God Said…and it Was So: The Narratival Priority of the Word of God September 29, 2009

In the Beginning was the Word

Perhaps one the most overlooked themes of the Old Testament is one that dominates its every book: the narratival priority of the word of God. The general and redemptive histories that are presented in the Old Testament, and which find fulfillment in the New Testament,[1] refer back to the beginning where the power and sovereignty of God’s word over and in creation, jurisprudence, relationships and redemption find their clearest articulation. As primeval history[2] unfolds, this theme powerfully and concretely illustrates what God later states through the prophet Isaiah when He declares that His Word “shall not return to [Him] void, but it shall accomplish what [He pleases]”.[3] In these opening chapters, God effectively calls forth creation from nothing,[4] establishes and violates natural laws,[5] unites and divides human relationships,[6] passes judgment upon all of humanity,[7] imposes new natural laws,[8] establishes human government (capital punishment),[9] and deconstructs human language and government.[10] The picture is not only of a God who is transcendent to His creation, but of the narratival priority of His word in all of human history.

There is, therefore, no narrative that does not find its basis in God’s Word, as Psalm 19 proclaims. Even the heavens’ declaration of God’s glory is secondary to the word of God that spoke them into existence, thus leading the psalmist back to that spoken Word’s written equivalent. Note that the psalmist is not referring to a single moment in time when the heavens declared the glory of God, but to a narratival history in which the heavens are continually declaring God’s glory, pointing to God the Creator who has revealed Himself with even more specificity in His written Word. The psalmist begins with the creative word of God, which then becomes more intimate as the written word (or “law”)[11] of God is then reflected upon and the psalm draws to a close. And interior to this intimacy is the psalmist’s recognition of his own inability to keep the written word (“law”) of God, followed by a plea to God his Redeemer. Psalm 19 emphasizes that the word of God exhibits sovereignty over and in creation (vv. 1-6), jurisprudence (vv. 7-9), relationships and redemption (vv. 11-14).

And God Said…

This progression is not unique to Psalm 19, but follows a pattern first found in Genesis 1-3.In its first six verses, Psalm 19 gives special emphasis to the universal day-night cycle that frames the entire creation narrative, where “Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night utters knowledge”[12] and God’s word sets general history in order by creating and ordering the environment in which this history will take place[13] and creating and giving function/purpose to the types of creatures which will inhabit this environment.[14] Although the creation account is not completely impersonal, in that it does accord man a special status in the animal kingdom (i.e. as the bearer of the Imago Dei and as the only creature to which God directly spoke[15]), this special status does not step beyond mere biological privilege. Thus “the history of the heavens and the earth”[16] and all that is within them is a history that has been created and is innately driven by the word of God. What God has decreed must come to pass.

Genesis 1 presents God’s word as responsible for creation and naturally binding, but lacks the intimacy conveyed in the latter verses of Psalm 19. For thus far, God has only acted as Creator; and it is not until God acts as Lawgiver/Judge, via the giving of the first recorded “law”,[17] that He and man are depicted as entering into a more intimate relationship.

…You Shall Not Eat…

In Genesis 2, prior to the creation of woman and the first marriage in human history, God sets the boundaries of Adam’s moral behavior by giving him a commandment. “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat,” He says, “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”[18] This is where redemptive history begins. The legal word of God differentiates Adam from the other animals by requiring willful obedience to a law extrinsic to his natural function/purpose. Up until this time, man has only been presented as the apex of God’s creation granted the special biological privilege of exercising dominion over all of the other creatures. He is biologically obedient to God’s natural law and, even after the fall, maintains the same function/purpose.[19]

Man’s special relationship to God, therefore, is found in his response to God’s law. And just as the psalmist moves from the narrative of creation to the written word (“law”) of God, so too the Genesis narrative moves from the creative word setting all of general history into motion, into the beginning of a redemptive history set into motion by God’s “law”. The introduction of God’s “law” creates a relational space so intimate that it immediately precedes God’s personal involvement with Adam, as He expresses concern over Adam’s singleness and His own desire to rectify what He deems to be “not good”.[20]

The narratival priority of God in these chapters has thus far served to powerfully illustrate the power and sovereignty of God’s word over and in creation, jurisprudence, and relationships, but not yet fully in redemption. For between the giving of the law and the execution of judgment, sin enters in via the word of the serpent.[21]

