith to have moral significance in our lives, then it has to at some level be a choice. It can't be urged upon us by an irresistible, overwhelming body of evidence, or what merit is there in the espousing of faith? And it can't be something that we embrace in spite of overwhelming logical rational evidence to the contrary, because I don't believe that God expects us to hold in disregard that faculty of reason that he gave us.'

© Alister L Hunt PhD