Pharaoh vs The Red Sea

[Webers.Home]

.
Jehovah had been stiffening Pharaoh's resolve off and on during their
confrontation over Moses' people leaving Egypt.

Well; the intermissions wherein God allowed Pharaoh time to think about
what he was doing were done; it was time to die and just to make sure
Pharaoh didn't escape the grim reaper; Jehovah stiffened the monarch's
resolve one final time.

• Ex 14:1-4 . . Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying: Tell the sons of Israel to
turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea; you
shall camp in front of Baal-zephon, opposite it, by the sea.

. . . For Pharaoh will say of the sons of Israel "They are wandering aimlessly
in the land; the wilderness has shut them in." Thus I will harden Pharaoh's
heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh
and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am Jehovah.

The name "Jehovah" a.k.a. Yahweh, has a special connotation to it. It's not
really a moniker, it's more like a descriptor that has something to do with
knights in shining armor (so to speak) i.e. rescuers, redeemers providers,
and protectors.

Well; it's about to finally sink into the thick skulls of Mr. Pharaoh and his
minions that the god they've been toying with is far stronger than any of
them ever imagined.

Long story short: Jehovah stiffened Pharaoh's resolve; so he saddled up and
gave chase and caught up to the fleeing Israelites and when he came up
behind them into the parted Red Sea, the waters closed in and drowned the
whole lot of them.

This incident is said to be a baptism (1Cor 10:1-2) which is very curious
because none of Moses' people got wet; not even any of their shoes.

• Ex 14:29 . . But the sons of Israel walked on dry land through the midst of
the sea, and the waters were like a wall to them on their right hand and on
their left.

NOTE: Critics are prone to complain that hardening Pharaoh just to give
Jehovah an opportunity to drown the poor man in the Red Sea and thus
prove he was no match for Jehovah's superior strength, was cruel and
unfair. Well; I must admit that it seems that way to me too. However; I'm
only human and so are Jehovah's critics.

When Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his wife obtained an intuitive
sense of right and wrong (Gen 3:22). Unfortunately, the sense they obtained
was unreliable due to the fact that it was a product of the Serpent's
handiwork instead of their divine benefactor's.

The Serpent-- a.k.a. the Devil/Satan (Rev 12:9) --has the power of death
(Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human body and the human
mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

That explains why God is commonly perceived making mistakes and/or
acting like a demented fiend; and also why, try as it might, the human mind
cannot make sense of some of the things that God does. The old saw "God
moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform" certainly holds true in
quite a few incidents recorded in the Bible.
_

 

[Magenta]

.
This incident is said to be a baptism (1Cor 10:1-2) which is very curious
because none of Moses' people got wet; not even any of their shoes.

The baptism that saves does not get us wet, either

He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according
to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

God didn't stiffen Pharoh's heart........God HARDENED his heart so THAT HE WOULD NOT LET THE PEOPLE GO.
Big difference.

Exodus 10:1
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials, that I may perform these miraculous signs of Mine among them,

Exodus 11:10
Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let the Israelites go out of his land.

 

[Corban]

.
Jehovah had been stiffening Pharaoh's resolve off and on during their
confrontation over Moses' people leaving Egypt.

Well; the intermissions wherein God allowed Pharaoh time to think about
what he was doing were done; it was time to die and just to make sure
Pharaoh didn't escape the grim reaper; Jehovah stiffened the monarch's
resolve one final time.

• Ex 14:1-4 . . Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying: Tell the sons of Israel to
turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea; you
shall camp in front of Baal-zephon, opposite it, by the sea.

. . . For Pharaoh will say of the sons of Israel "They are wandering aimlessly
in the land; the wilderness has shut them in." Thus I will harden Pharaoh's
heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh
and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am Jehovah.

The name "Jehovah" a.k.a. Yahweh, has a special connotation to it. It's not
really a moniker, it's more like a descriptor that has something to do with
knights in shining armor (so to speak) i.e. rescuers, redeemers providers,
and protectors.

