Nielsen’s Nook

Commentary

[1] κατʼ ἀρχάς is not a direct quote of the Creation account in Genesis 1:1 LXX (Ἐν ἀρχῇ); however, this is clearly what is in view conceptually.

[2] The use of metaphor (foundations) and anthropomorphism (preincarnate hands) underscore the incarnational nature of scripture in which God demonstrates with iterative mercy his love for us in condescending to us. He is not beyond even mythic language to reveal himself to the world. In other words, we don’t believe that God took out a divine trowel, after pouring cosmic concrete, and smoothed out the bottom layer of a flat earth. Scripture is not teaching that. What scripture is teaching is that 1) the Triune God made all  that is, and 2) as such, He (specifically here - the Son) has ultimate authority, lordship, over all things. For an engaging discussion of the nature of God’s loving condescension to us in scripture see, Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation.

Translation

2 Herod, the police chief, and Nicetes, his father, came out to meet [1] him. After they had transferred him to the carriage, [2] they were trying to convince [3] him, taking their seats beside him and saying, “What evil is it to say, ‘Caesar is Lord,’ and to offer a sacrifice to him and so forth [4] and escape death? [5] Initially, [6] he did not answer them; but, when they persisted, he said, “I am not about to do what you advise me.” [7]

[1] ὑπήντα also likely connotes the idea of two opposing sides meeting as in a battlefield. Such use of this word is seen in Matthew 8:28 where two demoniacs come out to meet Jesus (ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι) upon landing in Gadarenes.

[2] καροῦχα i.e., a paddy wagon of some sort.

[3] The anti-Christian efforts to turn St. Polycarp from devotion to Christ. ἔπειθον (πείθω) is a common word but also one that is found in the NT where St. Paul is attempting to convince his hearers about Jesus (πείθων τε αὐτοὺς περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ - c.f., Acts 28:33).

[4] For τὰ τούτοις ἀκόλουθα and ἕτερα τούτοις ἀκόλουθα in §9.2 see BAGD, 31.

[5] διασώζεσθαι (διασῴζω) lit. to bring safely through (BAGD, 189). Here as in 1 Clement 12:5 ff the passive form is used to connote the sparing of one’s own life. 1 Clement 12:6 is in the context of relating the correspondence between the armies of Israel about to lay siege to Jericho and Rahab who had helped the Israeli spies. It is there that we find, … συνάξεις πάντας τοὺς σοὺς ὑπὸ τὸ τέγος σου, καὶ διασωθήσονται· ὅσοι γὰρ ἐὰν εὑρεθῶσιν ἔξω τῆς οἰκίας, ἀπολοῦνται…You will gather all your family under your roof, and you will escape death; for as many as might be found outside the house, they will perish. (author’s translation).

[6] τὰ μὲν πρῶτα is a phrase used often in Greek literature composing the written world into which the Martyrdom of Polycarp was inscribed. Job 8:7 LXX reads ἔσται οὖν τὰ μὲν πρῶτά σου ὀλίγα … Therefore your beginning will be small … (author’s translation). Here, the Greek πρῶτά is rendered for the Hebrew רֵאשִׁית (beginning or chief) used in Genesis 1:1.

[7] Compare Eusebius’ account (οὐ μέλλω πράττειν ὃ συμβουλεύετέ μοι, Historia Εcclesiastica, Book Δ, §ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΤΡΙΤΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΑΣ ΑΙΡΕΣΕΙΣ ΕΙΡΗΝΑΙΟΥ) with Lightfoot’s text (Οὐ μέλλω ποιεῖν ὃ συμβουλεύετέ μοι). πράσσω/πράττω in Eusebius seems to emphasize the idea that in St. Polycarp’s mind, he would have been committing sin or transgressing some sort of bounds he should not. Indeed, to follow the counsel of those accompanying St. Polycarp at this point in the text is to deny flatly the one St. Polycarp loved most, Jesus.

IV.Nakedness and Investiture

A. The Inherent Progression

Genesis 2:25 tells us that prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were naked and without shame. One scholar suggests that vestment was not “an antidote for shame” but that clothing was intended to be a means of “royal honor”.[3] Kings are clothed with garments of honor. Priests are vested with garments that direct us to the transcendent. Prophets have typically been robed with anti-clothing, directing us to the fact that the People of God were in ill standing with the Lord.

