Here’s a little part of scripture that I don’t understand. So don’t hate me for asking the question. OK?
So in Genesis 2 we read about how one day God took a long look at Adam and declared: Dude, you shouldn’t be chillin’ all alone!
The KJV put it this way:
18) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Maybe I’m over-thinking it, but you would have thought that God would have instantly started doing the whole “putting Adam asleep” thing and using one of his ribs to create Eve. But he didn’t do that. Instead, God decides it’s a PERFECT time to parade all of the animals he created in front of Adam… what?!
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Hmm. “Hey Adam!” I imagine God saying, “Yeah yeah, you’re lonely, but before I make you some fellowship to enjoy, want to help me name some animals?
Can you imagine what Adam must have thought?
“Really, God?” I imagine Adam asking. “You just created like 100,000 beasts and you want to parade them in front of me so I can name all of them for you? Really? You can’t name them yourself?”
Apparently not.
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.
Wait just a minute. That’s the part I don’t understand? Let me repeat it for you.
Really? God was looking for a “helpmate” among the animals? For Adam? As in like, giraffes? Elephants? Walruses? Beavers?
A bunny rabbit?
My question is this: did God really think that Adam had a chance of meeting somebody real nice? Just furry? And perhaps with a pouch.
Really?
I mean, right after that little odd sentence, God went on to create woman, but that phrase sticks out to me.
And so, I wondered what you guys thought? Care to debate? (Be nice.)
Here are some questions:
First of all, do you believe Adam and Eve were real people?
If yes, do you think God really thought that Adam might find a great little match among the beasts?
OR am I reading it incorrectly? If so, what do you think it means?
Viagra is for the treatment of inability to get or keep an erection and similar states when erection is of low quality. When you buy remedies like cialis from canada you should know about cialis online canada. It may have a lot of brands, but only one ATC Code. Erectile disfunction, defined as the persistent impossibility to maintain a satisfactory erection, affects an estimated 15 to 30 millions men in the America alone. Sexual soundness is an substantial part of a man’s life, no matter his age etc.
I’m more concerned that the illustration at the top here makes it look like Eve had a penis.
OK. Geoff. You are hilarious. This comment made my evening.
So funny. 🙂
And sort of true.
My thought on the topic and I may be wrong was that the whole thing was for lack of a better word an object lesson teaching two truths,
1. There is not a suitable helpmate or equal for Adam amongst creation because,
2. Man is higher than creation (naming it, the possibility that the Imago Dei is the ability to rule…)
At that point God then provides what only He could by creating what He had purposed to be with man – woman.
i’m thinking that if God made Eve first, there would have been no way Adam would have had enough energy to name all the animals. know what i mean? so, I think God knows His plan and we all just need to go along with it.
Gregg.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or joking.
🙂
I always thought the story to be a metaphorical or poetic exploration of truths — a parable, rather than a literal story of the first man and his job to name animals.
Having said that, I second the Eve-penis-foliage conundrum. That picture disturbed me as a child, because I couldn’t figure out if it was a leaf, or if my future wife would have one of those, whatever the heck “those” are.
I don’t think it was God who didn’t know that Adam wouldn’t find a suitable partner among the animals, I think it was Adam. I think it was God’s way of showing Adam that the right mate had to come from God directly, and couldn’t just be whom(what)ever was just hanging around.
A Garden of Eden version of speed dating, if you will.
Wait a second. John. So are you saying you’re a Hindu?
🙂
Kidding.
I tend to agree. Though I admit, I don’t know. The first 2 chapters in Genesis are written in a much different style than even the rest of the book.
It’s an interesting debate.
I find it curious that God went through all the animals first, also. Went through them all first and then when that didn’t work, He made woman.
Just saying. 😉
Yes, yes folks — you heard it hear first: John Wofford is a Hindu. Tell all your friends to comment my articles with nasty things that will scare me back to Jesus.
🙂
Love you guys.
I am not sure who is more bizarre…you or the people who seriously commented on this topic.
@Ah440z…
And your point is…
Because… uh… YOU COMMENTED ON THIS POST.
Just. Saying.
In light of God’s infinite all-knowingness and recent news about a mentally deranged man and his equine lover, perhaps God was giving Adam a mixed biology/zoology lesson 1980s Sesame Street style (Which of these things belong together?) so that when he did bring Eve in on the scene there would be as little confusion as possible. God knew the need but wanted Adam to see the need so he would fully embrace the provision of Eve.
i was joking about the “being too tired”, and totally serious about God’s plan.