Whereas Genesis 1 and 2 repeat the phrase “…God said”, the first words out of the serpent’s mouth are: “Has God indeed said […]?” This indicates that this chapter is thematically linked to the creation narrative (by the serpent’s inversion of its refrain) and the giving of the commandment (by the serpent’s inversion of God’s commandment).[22]

As the law of God gradually falls out of view,[23] the woman and her husband hide from the word of God that now calls them to account for their behavior. The judgment that follows fully establishes that God’s word is also legally binding. God has indeed said. Yet within this general context of judgment, the prophetic word of God also appears in the protoevangelium,[24] promising to bring redemptive history to a close.[25]

Moses, Miracles, the Law, and Messiah

In the interim God separates a people for this purpose, increasing them in number until they become a possible threat to the kingdom under whose hand they have become slaves. They seek deliverance, however, this deliverance does not come about until the power and sovereignty of God’s word over and in creation is established by the miracles wrought by the hand of Moses in the presence of Pharaoh (i.e. the narratival priority of God’s word in general history),[26] and in their presence (in the wilderness, posterior to crossing the Re(e)d Sea).[27]

Thus the narratival priority of the word of God precedes the deliverance of the children of Israel and their intimate relationship with God in the giving of the Law.[28] Nevertheless once the Law is given, the Israelites enter into an intimate relationship with God,[29] following the pattern laid out in Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 19. Israel’s failure to keep the Law further reflects this pattern in that God, in His judgment upon them, promises them the Redeemer, Christ Jesus.[30]

The Kingdom and the Prophets

As the Pentateuch clearly shows, God’s word precedes both general history and redemptive history; nothing happens prior to God’s word. Hence, Israel’s history after the deaths of Joshua and Caleb[31] is very much the moral equivalent of dark, formless void that is the earth in Genesis 1:2 prior to the word of God’s entrance.[32] In fact, it is not until God speaks to Samuel that light once again enters Israel,[33] and God begins to establish a righteous kingdom, by His word spoken by Samuel, via the election and appointment of King David to the throne.

In spite of a successful beginning under King David’s rule, disobedience to the God’s Law divides the kingdom into two (the Northern and Southern) kingdoms, that both ultimately fail to keep God’s Law. The curses promised to follow Israel’s disobedience, given in Deuteronomy 28, become a reality for them. And God, once again, through the many prophets He raises up, promises them redemption.

Nevertheless, the tension remains. The prophet Isaiah pleas with Israel to return to the Law,[34] but understands that they will not.[35] Their hope lies in the same Redeemer God promised to their first parents in the Garden of Eden, the Seed whose heel would be bruised as He bruised the head of the serpent tempted them to question the narratival priority of God’s word. The Suffering Servant: the Lord Jesus Christ.[36]

---

[1] By “general” and “redemptive” narratives, I mean to differentiate between creation as an ongoing general narrative/history (cf. Ps. 19:1-4), and the narrative/history of God’s people as it relates to the coming of Christ.

 

[2] viz. Gen. 1-3

[3] Isa. 55:11

[4] cf. Gen. 1:1-2

[5] The blessings bestowed upon creation are given without any legal prerequisites and are, therefore, intrinsic to the natural order of creation. This would seem to indicate that the curses upon creation in Gen. 3:14-18 violate the goodness and orderliness intrinsic to natural order of creation.

[6] cf. Gen. 2:18-25 & 3:16

[7] cf. Gen. 3:16-19, 24 & Gen. 6-7

[8] cf. Gen. 8:21-22 & 9:8-17

[9] cf. Gen. 9:5-6

[10] cf. Gen. 11:1-9

[11] cf. Ps. 19:7

[12] cf. Ps. 19:2

[13] cf. Gen. 1:1-13; Also, regarding laws imposed upon the heavens and the earth “in the beginning”, Job 38 gives much more detail, giving emphasis to nature’s obedience to God’s word/decree.

[14] cf. Gen.1:14-15; 1:20-22; 1:26 & 2:15

[15] cf. Gen. 1:26-30

[16] cf. Gen. 2:4, emphasis mine

[17] Gen. 2:16-17

[18] ibid.

[19] cf. Gen. 2:15 & 3:17-18, 23; Adam is cursed, but his natural purpose/function does not change. It is his relationship to God that is greatly affected, underscoring that the personal/legal word of God is what makes man’s relationship to God vastly different than what the other animals experience.

[20] Cf. Gen 2:18

[21] Gen. 3:1

[22] cf. Gen. 2:16 & 3:1b

[23] There is an interesting progression in this chapter that finds expression elsewhere. The progression is threefold: (i.) questioning, (ii.) corrupting, and (iii.) and flat out denying the word of God.