B. Illumination and Investiture

Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened after they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They saw their nakedness (illumination) and they clothed themselves with fig leaves (clothing).[4]They sought wisdom on their own terms and made their own vestments. God had created the world and said it was good. Like Adam and Eve we take hold of a good thing, seeking to subdue it to our own wills apart from God and we inevitably pervert the thing. Just as a hammer can be used to build great palaces and shelters for the poor, hammers have also been the instruments of brutal murders. In this way king David functions as an anti-type. Where Saul had been made king according to the will of the people as they strayed from God, David was appointed king by God himself. Twice David had opportunity to take Saul’s life and end his own suffering, to exalt himself to the throne on his own terms. Twice David refused to strike the Lord’s anointed, Saul. David was content to be king according to God’s will not his own.

C. Vestments and the Image of God

1. Isaiah 44:9,21

⁹All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. (Isaiah 44:9, ESV) ²¹Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you; you are my servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me. (Isaiah 44:21, ESV)

a) Idols

Idols are the manmade images of false gods. In the ancient Near East they were fashioned out of metal and wood and would be adorned with clothing appropriate for a god.

b) Human beings

Isaiah draws clear parallel between idols of false gods and human beings who are the God-made images of the true and living God.

c) Yatsar (יָצַר) – to form, or fashion

This contrast is seen in the fact that the same Hebrew verb is used to describe how idols are fashioned and how God forms us as the image of himself. It is the same word used at the end of Genesis 2:8, speaking of the man that God formed. God had formed humanity in his image and likeness (Gen 1:27). He breathed life into us (Gen 2:7), expressing something “warmly personal.”[5] This is a deliberate and not an accidental creation.”[6]

2. Ancient Near Eastern Context

In the ancient Near Eastern context both kings and idols were thought to represent God and as such were “expected to be clothed as a sign of their royal authority.”[7] If we transpose our understanding of Isaiah 44 to Adam and Eve, we see that the clothing intended for them was far more than the grand vestments of those representing false gods and certainly immeasurably distant from fig leaf loincloths .

D. The NT and Investiture

1. 1 Corinthians 15:49

In speaking about the parousia, the time when the Lord returns to finally set the world aright, Paul tells us:

“And just as we have worn the image of the man of dust, we also will wear the image of the man of heaven.” (1 Cor 15:49 – my translation)[8]

2. Galatians 3:26-29

²⁶for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. ²⁷For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:26-29, ESV)

V. Conclusion

So what do Adam and Eve, the nation of Israel, Moses, and the apostle Paul have in common? They all failed to live up to their created purpose. The all fell short of the glory of God that was to be their vestment, their clothing. Just like God does not lay us bear in our sin, but comes to us, taking the tattered fig leaves away that he might clothe us with robes of grace, with vestments of the very righteousness of God, Jesus Christ, who obtained the glorious raiment by means of a very different tree.

_____________

[3] Wilder: 58-59.

[4] Wilder: 56.

[5] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. D. J. Wiseman, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), 60.

[6] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis : A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001), 85.

[7] Wilder: 63.

[8] Wilder turned me on to the use of φορέω here.

III. Wisdom: knowing good and evil

A. Conceptually Wisdom

The writer of Hebrews warns his audience against apostasy, encouraging us towards maturity and wisdom, that we might have “discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” (Heb 5:14) This is a call to seek wisdom. This is substantiated throughout the scriptures.

B. The Tree was not Evil in Itself

If the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil bore the fruit of wisdom, it is not something that is bad in and of itself. If it was then we have a God who created evil which is contrary to scripture. The God revealed in the bible is holy. Evil and wickedness are pursued hotly and consumed fiercely by the Lord.

C. Review of what’s been said

1. Broadly speaking, we live in a sacramental world that is related to us by means of covenant.
2. ‘Sacramental’ here means that God uses outward/physical means to communicate spiritually to us
3. We were created for godly wisdom and communing life with God.

II. Covenantal Framework

A. Covenantal Implications in a Sacramental World

Broadly speaking we live in a sacramental world that is related to us by means of covenant (WCF 7.1). So if we do not understand Adam and Eve’s relationship as creatures to their Creator and his Creation, these two trees in the midst of the Garden of Eden will not make any sense.