Although, I do find it curious that of all the creatures with the power of flight, Adam chose to give the name “fly” to a pest. Always wondered about that.
I’ve always thought Adam and Eve were real people and not symbols, but the debate is interesting.
Maybe Adam had started to get a little frisky and had started thinking about doing some of those things single people aren’t supposed to do. So, God wanted to show him that if he just redirected those urges toward work and meaningful activity the compulsion to “sin” would go away. ;^)
Maybe then God decided since Adam had been such a hard worker, He would relent and put his stamp of approval on a little pleasure, after all.
Seriously, I believe that God was making a point to Adam that all the work in the world wouldn’t really take away a desire to share his satisfaction with another human being–someone suitable to come alongside and help. It’s a lesson I think God is still teaching humanity. Complete satisfaction comes through relationship–not just activity (even activity in partnership with God).
Dude, you’re crazy. I like you, but you’re crazy. 😉
And I have a hard time figuring out God and what He thinks. I think He likes us to wonder…
not a clue. but eve’s ta-ta’s make me feel much better about myself.
First of all, just noticed it says “AN help meet…”. That bugs me, for some reason. *shrug*
I would guess it’s because we, as human beings, don’t really appreciate something until we know our need for it.
In other words, we don’t appreciate medicine unless we’re sick.
We don’t appreciate grace until we understand sin.
Maybe Adam had to see the duality/male-female of creation first to appreciate what God was about to do for him?
Of course, as soon as Adam gets into a little trouble, he throws both Eve AND God under the bus:
“The woman whom You gave to be with me…”
Good discussion, Matt. Never thought about that one before. But in reflecting upon it, seemingly Adam had seen the animals for a bit already. So, he had all these beasties running, flying, and swimming around…and God said “chew on these, not on this”…and then came the time.
It seems like a two-fer. Adam, since you’re in charge of all this stuff, name it, I’m cool with that. But also, you get to see there’s nothing living that’ll help your loneliness but I’ve got a plan for that, too. Take a nap and you’ll see. 🙂
That’s an interesting question. My take is that God ALWAYS knows what the outcome will be, but that doesn’t mean he stops the events that lead to that outcome. Ruth could have just stayed where she was; she was going to end up back there anyway. David could have just gone straight to king-hood without all that shepard business. Sampson could have just not been given any super-strength in the first place, and none of the “you bitch, you cut my magic hair!” thing would have been necessary.
We don’t know why God does the things he does, but I think in this case, it was like anything else – God had a plan and this was part of it for some reason.
Personally, I feel that the Adam and Eve story, as mentioned before, is an allegory. The Garden of Eden was probably a rich fertile place where early Man lived, now flooded by the Red Sea, and the characters Adam and Eve may have been the first who recognized God for who He is. The story later goes on to say that after their eviction from the Garden, they went on to bear sons who later married daughters of other men. Where did those other men come from if they hadn’t existed already?
Either way, God has His ways, and He understands the minds of His creations. Primitive man needed an explanation, so He either gave them a simplified one, or as legend and oral lore goes, the story changed as it got passed down.
As for the story about the naming the animals, that was probably intended to teach that Man has stewardship and use of God’s Earth and its creatures. I had never noticed, nor had it pointed out to me before now, that it took place before Eve and that the help meet was supposed to come from the task. Interesting…
First, I would say they are real people. Second, I think He paraded them before Adam so he could see how good what he was getting was so much better than what was already around. Third, he knew that men would spend a good time waiting for their wives and he wanted Adam to get into practice and set the standard for us. 🙂
This comment has been removed by the author.
@ James, the use of the article “an” before words beginning with a hard “h” sound bothers me too. I don’t mind when it precedes words with a silent “h” such as honesty or honorary, but it just sounds weird when you put it in front of heavenly or hubbalicious or helpmeet. I wonder why English professors and grammarians insist on the “an” before all “H-words.” It sounds wrong.
@Bill (cycleguy), Just as there has been a (not an) heated debate on this blog about whether Jesus masturbated or ejaculated, some might say we can’t know for sure that Adam “waited” for his wife.