Well; it's about to finally sink into the thick skulls of Mr. Pharaoh and his
minions that the god they've been toying with is far stronger than any of
them ever imagined.

Long story short: Jehovah stiffened Pharaoh's resolve; so he saddled up and
gave chase and caught up to the fleeing Israelites and when he came up
behind them into the parted Red Sea, the waters closed in and drowned the
whole lot of them.

This incident is said to be a baptism (1Cor 10:1-2) which is very curious
because none of Moses' people got wet; not even any of their shoes.

• Ex 14:29 . . But the sons of Israel walked on dry land through the midst of
the sea, and the waters were like a wall to them on their right hand and on
their left.

NOTE: Critics are prone to complain that hardening Pharaoh just to give
Jehovah an opportunity to drown the poor man in the Red Sea and thus
prove he was no match for Jehovah's superior strength, was cruel and
unfair. Well; I must admit that it seems that way to me too. However; I'm
only human and so are Jehovah's critics.

When Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his wife obtained an intuitive
sense of right and wrong (Gen 3:22). Unfortunately, the sense they obtained
was unreliable due to the fact that it was a product of the Serpent's
handiwork instead of their divine benefactor's.

The Serpent-- a.k.a. the Devil/Satan (Rev 12:9) --has the power of death
(Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the human body and the human
mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

That explains why God is commonly perceived making mistakes and/or
acting like a demented fiend; and also why, try as it might, the human mind
cannot make sense of some of the things that God does. The old saw "God
moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform" certainly holds true in
quite a few incidents recorded in the Bible.
_

I think that often we start our deliberations without considering all the facts. The light in which we deliberate changes much when we consider who Pharaoh was. He was an arch enemy of God, having cast his lot in with Ra - the sun-god. He was the high-priest of Nimrod's religion from Babel. He claimed deity. He enslaved people and forced unrelenting and unreasonable burdens on them. He had persecuted God's People and ordered the murder of their babies, and he had refused to relinquish hold over a people that he had neither conquered nor had a quarrel with - a nation from which he derived prosperity and ownership of all Egypt because of Joseph. Added to this, God had made a promise to Abraham that his enemies would automatically be God's enemies.

Finally, God had promised Abraham and his seed via Jacob another Land - not Egypt. This is decisive because Jacob had erected the stone for Bethel (the House of God) in the Good Land. God wanted His dwelling place on earth and it was not to be found in a pyramid nor in Egypt. Israel had been building treasure cities for a idol-worshiping tyrant and God not only disagreed with that, but wanted the energies of Israel for HIM alone.

The setting for the destruction in Egypt was very clear. And God hit Egypt very forcefully but very fairly. Egypt had touched Jacob's seed in their firstborn. Now God retaliates 40 years later and send the angel of death to ALL firstborn in Egypt except those who trusted in the blood of the Passover Lamb. Next, God dealt a death blow, not to Egypt itself, but to its military. Pharoah, who claimed God's position and ignored God's request for that which was His own, must feel the hand of the ALL-mighty. And looking forward to another day when an idol worshiper claims to be God and persecutes Christian and Jew alike, we see the Beast being dealt with militarily at Armageddon, and the great Religious Whore that enslaved men being destroyed.

God did not unjustly harden Pharaoh. He did it becuase even the greatest and most powerful of men buckle at the knees and loose their bowels when they come face to face with Jehovah-Elohim. He did it to exact a just retribution, and still show His glory in it. Don't play with God ... or His people.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
According to Romans 9:10-18, God didn't harden Pharaoh's heart because of
anything the man did to deserve it.
_

 

[Scribe]

Egypt had touched Jacob's seed in their firstborn. Now God retaliates 40 years later and send the angel of death to ALL firstborn

Good stuff there.

 

[posthuman]

The baptism that saves does not get us wet, either

He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according
to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.