[24] Cf. 3:15

[25] Cf. Ps. 19:7-11 corresponding to the Law; vv.12-13 corresponding to sin and judgment; and v. 14 corresponding to God as Redeemer.

[26] Cf. Ex. 3-4; 7-12; 13-15

[27] Cf. Ex. 16-17&19

[28] cf. Ex. 20-23

[29] cf. Ex. 24

[30] cf. Deut. 18:15, 18

[31] viz. Joshua, Judges & Ruth

[32] cf. Gen. 1:3

[33] cf. 1^st Sam. 3 – Also, note the correlation drawn between Eli’s eyesight and the Lamp of God almost burning out just prior to God speaking to Samuel in vv.2-4.

[34] cf. Isa. 1:16-20

[35] cf. Isa. 6:9-11

[36] cf. Isa. 53

A Collective Type of the Trinity in the Book of Genesis September 25, 2009

Now, you might be asking yourself: “Just what is a ‘collective type’?” Simply put, it’s a  number of narratives that share a common theme and theological motif, while differing in specific details (of course), and forming a cohesive typological unity. The collective type of the Trinity in the book of Genesis, beautifully, revolves around the theme of the marriage of one man to one woman, under very special circumstances, which occurs only three times in the book (cf. Gen. 2:18-25; 24 (which is also intrinsically a typological narrative of the Trinity); & 29:1-12). The three men in question are Adam, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel). First, I’ll look at the individual narratives and their respective typological qualities, then I’ll tie them together.

Adam and Eve [Gen. 2:18-25]

Here encounter God and Adam, the son of God (Luke 3:38b), in an interesting situation. God has decided to make Adam a helper comparable to him, but none could be found. So what does God do? He places his only son under a “deep sleep”, pierces his side, and from the contents thereof creates for him the perfect helpmeet  who is his glory (1 Corinthians 11:7). The fact of Adam’s typological qualities are alluded to by Paul the apostle in Ephesians 5:28-32 , where he parallels the marriage of Adam and Eve with the relationship the Lord Jesus has to the Church.  Perhaps more explicitly, however, John’s Gospel sequentially parallels the marriage of Adam and Eve in John 19:28-34 (Jesus’ dying or “falling asleep” & his side being pierced), and John 20:15-18 (where the resurrected Jesus and Mary are in a Garden, and Mary mistakes Jesus for being “the gardener” (which Adam, technically, was), but the two do not “cling” to each other).

The very first marriage narrative is a type of the marriage of the only begotten Son of God and His bride, brought into existence via His suffering, and brought to Him by His beloved Father. There are many details to further undergird such a typological interpretation, but I’m trying to make this brief in order to get to the bigger picture.

Isaac and Rebekkah [Gen. 24]

Genesis 24 is an intrinsically Trinitarian type in that all three Persons of the Godhead are typified. The narrative presents us with Abraham (the Father) sending out his best servant (the Holy Spirit) to find a bride (the Church) for his only beloved son who had been “figuratively” slain and resurrected (cf. Hebrews 11:17-19) (obviously, the Lord Jesus).

Jacob and Rachel [Gen. 29:1-12]

This type is beautiful. The blessed and exalted younger son (Christ) leaves the home of Isaac (the Father), going on a long journey to find a suitable bride (the Church). When Jacob, like Christ, rolls away the stone which covers the well, he gives water to Rachel’s sheep – just as Christ poured out the Holy Spirit after His resurrection (cf. John 7:37-39).

The Collective Type

So how do these three types fit together? Well, let’s look at the main typological figures of all three of these marriages narratives. While all three, and I should’ve pointed this out above, are intrinsically Trinitarian, they all have a particular person of the Trinity Whom they seem to give a little more emphasis to.

Genesis 2, for instance, shows God the Father actively creating/making/building (it would be interesting to see how what Greek word the Septuagint uses for the Hebrew word bânâh (built) used here) a wife for His only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the Father who is here emphasized in His love and sovereignty.

Genesis 24, on the other hand, gives typological stress to the Holy Spirit as He goes about and brings the Church to Christ, taking her from servitude to royalty, bringing glory to the Father and the Son.

Lastly, Genesis 29, again although intrinscially Trinitarian in its typology, gives emphasis to the favored Son of God, the Lord Jesus. He left his Father’s home in search of His bride. He alone rolled away the stone, when no other man could or would, covering the tomb that couldn’t hold Him, and poured out His Spirit upon His sheep.