I guess if there were no other women around with whom he could do the hippity dippity, he couldn’t have NOT waited. Or were the goats running for their lives? Or was it God who had to wait for Adam to finish hugging the hog before they could take that early morning stroll through the garden? Look, now we’ve opened another can of wriggling, squirmy beasts of the field…
(Poor MPT, what’s he gonna do with us? Maybe he’ll have to ban us from the blog and post a sword-bearing angel as the comment moderator!) ;^)
I think 1) There was a literal Adam and Eve; and that 2) the narrative was laid out in a way to emphasize Adam’s loneliness before Eve was created.
Matthew,
I went to a marriage conference with my husband, and the pastor there explained it this way.
God knew that Adam needed a someone. He had the animals come two by two so that Adam could see what he was missing. He wanted Adam to know that he needed someone like him. God didn’t intend for Adam to find his helper in one of the animals. It was just a teaching exercise. Kind of like you can’t tell you children what hot is. You try to explain it, but they never quite get it until they burn themselves. Same thing with Adam.
Also, I have always been taught that Adam and Eve were real. Never really put much thought into the fact that it could just be a illustration.
I really hope that this makes sense. It’s early, and the kids first day of school, so there are many distractions.
Cheryl
I have always assumed that Adam and Eve were real people simply because they are listed in Biblical genealogies. We believe that the rest of the people listed are real people and it would be very strange to list them there if they weren’t. I am definitely not a Biblical scholar though.
I agree with all those other guys. God got Adam’s hopes up for a companion, then he brought out the animals, parading them along showing Adam what he didn’t want and then voila–there was Eve (perhaps not quite that quick) and then he saw what he really wanted and what God really had for him!
Of course they were real. You either believe all the Bible or none of it.
I think that Adam and Eve were real people, but not the only people alive at that time. I think God created them first, but probably not long before he started creating other people. Previous poster mentioned the daughters marrying other men- so there were obviously other people. But, there is that whole verse about how Eve would become the mother of all creation. So I don’t really know what to do with that if there were other people.
Eve’s sin is what gets me. If there were other people on earth, how did her sin make THEM sinful? I know it affected Adam because they were one, and he was supposed to be showing her the ropes and keeping her accountable, but did these other people walk around sinless, then suddenly they’re like “ACK! We’re naked and we know the difference between good and evil! What a suckerpunch! That came out of NOWHERE!”
I just don’t know. If it didn’t make me feel like a bad Christian to consider Genesis a less than literal interpretation of creation, I’d lean toward that. More like an “I made you. You’re not like the animals. Only do each other. And only one other person. One who has opposite plumbing from yours. By the way, I created you innocent, but now you’re SO not. I’ll provide a way out of this for you later, but it’s really going to hurt me. I just love you too much to destroy you and start over. Sigh.”
Like I said, I don’t know. But I know the whole Jesus part is true and literal, and so I’m pretty sure I’m covered. 😉
I tend to think that they were real people because sin had to enter the world some how and that is the only explanation for sin entering the world. I also think that it was a test, cause God loves to test us. Adam wasn’t meant to choose a helper among the beasts but observe that each beast had a female version, thus leading Adam to find no helper among the animals.
As to Adam wanking off before Eve came along, I think it is obvious that he, nor Christ did these things. The standards by which Christ lived did not come into existance with the Old Law or the New Convenant. God’s standards are absolute and timeless, thus before sin entered the world I believe that Adam would have maintained the same standards as Christ. Since Masturbation requires some small amount of lust, Adam nor Christ would not have masturbated since there was no appropriate source of lust in their lives.
There’s always a Dawn in a conversation like this one. Always.
Do you have a pouch, Dawn?
Also, it’s sad that nobody has offered one logical answer to this question…
Yes, I believe Adam and Eve were real people.
No, I don’t believe God expected Adam to find his mate among the animals.
I actually preached a wedding sermon from this last year, and I agree with melis. It showed him that what he needed could only come from God, and when he finally met Eve, he had no doubt that she was the one for him. There was no way he could then say, gee, maybe I was supposed to marry the walrus.
I think Gregg has a good point though. I’m pretty sure, had Eve been introduced to him first, we’d still be calling cows, “Hey, thing with the horns.”
I think Adam and Eve were real people.