Yes

Exactly like Noah

 

[posthuman]

I think that often we start our deliberations without considering all the facts. The light in which we deliberate changes much when we consider who Pharaoh was. He was an arch enemy of God, having cast his lot in with Ra - the sun-god. He was the high-priest of Nimrod's religion from Babel. He claimed deity. He enslaved people and forced unrelenting and unreasonable burdens on them. He had persecuted God's People and ordered the murder of their babies, and he had refused to relinquish hold over a people that he had neither conquered nor had a quarrel with - a nation from which he derived prosperity and ownership of all Egypt because of Joseph. Added to this, God had made a promise to Abraham that his enemies would automatically be God's enemies.

IOW he was exactly like every single one of us?
an enemy of God, idolatrous, cruel, selfish & deceived?
does it matter he is a powerful or weak enemy of God? is any enemy of God 'powerful' with respect to Him? are there some He can't **afford** not to drown? does God have riches.

OK **considered**

kinda brings up a question: who then can be saved?
i have heard, 'with man it is impossible - with God all things are possible'

 

[posthuman]

When Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his wife obtained an intuitive
sense of right and wrong (Gen 3:22). Unfortunately, the sense they obtained
was unreliable due to the fact that it was a product of the Serpent's
handiwork instead of their divine benefactor's.

the tree was planted by God, not by Satan ((in re: 'product'))

in re: Genesis 3:22, if Adam & Woman had no sense of right or wrong until they ate, how were they supposed to know it was wrong to eat?
your position is saying they didn't. what does that say about God?
you will say, they knew it was wrong because God told them not to - but they would need to understand right and wrong, and know the difference, to have any sense that they should obey God or not. they would have to know that to obey is good and to disobey is evil. your position is saying that they just randomly chose actions without comprehension, oblivious to whether those actions even had moral implications at all -- that they had no concept of morality whatsoever ((therefore they could not know they ought to believe or to obey God, to them it was equivalent to disbelieve and disobey Him)) until they were given morality by the tree.
you're also going further saying Satan is the originator of the gift of morality that they received from the tree.

i disagree with that position.

 

[posthuman]

Finally, God had promised Abraham and his seed via Jacob another Land - not Egypt.

why does the LORD say in Isaiah 19:25, "blessed be Egypt My people" ?
"Assyria, Mine handiwork" ?

____________________________________________

 

[posthuman]

--

When Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he and his wife obtained an intuitive
sense of right and wrong (Gen 3:22). Unfortunately, the sense they obtained
was unreliable due to the fact that it was a product of the Serpent's
handiwork instead of their divine benefactor's.

let's go further:

your position says that Adam's knowledge of morality is 'unreliable' because Satan gave mankind a sense of morality, not God.
but God says of Adam, he has become like Him. your position considers this to be a comment God makes about the sense of morality Adam gained by eating the tree -- your position is that Satan the father of lies whose native language is lies was telling Woman the truth about what would happen if she ate, that eating the fruit of the tree makes one like God, and that this is in the sense of having the basic comprehension of right vs. wrong.
your position says that God is saying in Genesis 3:22 Adam's moral understanding is become equivalent to God's. how then can you say Adam has no reliable sense of morality, if it is equivalent to God's? does God not understand the difference between right and wrong either?

 

[Corban]

IOW he was exactly like every single one of us?
an enemy of God, idolatrous, cruel, selfish & deceived?
does it matter he is a powerful or weak enemy of God? is any enemy of God 'powerful' with respect to Him? are there some He can't **afford** not to drown? does God have riches.

OK **considered**

kinda brings up a question: who then can be saved?
i have heard, 'with man it is impossible - with God all things are possible'

Quite so. We have all been a Pharaoh at times and God has stayed judgment. This could only be possible because of the substitutionary death of His beloved Son - Jesus. How much was paid on Golgotha to release me - I just can't fully imagine.

 

[Corban]

why does the LORD say in Isaiah 19:25, "blessed be Egypt My people" ?
"Assyria, Mine handiwork" ?