1. Covenantal: divine, personal condescension

Covenant is a word that we use often in the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition. It is a biblical term and one that has been developed theologically for thousands of years. The Westminster Confession of Faith describes covenant as the expression of “voluntary condescension on God’s part” in which he reveals to us something of who he is, what he requires of us, and what the consequences are for obedience and disobedience.

Adam and Eve operated in a context of covenant. God said to Adam, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you do, you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17) God had condescended to Adam, explaining clearly the parameters of the covenant and clearly enunciating the penalty for
disobedience. What is promised implicitly but clearly here is that if Adam were to obey, he would receive the life promised to him in the tree first named, the tree of life.

I had said just a moment ago that “Broadly speaking we live in a sacramental world that is related to us by means of covenant.” I hope you see how the circumstances of how Adam and Eve were related to God were indeed covenantal. Now, I want to help you understand what I mean when I say that we live in a sacramental world.

2. Sacramental: physical means of a spiritual communication

As Protestants we believe that the scriptures teach us that there are only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. A sacrament, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is an outward or physical means, whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption.[1]

Now, I am not implying that all of creation communicates to us the benefits of redemption. What I am saying is that God uses physical or outward means to communicate spiritually to us. In psalm 19 we find evidence for this. God uses the heavens to communicate to us something of the spiritual reality of his glory.

B. The Sacramental Nature of the Trees

While all of nature tells us unspeakably much about the Creator, these two trees in the midst of the Garden of Eden were physical symbols being used by God in the context of covenant to communicate a spiritual reality. So in this broad sense of the term, the trees are sacramental.

C. Probation of Humanity in the Garden

Had Adam and Eve obeyed the prohibition God had given not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, there is reason to believe that the tree would have “played a role in a very different sort of transformation.” [2]

D. Destiny

To say that there would have been a “different sort of transformation” is to say that God did not create human beings for failure and fig leaves. Our destiny is not dark knowledge and cheap existence, but bright wisdom and thick life.

__________

[1] See WSC#88.

[2] William N. Wilder, “Illumination and Investiture: The Royal Significance of the Tree of Wisdom in Genesis 3,” The Westminster Theological Journal 68.1, no. Spring (2006): 52.

I. Introduction

A. Propositional Anemia

Part of the problem with the church today is that we really have lost connection with God’s work in history. Being a Christian, in many cases, has been reduced down to 3-5 propositions about grace, humanity, God, Christ and faith - abstracting the propositional from the historical.

If I told you that it was important for you to understand that a man painted a woman’s home, would that matter to you? Not really, it is a mere proposition and not a very interesting one at that. But what if I told you that a man, who was out of work, painted an elderly widow’s home at his own expense out of a deep conviction and delight that God uses people like him to care for people like her? Now we’re talking! The history of the thing has breathed life into the proposition that ‘a man painted a woman’s home.’

B. Satanic Strategy towards Apathy

Personally, I believe the reduction of the Christian faith to mere proposition is a quite amazing strategy of the Enemy of our God and our faith. If he can keep our faith in the abstract then he will never have to worry about our faith affecting us or anyone else.

C. Robust Historical Christianity

The good news is that our faith is not merely propositional. We believe the propositions of the faith handed down to us by those Christians who have come before us who received it from those before them. The connection goes back to those people like the Apostle Paul, King David, Abraham, Moses and our first parents, Adam and Eve. If you understand the weight of my argument here, you understand that Christianity, the faith of God working redemption throughout time and space, is of cosmic proportions and not merely a handful of propositions that we believe merely intellectually or emotionally.

Our faith is built upon the word of God, spoken by the Apostles and Prophets, now inscripturated in the Bible. It reveals to us that even before there was sin in the world, there was faith and faithfulness. Adam and Eve, the image of God, walking in the likeness of God, were created to have uninhibited fellowship with God. That is what is meant by paradise. In the created order, God was communicating to Adam and Eve in ways that are very much alive to us today.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2 Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
(Psalm 19:1-2, ESV)

As his image we say and do things that communicate far more than the mere proposition of our words or appearance of our actions. The two trees in the midst of this Garden of Eden are communicating to us a great symphony of covenantal overture.