God knew Adam would need Eve because everyone knows that a man will not stop and ask for directions – leave it up to the woman to make sure you get to where you are going 🙂
To take Genesis 1 and 2 as completely literal, written to the modern standards of science and history is problematic to say the least. Let me be very clear here. I actually believe in the inspiration of scripture by the Holy Spirit of God. I have no problem at all saying that I believe that God exists and has personality and intent. I have no problem saying that this God does things that many would term “supernatural” (though that term can be problematic). These issues are not matters of being “conservative” or “liberal”. In fact, I find both of those terms to be deeply unhelpful shortcuts that sidestep issues and negate or demonize people. Anyway, here are some issues with the text in question:
a) Genesis 1 and 2 seem to be 2 different creation narratives. (1:1-2:3 is the first one, and the second one starts with 2:4). And it’s not just that the first two chapters are different from the rest of the book of Genesis, they are different from each other. The first narratives is more poetic, whereas the second reads more like a story. In the first one, God appears to create men and women (nameless) at the same time. In the second one, Adam is created first, followed by a parade of animals, then eve. The order of events (i.e. what was created when) is different from the first narrative to the second (which was created first, vegetation or human beings?) While in the first narrative Creation takes place over the course of a week, you can make a fairly convincing argument that the second narrative make take place over the course of one day.
b) I would argue that God always communicates inside the worldview and understanding of those he is seeking to communicate with (usually with the intention of moving them beyond it). It is virtually impossible to argue that Genesis 1 and 2 were written to the modern standards of history (which have their own problems). It would have been incomprehensible to them. Nothing historical from that time period was written in the way we write history. To impose such standards on such a text is to ask precisely the wrong questions of it, thereby causing us to miss the messages the text actually seeks to convey.
c) or…imagining that everything I’ve said so far has no merit, one would have to ask, when God paraded the animals in front of Adam…were there already male and female animals of every other species? If so, then it wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. If not, well…that just raises all kinds of uncomfortable questions, doesn’t it?
If you ask me, I don’t actually think there is a conflict between Adam and Eve existing and the text having a complexity that includes symbolic meaning and allegory. That isn’t a matter of “being conservative” or “being liberal”. It’s a matter of understanding context and genres.
Matthew, you are a funny, funny man. Was this post supposed to be an appendix to “Sex Week”?
AE
That is curious when you break it down.
So, try this.
I stumped my preacher as a teen. He had preached on Cain and Abel. Cain was sent ‘away’ and there he created another family. Okay? With WHO?? If Adam and Eve were the only people and they had only sons…who were they supposed to make families with? I joked later with family, that THAT must be that “missing link” all the scientists are looking for.The kid Cain made with an ape! haha
I think that God wanted to teach Adam a lesson in patience and waiting on the Lord. Notice how God creates Eve as soon as Adam stops working and rests!
That was certainly true of my own life–once I stopped LOOKING for a man, decided to be patient and just wait until God gave a husband to me, He did.
Also, it might have been just another way to help Adam truly appreciate Eve as a woman, human, and wife. By making him see that not a single other creature could do what she could do, he was bound to value her more!
All of the questions (problems) happen only when we try to imagine these are historical figures.
So my answer to #1 is obviously, “no”. But I’ll go one step further…
Adam, Even and God are all symbolic characters. They all represent real features in real life experiences, but none of them are what we would commonly define as “real”.
However, we might consider Hegel’s view that abstract concepts like Adam, Eve and God are actually concrete, while a physical thing like me typing this response is merely an abstract notion.
@Adam, I wondered if anyone would mention in this thread that there are actually two different creation stories in Genesis. After all those years in Sunday School, I didn’t learn that until quite recently. I was shocked to discover the myth of Lilith–as the reason for there being two different versions of creation. Fascinating (kind of “out there” for me) stuff!
@Mike L: Wow. Deep thoughts there. How do you distinguish between “real” and “concrete”? And if God is not real, but symbolic, are our prayers without purpose?
Adam’s reference to the 2nd creation story points to one value of these ancient myths. I don’t think they tell us much about how the universe works, but they tell us volumes about the culture who created them. I see the later story (found in Gen 1) as a retelling of the earlier Gen 2 story, but told through the lens of Jewish tradition (well established by the time those “P” texts were added). The most important point is a recognition and affirmation of keeping the Sabbath (i.e. it’s so important that even God rested on the 7th day).