____________________________________________

Because the Covenant of Promise with Abraham did not foresee the destruction of mankind. In Genesis 12:3 and 28:14, God's part of the Covenant was that He would bring a righteous Government onto earth via the "Seed" - Jesus, and that after six Millennia of oppressive government, the times of the gentiles will be full and He will introduce a Kingdom of equity. But, at the same time, the guilty will not go unpunished. Jesus will rule the earth from Jerusalem, and the Nations shall bask in His blessing - except Edom.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat it,
and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and went
about in the buff as usual; Eve's self awareness was unchanged, and her
feelings about the human body remained the same. It wasn't till Adam
tasted the fruit that something altered Eve's conscience; so I'm pretty sure
that the underlying cause is far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.

Ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives: either God altered their
conscience or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the
Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the
human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into
the world, it would come via a male's actions just as life and righteousness
would later be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his corrupting work on people. . . in the womb
or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 3:6 . . She took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her
husband, and he ate.

• Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived
that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made
themselves loincloths.

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so
called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? From
whence did Eve get it?

She was constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to the
forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after Eve was born;
then it was impossible for Adam to pass the so-called fallen nature to her by
means of procreation.
_

 

[posthuman]

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat it,
and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and went
about in the buff as usual; Eve's self awareness was unchanged, and her
feelings about the human body remained the same. It wasn't till Adam
tasted the fruit that something altered Eve's conscience; so I'm pretty sure
that the underlying cause is far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.

Ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives: either God altered their
conscience or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the
Devil (Rev 20:2)

i don't think that when God says Adam has become like 'one of Us' He is making reference to an effect of the fruit. He says this about Adam, not about Woman/Eve -- and He doesn't say it until Adam changes Woman's name - at the point God gives them coverings. this is *after* the trial & the pronouncement of judgement; it's not part of the declarations of evidence, and the language is either 'the particular man' or specifically 'Adam' by name, not 'mankind' -- the definite article is there.
i believe God says this about Adam because of what Adam was demonstrating by changing Woman's name to Eve; Adam does this because on hearing the judgement of God he recognizes that she will be the mother of all the living. this is extraordinary - they have just been judged, have inherited death from eating of the tree, been booted out of Eden, and Adam -- who was never deceived -- sees all this and his reaction is change his wife's name from 'taken from / made from Adam' to 'mother of life'
Adam fully believes the promise of The Seed and fully comprehends the great redemptive work God is promising, and acts on it. this is why it is said he has become like God, like 'one of' The God: Adam is a type of Christ.

i do not believe the narrative you're putting forth there; i think Woman was immediately changed in some way, that she herself immediately knew it. i do not believe Adam was with her when Satan deceived her, but that she went to Adam and implored his help. i believe Adam also immediately recognized that she had changed, and that he knew exactly what had happened. he knew the tree and knew what God had said of it -- and he knew it was wrong to eat it it, and that wrong had befallen her. Adam wasn't deceived, and Adam wasn't stupid, and Adam knew the difference between right and wrong. God treats him as culpable for his actions (('because you listened to the voice of your wife')) -- something that He cannot do if Adam has no concept of moral choice & good vs. evil. Woman came to him, and there was a living man and a dead woman looking at each other: one who had been deceived and in whom death had entered, who was no longer clothed with righteousness. one who had full, right understanding and comprehension ((not deceived - 1 Timothy 2:14)), in whom there was no death. he chose to join her, and i do not think for a moment he did this without forethought and calculation, or under any kind of mistaken guise. he did this to save her -- she asked him to help, and he took the path he considered the one which would result in her salvation. Adam believed God would be merciful to them, if he joined her, and he considered that if he did not, she would be condemned apart from him. he willingly, knowingly chose to do evil, listening to her voice, not deceived.

so death entered the world through "one man" not through one woman and not through a woman and a man. through Adam, who had the opportunity to keep death from entering - by abandoning his wife to her fate. for this reason a man will leave his father and become one with his wife.