The following is my rendering of the main texts for this series on the Tree of Wisdom in Genesis 2.

(8) And YHWH God [1] planted a garden in Eden in the east [2] and there he placed the man [3] that he had fashioned. [4]

(9) And out of the ground YHWH God caused to sprout [6] every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food. Now in the midst of the garden were the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

…

(15) And YHWH God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep watch over it.

(16) And YHWH God commanded the man saying, “From every tree of the garden you may surely eat.

(17) But from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you are not to eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will surely die. [6]

____________________

1. Kidner notes that YHWH God (yehwah ‘elohim, יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים) is a “rare, almost unique, double name” used. (Genesis, 58)

2. The eastern region, the east. Refers to where the Garden was relative to something - i.e., east of what? Perhaps east of Sinai where the Israelites were with Moses.

3. The man or human being (ha’adam, הָאָדָם ) is in connection to the earth, ground or land (ha’adamah, הָאֲדָמָה ).

4. he had fashioned, formed, create out of existing material.

5. To sprout or have grow (tsamah, צָמַח ). This word looks back to Genesis 2:5 where “no bush of the field was in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up.” Now in contrast trees had sprung up, not mere small shrubs.

6. The two absolute constructions in vv 16 and 17 layout a stark contrast. It is God who caused all the fruitful trees to grow that there may be trees from which the man might surely eat (’acal to’cel, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל). There is clear picture here of God both creating and sustaining the life of the man. In contrast the absolute construction used in verse 17 follows. The man may surely eat from any tree excepting one. God’s intention is not at this time to sustain the life of the man by the eating of this tree’s fruit. Consequently, if the man were to assert himself against YHWH God’s will here there would be certain death, he would surely die (mot tamut, מוֹת תָּמוּת).

Recently I read an article on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the midst of the Garden of Eden. Personally, I found this article by William N. Wilder in the Westminster Theological Journal was quite edifying. So here’s the citation if you’re interested in reading it yourself:

Wilder, William N. “Illumination and Investiture: The Royal Significance of the Tree of Wisdom in Genesis 3.” The Westminster Theological Journal 68.1, no. Spring (2006): 51-69.

I relied heavily on Wilder’s work in a sermon that I preached today, largely because I had been so gripped myself by his thoughts. Over the next days I will be posting a written version of that sermon from my notes. I will do my best to cite his thoughts from mine, however, for those readers who also preach part of a good sermon is that level of meditation when you have so ingested the material that it becomes part of you. So this will serve as my blanket citation to that end.

My wife and I not knowing much about fine art, purchased a course on the paintings on display in the Louvre and have been amazed at all that can be found in a single painting. One famous painting, now infamous thanks to Dan Brown, that we learned about was the Mona Lisa. Up to this point, my education on the Mona Lisa was through Looney Tunes. I was stunned to see how much professor Richard Brettell was able to open my eyes to the painting I have seen all of my life: the angular and mysterious landscape beyond the young woman in the picture for example - or the smirk on her face.

You will notice in John 1:35-51 the phrase “come and see” is used three times (twice in v 39 and in v 46). A question that the Gospel of John elicits at this point in the narrative is, “What do we expect to see when we come?”

John has given us a tremendous prelude to his Gospel in John 1:1-18. The one who made all that is has come to dwell with us in the flesh, demonstrating himself to be the exegesis or explanation of the Father. John the Baptist is introduced in John 1:19-34, testifying as the forerunner to the Incarnate Word described in the previous section. He adds one more significant detail to our understanding of the Incarnate Word. This Incarnate Word is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This is the second categorical bomb that we read in John. It explodes our minds and fills us with hope.

So when we come to our section (1:35-51) we find a transition between the public ministry of John the Baptist and that of Jesus of Nazareth. It is no small thing to see one as regarded as John the Baptist directing his disciples Andrew and an unnamed disciple to follow Jesus (v 37). It builds upon our sense of expectation and yet the question remains: what is it that we are expecting?