@ttm: this is probably off topic, but it depends on what you mean by “prayers”. Prayer can be psychologically destructive (even delusional) if seen as an attempt to get things, be protected, or talk to an external being. But if seen as a communal act of bonding or as an introspective act of reasoning, then I see a very important purpose for prayer. For example when someone says, “let me pray about that decision”, and what they really mean is, “let me think about the pros and cons of each option until I solidify a reasonable level of confidence about my decision.” Or when someone says, “let’s join together in prayer”, and what the really mean is, “let’s come together in mutual agreement about a goal, purpose, or plan of action.”
I think Hegel would say that even though the physical act of saying a prayer seems like a concrete action, the act of prayer is merely a symbol for all the things that brought you to that moment of despair, or to a point of decision, or to a communal gathering of unity (i.e. a prayer).
I agree that if you try to go at this with a literal view, you will be confused; because, to our Western 21st centry logic, it doesn’t make much sense.
In the time that Genesis was written (most popularly thought to be by Moses)the Jewish people communicated the stories/origins of their people through imagery and symbolism. It doesn’t mean that the said events didn’t happen, or that Adam and Eve weren’t real. It just means that you should try to see the stories through that ancient lense, when most scriptue was communicated by word of mouth between slaves of Egypt.
“Is the greatest truth about Adam and Eve and the fruit that it happened, or that it happens?”
-Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis
i think God gave Adam that job because Adam would get to know the animals very well, and he would notice that they came in pairs. a bull would parade by, and then his counterpart cow would. a rooster, and then his hen…and so on and so on (sorry – i am a farm girl so farm animals are on my mind). 🙂 so i think Adam eventually looked around and thought, “where’s my counterpart?” all the animals have partners, but where is his? and in comes Eve. so from the beginning, God let Adam know his need for Eve and the fact that she was his gift. of course God knew that Adam would not always see Eve as a gift, so maybe He wanted to introduce her as one so Adam could be reminded later on that God didn’t mean for him to be alone.
@ Mike L: I’ve experienced prayer as a communal act of bonding just as you described. But, I don’t think I’ve ever thought of it as an introspective act of reasoning (kind of like talking to myself?) Hmmmm…I’ll have to think about that (pray about it?) for awhile. Thank you for taking time to answer my questions.
Every now and then, I arrange to leave my husband (Adam) alone with the kids. I don’t think he can fully appreciate my work until he’s experienced life without it. Where did I get that idea? God.. I hear he’s pretty wise.. Contrary to the common depiction of how God values women, I believe He totally has my back!
It’s an older English usage to make the H silent, ie “an historical account.” which this is not.
I think God is being rhetorical, sort of drumming it into Adam that no, there is not in fact anything on the planet that is your equal. There, Adam. Go ahead, give that thing a name. And no, that is also not your equal. (I’m sure GOd would have had him name ESPN and fantasy football before he reminded him that no, neither are those your equal).
BTW The word translated as “helpmeet” is the word Hebrew word “ezer” Which actually means rescuer.
@Dana: technically I’d say that it’s not the common depiction how God values women that’s the problem, but the way Christians value women…quite a different thing. At least in my mind.
For the first question, in light of the entire Bible, Adam and Eve (and the story of creation) have to be interpreted as real/literal. Later, in Romans, Paul will say that Adam was the man through whom sin entered the world. Since Jesus was a real man who would be sinless and save us from our nature inherited by Adam, I can only assume that Adam was real as well.
As for the second question, it doesn’t seem like God was doing a serious search for Adam’s mate throughout the animal kingdom, but as some have already mentioned, showing Adam’s or the human race’s superiority over animals.
It could just be the order of it being written too. It wasn’t necessarily meant that God made the animals in an effort to find Adam’s wife, just pointing out the fact that He made the animals before He made Eve. Either way, if we believe God is sovereign, then it is certain that God would have never purposely looked at animals for Adam.
Can somebody explain the reason that you might try to interpret these stories as literal events?
If Adam literal was the first “man” what do you mean by “man”? Was Adam a homosapien or some previous bipedal primate ancestor to like a neaderthal man? Did he have a fully developed frontal lobe, if not how did he communicate with Eve or the snake. For that matter, how did the snake talk without vocal cords? Does this just devolve (pardon the pun) to the level of absurdity? I just don’t get it. The literal view seems to make the whole thing into a joke.