'naked' doesn't just mean unclothed in our regular human carnal sense. it means uncovered: covering is atonement; as the ark was covered with pitch ((same word as atonement)) and the altar covered with blood. they realized they were naked because they became naked when death entered into them through sin. their righteousness, which God speaks of as a covering ((c.f. Isaiah 61:10, Job 29:14, Revelation 19:8)) --- remember all of this is testimony of Christ. and God took away their self-fashioned covering of fig leaves ((why is this the cursed tree?)) and fashioned for them garments from the skin of a living being. with blood. with the sacrifice of the innocent for the sake of the guilty, so that they might live. this 'covering' of their 'nakedness' in Genesis 3:21 is God imputing to them righteousness not of themselves: and in this way Adam, who believes, who confesses his belief by renaming Eve, who is no longer naked but declared covered through shedding of innocent blood, is declared to be like one of the Godhead: to be like the Son, who took on the likeness of sinful flesh in order to redeem His own fallen, deceived, dead bride to Himself. but Christ, 'the second Adam' does so without guilt: instead of joining in the sin of the world in order to 'force God's hand' to either destroy all or redeem all equally, He willingly lays down His life and covers His betrothed with His own blood and body. He is the slain lamb covering the sins of mankind, replacing their open shame ((a.k.a. nakedness)) with mercy.

see, i really do not think they had no sense of right and wrong before Satan or a piece of fruit granted them basic ethical cognizance.
that just does not make sense to me. it cannot explain their culpability, it cannot explain the timing and manner of God's declaration about Adam, it cannot explain Adam being undeceived, and it cannot explain Woman seeing that the fruit was 'good' for food or for wisdom. she cannot think some things are good for food and some things not if she has no idea what the concept of 'good' is. she cannot desire wisdom if she has no concept of wisdom being desirable. she cannot be tempted in the way Satan tempts her if she doesn't have basic ethos, and that interpretation rests on Satan telling her 100% the truth about the fruit on a point of its effects that God Himself never said about the tree. it would have Satan enticing her with truth, not with lies, and Satan being correct about God not wishing for mankind to be 'like Him' ((c.f. 1 John 3:2))
Satan has a particular idea about what being 'like The Most High' means. i do not think this is the same thing God means in Genesis 3:22 saying Adam has become like Him. Adam has become like a sacrifice for the sake of redeeming the guilty. this is declared when Adam has demonstrated his knowledge of God's character, his trust in God and they both have been imputed a covering for their shame, not by works but by faith and confession of sin, not of themselves.


if that all makes sense?
so i have some very fundamentally different views about the key points of chapter 3 than the typical view. this is like M.R. Dehaan, A.W. Pink's view, among others. not unknown in theology, but certainly not mainstream. i consider it much closer to the truth; there are just so many holes and unanswerable questions if i look at like the Serpent or the tree giving them basic knowledge of right and wrong, or look at Adam like an imbecilic goof not really having much reason for what he's doing.
this is a much more nuanced and complex view, and yes admittedly it requires a lot of leaps of inference -- but i think God wants us to make such inferences, respecting His character, and that of course the scripture isn't simple but incredibly layered and complex.

 

[Corban]

.
In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat it,
and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and went
about in the buff as usual; Eve's self awareness was unchanged, and her
feelings about the human body remained the same. It wasn't till Adam
tasted the fruit that something altered Eve's conscience; so I'm pretty sure
that the underlying cause is far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.

Ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives: either God altered their
conscience or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the
Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the
human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the Serpent's power of death when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into
the world, it would come via a male's actions just as life and righteousness
would later be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent do his corrupting work on people. . . in the womb
or out of the womb?

A: Adam and Eve demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5)
_

You pose interesting questions - and equally interesting answers. I see it this way.