Jesus does not wait for Andrew and the unnamed disciple to ask, but asks them, “What are you seeking?” Jesus begins the dialog of faith. These first disciples, the church of two, come and stay (μενοω) with Jesus. Whatever they ’saw’ in him during their time together moved them to tell others that he was the Messiah or Christ. Shouldn’t we also be amazed at the way Peter ‘comes’ to and ’sees’ Jesus. The first apostle among equals, Peter, was not the first whom Jesus called. He came through his brother Andrew. As Calvin exhorts us, “none of us, however excellent, may refuse to be taught by an inferior”.¹ Second, Simon is given a new name. In the Old Testament names were given on the basis of what had happened in the past (compare Genesis 17). Here Simon is renamed Peter on the basis of all that the Incarnate Word would make the future to be.

__________

¹ John Calvin. Calvin’s Commentaries (electronic ed.;, electronic ed. Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000), Jn 1:40.

In reflecting on this morning’s sermon by Pete Deison at Park Cities Presbyterian Church, I began to consider the intricate relationship between prayer and righteousness. The memorable experience that this prayer was for Abraham seems to lend itself to encouraging us to pray and to reflect on the righteousness required for prayer.

It is notable in this passage that Abraham’s desire was that the city of Sodom be spared the wrath of God’s just destruction of it. Pastor Deison reminded us this morning that there were many in the city with whom Abraham had relation. He had conquered the five kings that had pillaged Sodom and returned all of its citizens belongings back to it. He had met with the king of Sodom and of course had family there, namely that of Lot. While Lot was influential in commerce and perhaps politics, he was not influential for the Lord.

Abraham prays boldly, most certainly. However, he stops short in his intercession. He stops at “if there are ten righteous people,” would you spare the city. God was most gracious to entertain Abraham’s prayer. In delighting to hear the prayer of his people, we find God preparing Abraham and his descendants for the reality of righteousness. Should Abraham had asked, “If there were one righteous person in the city, would you spare it, O Lord?” It seems plausible that God would have given the same reply, “If there is one, I will relent.” Nevertheless, the fate of Sodom would have been the same, for there were none righteous no, not even one (c.f., Romans 3:9-18).

So God answered Abraham’s prayer, but not the way Abraham had thought he intended. We often find ourselves praying boldly and yet without reference to the reality of the world as God has revealed it to us. God mercifully delivered Lot on account of His gracious promise to Abraham. On the basis of that promise, Abraham had prayed boldly and endured long in prayer for Lot (Genesis 19:29). So God delivered Lot, by means of Abraham’s intercession and “investment of love” to Lot.

Abraham’s intercession could not deliver the city, but it did deliver Lot, for the promise was to Abraham and his household, his family. This intercession ironically delivered Lot from the destruction of Sodom and in the subsequent portion of Genesis (19:30-38), Lot’s daughters defile their father by inebriating him in order to have sexual relations with him for the purpose of preserving his and their family line. It is at this point that we find Abraham’s intercession was at once efficacious in time and space and yet only imperfect and temporary. God had provided an intercessor for Lot in Abraham, and yet Abraham’s intercession looks forward to the Intercessor between God and Humanity, the Lord Jesus Christ, “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1). Christ intercedes eternally for his people, always and everywhere and never failing.

I would suggest to you the difference between Abraham and Christ is largely one of righteousness. Sodom is a picture that hits all too close to home. It is the City of Humanity, the city that is without any righteous citizenry. The Incarnation of God is the mystery in which the Lord in all his righteousness, makes himself poor, limiting himself to time and space in the person of Jesus of Nazareth — the singular righteous citizen who has ever lived. God would turn aside his wrath against sin for the righteousness of one man. That one man was not in Sodom, nor was he in Gomorrah. Where Abraham’s prayer of intercession failed to deliver the city, Christ’s righteous intercession remakes it, resulting in a New City. The Righteous One established the City of God and was exalted to reign over it. Instead of destroying the City of Humanity with wrath, it is invaded and transformed with Love, a far more potent offensive. The City of God is displacing and remaking the City of Humanity, making it truly human! God spared this city on the basis of one righteous man, Jesus Christ, who now perfectly and eternally intercedes for his citizens to whom he has bound himself with unbreakable bonds of love. It is on the basis of these unbreakable bonds of Love that we, as He, now intercede boldly in prayer before the throne of grace.