For me, the story was written the same reason most religious stories were written. They were used to shape cultural norms. For these particular Jewish writers, they added this scene to explain ancient Jewish traditional gender roles (i.e. women were subordinate to men).
you can’t even debate if the story o the fall is true or not, because it is.
Adam is mentioned several times in both the Old and New Testament as being a real guy, in genealogy and in the section of Romans where Paul talks about how Sin enters the world through Adam, is then conquered by Jesus.
And i know it sounds odd that God paraded animals in front of Adam 1st but I do believe that it was because he wanted to see if any were suitable mates for him.
God Creates, call most of Creation “good”, calls man “very good”, then says it was “not good” for man to be alone. God changed his mind and he has done this on a least a few occasions. Abraham talked him out of killing more people, the Flood to destroy all of us, etc.
It sounds odd, but everything does when you try to figure God out.
Also, i’m not saying this blog is strictly for Christians, but TTM and Mike L, that is heretical.
You can’t pick and choose this kind of thing.
@ Relevant-ISH Pastor: WHAT is heretical? I’ve said a lot of things on this thread…or is everything I say heretical because you have labeled me “not Christian”?
Mike L:
I see your points and concur. There’s not a lot of specificity in the creation account, particularly in light of questions that it raises in the face of scientific discovery. Not that intellectual revelations have crippled the text, but they’ve certainly caught the mind/heart off-guard with tons of questions like the ones you raised.
I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive to wonder at the significance of prayer – or questions about human genealogy – and still be a believer. I’ve done the same thing for myself, and it in no way supplants those basic tenets of my faith to replace them with new ones.
And no, no… you’re not a heretic.
(But I AM a Hindu. At least according to MPT.) Haha!
By the way, I am a Christian for anyone now wondering…and hoping you and your family won’t catch what I have. ;^)
@ttm
Not to be a snark, but is there a vaccine?
I mean, I believe you and everything, but I have a weak immune system.
Should I be tested? What are the symptoms? Is it anything like swine flu?
Just kidding, all.
@ John Michael Wofford,
If you have a weak immune system (weak theology), you might want to wear a mask if you get close to me(It will work even better if it’s been blessed and prayed over by one of God’s anointed. But be warned this could cost you!)
Relevant-ISH pastor is probably more in the know than I am about whether you should be tested. He could probably ask you some important questions to determine whether your exposure to my comments alone has put you at risk.
He probably can also readily rattle off the tell-tale symptoms and give you a prognosis. Even though I am a carrier, I am symptom free. Well, I get nauseous and feel like vomiting in the presence of “doctors,” but I don’t think that has anything at all to do with the disease I carry and try not to spread…
Thank you for the laugh. Yes, I enjoy laughter every now and then (even with a Hindu…) :^)
This comment has been removed by the author.
I did not know there was fine print in the definition of the word “Christian” that says I must adopt a bronze age or 1st century understanding of biology, geology, and physics.
Should we try to determine if Paul thought the world was flat, and if so, adopt that view? How about DNA? Since Paul likely didn’t know about it, should we label our current understanding of genetics as “heretical”?
Can’t we find value in the social critique that the biblical authors provided, but still have a reasonable tolerance toward their ancient naivety about science? Must we throw out everything they said just because they didn’t understand as much as we do? Keep in mind that 2000 years later we are still a long way from providing all the explanations.
I don’t need Adam and Eve to be actual people. It doesn’t challenge my faith in God or the inspiration of his story to us written down by men. The creation and fall stories are allegory to explain our sinful plights and how/why the world is as it is through a non-scientific, oral narrative manner.
This issue you write about makes sense – in superficial terms. But once you take the time to seek God’s heart for actually doing what he did you discover that God’s thoughts and ways really are higher than ours. We all know God is not dumb and what he does he does because he has a purpose for it…
This is literally copied out of the book “Excellencies of Christ” by Allen Hood… its kind of long but I believe it will let you glimpse a bit more into the deep heart of God if you take the time to read it
“From the beginning, God defined reality for man in this garden. God desired a companion for Adam. This was not an alternative plan to a debunked system. This was the clarifying of reality for man and was the prophetic foreshadowing of the nature of things for the second Adam to come. Just as God desired to create humanity in His image and join us unto Himself in the person of is son, so God desired that the first Adam be joined to a companion.