The Tree of Life is Christ A Tree in Parable is a man (Mk.8:24), and is a king (a man) and his kingdom (Judges 9, Daniel 4 and Ezekiel 31). God said if Adam was allowed to "also" eat of the Tree of Life, he would live forever. This indicates that there would be an organic change in Adam. Fruit is assimilated in about an hour, and a bowel transit takes 30 - 40 hours. By that time all the nutrients tat are goingto be absorbed by the metabolism are done. But Adam and Eve underwent a change to their NATURE. This evident iwhen one takes into account Genesis 1:11-12 - the Law of "KINDS". That is, every KIND with its seed within itself, would produce the same KIND. In Genesis 5 we see the disastrous result of the eating. Adam was made in the image and likeness of God, but his son, who should then also have been in the image and likeness of God, is not. Seth was in the image and likeness of Adam.

Something had changed in their fundamental nature. And this is no more evident than in Romans 5:12. The Law of KINDS dictated that within Adam's seed, there was intrinsic death - or a nature that produced death. Traveling to the end of the Bible, we are faced with the destiny of three peoples on earth, (i) The Church, which have "partaken of the divine Life" (2nd Pet.1:4), (ii) Israel which is a Nation among nations, and (iii) the Nations who are gain divided into those in the Lake of Fire and those who are not. And the interesting thing is the the Nations (including the Nation of Israel), because they never believed, must be "healed by the leaves of the Tree of Life". That is, they do not intrinsically possess eternal life like the Church, and could theoretically die. (I say "theoretically" because by the time of the White Throne, at which the earth flees, death has been subdued). That is, death is subdued and cannot work, but the frame of the unregenerate man is technically able to die).

Now, if the Tree of Life has this organic effect, and the fruit of the other Trees has this same effect, except it is not eternal, it is reasonable to assume that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil operates the same way. That is, a short time after the EXPERIMENTAL KNOWLEDGE of the fruit of that Tree, Adam and Eve where forever changed organically. Your point about Eve continuing a while in bliss is very interesting. I have to think it through, but right off this would make sense. Why? According to Romans 5:12 the MAN is responsible for passing on the corrupted nature. And in this verse, Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, ... ", is it not true that the male sperm is a product of his blood? That is, the sin-nature from the fruit of this Tree affects the "seed" of the man only, but in that the male seed must join with a woman's seed, all women are tainted as well. This is very nicely portrayed in Christ's birth. He was Seed of the Woman, which made him 100% man, but because the Holy Spirit inseminated her, the line of Adam was broken for this one case.

On the other hand, Eve still showed the effects of her eating, relatively quickly. Could it be that the "spiritual bowel time" is also a day or two. I must say that this is my experience. Applying Christ as one of the offerings works mostly after some hours. In a recent trial, I was robbed of my peace. But I also had no reason why I was in turmoil. So, Christ being the fulfillment of the Peace offering, I took Him as my Peace offering. After about an hour i noticed that my peace had returned. I've had the experience where it was quicker than that, but I've equally had to wait a day or so. It would seem that Eve did not immediately succumb, but that Adam, who carried the headship, felt it almost immediately.

I would not make a doctrine out of this, but your posting was interesting.

Finally, my understanding is strengthened by the Lord giving the analogy of men as Trees in Matthew 3:10, 7:17-19 and 12:33. Their intrinsic nature bears in KIND. The fruit is as the Tree. It would seem

 

[Webers.Home]

.
• Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that Man has become as one of
us

Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But
that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". i.e. a fellow deity of
equal status.

In other words; Man made himself a fellow deity of equal status by placing
his own wants ahead of his creator's.

From the limited amount of information we're given, it's readily seen that it's
fairly easy to make one's self a deity; it's only necessary to rebel against
constituted authority; viz: go your own way instead of complying with the
laws, rules, and dictates of a higher power; viz: anarchy. (cf. Judg 17:6 and
Isa 53:6)

• Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are gods.

In the bible there are two categories of gods: the true and the false. There is
no middle ground sandwiched between those two categories; just as there is
no middle ground between the foolish and the wise, and/or the righteous
and the unrighteous, and/or the good and the bad, and/or the guilty and the
innocent, and/or the honorable and the shameful.

According to Jesus, there is but one true god (John 17:3). In other words:
there exists no other true god; though there be many that are called gods.
(1Cor 8:5-6)

Also, true gods are immortal whereas the gods spoken of in the Psalm are
not. (Ps 82:7)

So then, we may safely conclude that the gods spoken of on Ps 82:6 are
false gods.

The three given characteristics of a false god are 1) they skew justice, 2)
they're partial, and 3) they're capable of walking over the bones of
disadvantaged folk.

• Gen 3:22b . . discerning good and evil,

Discerning good and evil isn't a bad thing per se; that is; if it's an instructed
discernment rather than a natural, intuitive discernment. (Rom 12:2 and
Heb 5:13-14)

I think we may safely assume that the creator's intuitive sense of good and
evil is flawless and reliable; whereas we may assume that humanity's
intuitive sense of good and evil is both imperfect and unreliable. Plus,
humanity's sense of good and evil is flexible, whereas the creator's is rigid.

For example: the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he began to see
himself in the nude as indecent (Gen 3:7). Well; up to that point, Adam's
creator hadn't said a word about matters of decency (Gen 3:11) and
apparently met with Adam on a daily basis with the man totally exposed in
full frontal nudity.

I have yet to encounter a passage in the Bible where God forbids nudity
except in special cases (e.g. Ex 28:42). Maybe there is one, I'm not saying
there isn't. But in Adam's day, total exposure, even in the very presence of
God, was neither condemned nor forbidden.

So then, Adam's dress code, i.e. his sense of propriety, wasn't something he
got from the creator. Adam was acting as his own god, i.e. Adam had
become an autonomous deity guided by his own proprietary moral compass
rather than the moral compass of humanity's creator.

FAQ: If God wasn't against full frontal nudity in Adam's day, then why did
He clothe them?

A: God didn't want anything hampering His association with the humans. In
other words, Adam's felt-shame and embarrassment over undress was a
barrier between himself and his maker, so God showed him a really good
way to overcome it: a way that greatly improved the quality of Adam's
association with his maker. (cf. Rev 3:18)
_

 

[Corban]

.
• Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that Man has become as one of
us

Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But
that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". i.e. a fellow deity of
equal status.

In other words; Man made himself a fellow deity of equal status by placing
his own wants ahead of his creator's.

From the limited amount of information we're given, it's readily seen that it's
fairly easy to make one's self a deity; it's only necessary to rebel against
constituted authority; viz: go your own way instead of complying with the
laws, rules, and dictates of a higher power; viz: anarchy. (cf. Judg 17:6 and
Isa 53:6)

• Ps 82:6 . . I said: You are gods.

In the bible there are two categories of gods: the true and the false. There is
no middle ground sandwiched between those two categories; just as there is
no middle ground between the foolish and the wise, and/or the righteous
and the unrighteous, and/or the good and the bad, and/or the guilty and the
innocent, and/or the honorable and the shameful.

According to Jesus, there is but one true god (John 17:3). In other words:
there exists no other true god; though there be many that are called gods.
(1Cor 8:5-6)

Also, true gods are immortal whereas the gods spoken of in the Psalm are
not. (Ps 82:7)

So then, we may safely conclude that the gods spoken of on Ps 82:6 are
false gods.

The three given characteristics of a false god are 1) they skew justice, 2)
they're partial, and 3) they're capable of walking over the bones of
disadvantaged folk.

• Gen 3:22b . . discerning good and evil,

Discerning good and evil isn't a bad thing per se; that is; if it's an instructed
discernment rather than a natural, intuitive discernment. (Rom 12:2 and
Heb 5:13-14)

I think we may safely assume that the creator's intuitive sense of good and
evil is flawless and reliable; whereas we may assume that humanity's
intuitive sense of good and evil is both imperfect and unreliable. Plus,
humanity's sense of good and evil is flexible, whereas the creator's is rigid.