God used loneliness to cultivate something in the heart of Adam. God created longing in his heart and made Adam endure a rigorous process of recognizing his lacking. Loneliness became the birthplace for longing and desire. Aloneness presupposes desire and longing. Without the longing for something else, loneliness is impossible. While Adam bore the weight of naming all that was created, his heart began to notice that something was missing and also that something was being kindled in him. Desire for a companion was growing. God was setting for the ultimate object lesson for Adam to understand something of himself. He was a creature of desire and intimacy, made in the image of His Creator. God stamped His own longing for communion on the very nature of human beings.
This was the design of God: to create longing and passion in the heart of humanity. We are designed to feel the longing of love, the relentless pursuit of the heart for another person like no other creature. Humanity would share in the experience of God with longing love.
No suitable helper is found. God used the naming of the animals for much more than a display of Adam’s authority. He used the naming of the animals to help Adam discover the God-given attributes of love and desire. Can you image the pain of Adam as he named them, two of each kind, all the while recognizing his lack of a companion but discovering the power of a new emotion? Desire was reaching its climax, but wait – a wedding is coming”
In the book Allen the goes on speaking about the prophetic decree of the desire brought forth in the heart of Adam and the prophetic shadow of Christ’s union with the Church in the end times with Adam and Eve’s coming together in intimacy.
@ I Am Judah:
So God’s ways/heart/intentions are higher than our own, but if we read a book, it all makes sense.
I’m not saying I disagree with the substance of the quote; but it’s just as speculative as what’s being done here.
Hi John Michael,
absolutely I agree with you! That’s part of what’s so beautiful and amazing about God and the Bible!
There’s not just “one way” – and I’m not saying everything is subjective, but there are so many elements about His character and what He wants us to see – about His own heart, about our own heart, about life.
A “simple” part of the Bible can speak to us in so many different ways and on so many levels… I just offered one of the many things God was establishing through that situation and I didn’t want to claim that revelations as my own, as I only thought of it until I read and meditated on what Allen Hood had previously read and meditated on.
In saying that His ways/heart/intentions are higher than our own I was merely responding to tone of the original post where MPT questions wether God was “really thinking that Adam had a chance of meeting somebody real nice or furry”. It kind of sounded insulting to me, to dumb down God to such a question – although a valid question, I guess. It’s just my perception.
Here’s another perspective I happen to come across in a book I was reading (Grace is Where I Live) by poet and English professor John Leax. I love the story connection, since the Creation narrative is a story – not a theological outline – and since MPT just did an excellent job in the Story Unfolding webcast. But I also like how Leax touches on language, which is key to our interpretation.
I can consciously choose the creative responsibility of language. Consider the creation narrative in Genesis. For six days God labored speaking the world into being. He did not labor as an engineer. He labored as a poet. Then he rested or, as a wise man pointed out, he created rest. After resting, he assigned Adam the task of naming the creation. By assigning him this task, God involved him in the completion of the creation; he involved him in it in such a manner that he could know nothing apart from his linguistic involvement with it, his relation to it. Adam’s reality is relational, discovered new every day, evolving. It is never complete, for it exists in the interaction of the physical world and language. It is intentionally open. (p. 88)
I love the relational component to this perspective. The creation narrative isn’t just about a relationship with a companion in Eve or beav-er, it is describe a relationship with God, with life, with words, with discoveries, with control, with choice, with a lot more than I can describe now.
Pretty darn cool, and completely NOT how I saw it before this weekend.
Saw a link to this one your main page. Wanted to add my thoughts, even though I haven’t had time to process all 60+ comments. If I am repeating what others have said, please forgive me.
The reason God did this is intentional, simple, and connected to the narrative as a whole. God stated the need (which is in and of itself incredible, to think that something is “not good” in complete innocence baffles most theologians), but then immediately sent the animals to be named by Adam so that he would be connected with the need and desire that God had already seen and noted.
We can see similar examples of this connection in the Gospels. A good example is Matt 20:30-34. Check this out, how insulting would it be for those blind men? It was clear, obvious, and blatant that they were blind. But Jesus asks them ‘what do you desire’. He first highlights the need and the desperation, and then fulfills it. He never exposes a need without providing a solution. And just as he did with the blind men, He did with Adam.
He wanted Adam to see what He saw, a desperate need for companionship. He wanted Adam to connect with the deepest desire of his heart so that God could fulfill it for him like a Father would a child.
Exposing the need so that Adam would rely solely on His Father to meet it.
I think that’s pretty awesome.