For example: the moment Adam tasted the forbidden fruit, he began to see
himself in the nude as indecent (Gen 3:7). Well; up to that point, Adam's
creator hadn't said a word about matters of decency (Gen 3:11) and
apparently met with Adam on a daily basis with the man totally exposed in
full frontal nudity.

I have yet to encounter a passage in the Bible where God forbids nudity
except in special cases (e.g. Ex 28:42). Maybe there is one, I'm not saying
there isn't. But in Adam's day, total exposure, even in the very presence of
God, was neither condemned nor forbidden.

So then, Adam's dress code, i.e. his sense of propriety, wasn't something he
got from the creator. Adam was acting as his own god, i.e. Adam had
become an autonomous deity guided by his own proprietary moral compass
rather than the moral compass of humanity's creator.

FAQ: If God wasn't against full frontal nudity in Adam's day, then why did
He clothe them?

A: God didn't want anything hampering His association with the humans. In
other words, Adam's felt-shame and embarrassment over undress was a
barrier between himself and his maker, so God showed him a really good
way to overcome it: a way that greatly improved the quality of Adam's
association with his maker. (cf. Rev 3:18)
_

Your view is well thought out. But may I propose some slight adjustments. In Genesis 3:22, it reads;

"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"

According to the grammar, man became "as one of us" not in divine nature, but in knowing Good and Evil. He could not have become deity as he did not possess the divine nature that the Tree of Life would have given him. The word "also" means that he had not yet eaten of it.

Gods.
It would seem from the usage of "Elohim" that the vast majority of times that this word is used, it means the Triune God. It is plural. But where the text and context dictate, it can mean any man of power or authority - as we see in these scriptures:

Ps 82:1 — God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

Ex 22:9 — For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

Ex 22:28 — Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

Jn 10:34-36 — Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Nakedness.
The consciousness of nakedness is provoked by the condition of one who has eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is seen in that the animals, who did not eat of this Tree, have no sense of nakedness, and do not hide to copulate as men and women do. Whatever poison this Tree gave, it had a terrible effect on the man who had not eaten from the Tree of Life. Our Lord Jesus, on the other hand, having the divine nature from His conception (Matt.1:18; Lk.1:35; Jn.1:4), could be tempted but remain impervious to evil. It would seem that, as you said, knowledge of Good and Evil is not contrary to God, but the man with this knowledge, but without the divine life and nature, always tends to evil (Gen.6:5 - "the wickedness of man was great ... every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.")

But, the narrative goes deeper. Although I fully take the matter of Adam and Eve's nakedness LITERALLY, it also sets the scene for a metaphorical meaning. From that moment on, "nakedness" is associated with falleness. The altar may not be on steps "lest the people perceive the nakedness of the priest". The dead are naked. Evil works are nakedness. (Ex.20:26, 2nd Cor.5:1-3, Rev.3:18).

Fig Leaves.
A Tree in Parable is a king and his kingdom (Judges 9, Daniel 4 and Ezekiel 31). Its leaves are is covering, or garment. A garment in scripture is one's works (e.g. Rev.19:8). Israel as a united nation was designated a Vine. After the split and the Babylonian captivity, it seems that Judah was called a Fig Tree. Chirst cursed the Fig Tree for having leaves but no fruit. Judah's position then was that they were following the Law, but had made it of no effect by their traditions that they had added. Thus, Fig Leaves are most probably works of self-made law. Note that while the Fig-Leaves satisfied the two fallen ones, when God appeared on the scene, Adam admitted that he was naked. That is, self-made laws and self-imposed works carry no weight before God. God requires that we do what HE says (Matt.7:21).

 

[Webers.Home]

.

may I propose some slight adjustments.

Fine with me. Viewers are entitled to a second opinion.
_