The Trinitarian type, then, is the collective type of the Godhead working His eternal plan of salvation out. The type is immense and I’ve yet had time to fully flesh out the details of how every type interacts, but I hope to someday soon.

So to recap:

1. Gen. 2:18-25: The Father puts the Son to sleep, pierces His side, builds His church, and brings her to Christ.

2. Gen. 24: The Holy Spirit searches for the bride of Christ, seeking to bring glory to the Son and the Father.

3. Gen. 29:1-12: The Son leaves His celestial home in search of His bride. He rolls away the stone covering His tomb, and He pours out His Holy Spirit upon His people.

The Trinity is present individually, and collectively, to show that this is all a work of God – the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son.

Amen.

*When I’m not so tired, I might post more elaborate articles on the intrinsic Trinitarian types in each of the above mentioned marriage narratives.

Leave a comment – etc :)

An Ancient Strategy September 16, 2009

If there is one book of the Bible whose content never ceases to grab my attention in new ways, it is the book of Genesis. Recently, as I reread the Fall Narrative, I began to think over the dialogue between the serpent and Eve (Genesis 3:1-5), which is, in effect, an ancient, conversational debate over the authorship, content and authority of the Word of God. I found that the relevance of the dialogue lays primarily in its presentation of 1.)how skeptical enquiry typically proceeds, 2.)the logical fallacies that believers should look out for when engaged in debate, and 3.)the serpent’s claim that God’s law is the product of a despot who commands abstinence only for the sake of maintaining His own privilege and power.

While all three of these points are universal (i.e. for all times and all peoples), the third is particularly compelling in that it is not similar to what many contemporary critics of the Bible would say, but nearly a direct quote from any one of their writings. What we encounter in the serpent’s final critique of the Word of God is almost wholly in step with the claims of postmodern critics of the Bible. Many, if not all, of these critics see it as the product of a privileged male class who sought to maintain their power and privilege by forcing the marginalized of their society (e.g. women) into subservient roles via the threat of violence and/or explusion from the community altogether. Ironically, this case is made by pointing to the Fall Narrative!

This criticism of God’s Word as being the mechanism of the oppression of marginalized groups within society, moreover, has found clear articulation in films such as Zeitgeist and The Da Vinci Code, and secondarily in popular (non-academic) atheistic literature (e.g. the works of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins). However, the attack, as I will show, is far from novel. Contrary to contemporary caricatures of the Fall Narrative that would seek to equate it with the stock mythologies of its day, I will demonstrate that it is a detailed and complex analysis of an ancient strategy of attack launched against the Word of God by the enemy, and subsequent enemies, of God Almighty.

The Authorship & Content

“Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

-         Gen. 3:1

The opening question of this primeval debate allows us, I believe, to see the serpent’s question as two intertwined questions: a.)the question of authorship, and b.)the question of content. This is due to the ambiguity of the serpent’s question, which is rooted in his inversion of the allowances and restrictions stated within the commandment.[1] Is he asking the woman if God authored the commandment? Or is he presenting himself as trying to clarify what he had somehow heard God has said? To put it another way: Is he asking the woman about the authorship of the commandment, or the commandment’s content?

By approaching the woman, who was given the commandment secondarily by means of oral transmission via Adam, the serpent makes it evident that his question could lean in either direction. The woman did not receive the commandment directly from God (at least the text does not give us good reason to believe she did), but was given the commandment by Adam (which could serve to explain why she distorts the commandment by adding an additional restriction in 3:2-3).[2] Therefore, questioning the authorship of the commandment would be an effective means of deceiving her. His question could then be read as: Did God author this commandment or did Adam?

The pertinence of this exchange for Christians lies precisely in the question of authorship. If we have received the Word of God secondarily, via oral transmission (at least initially), then how do we know who authored it? We stand in much the same position that the woman did, having to give an account for the authorship of the Word of God. What is her response? The woman confidently asserts that God has said and then tries to correct the serpent’s inversion of the commandment, but unfortunately adds another restriction. What is our response?

The serpent’s question of content, in spite of the woman’s reply, still needs to be addressed. If God did author the commandment, did He forbid the woman to eat of “every tree” of the garden? This question is particularly crafty because it uses language directly taken from the commandment itself[3]. The serpent’s intention is to touch upon the logical integrity of the commandment by pointing out that God did not say that Adam and the woman were not to eat of “every tree” but, in fact, stated: “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.” The seemingly contradictory nature of God’s commandment can be seen in its allowances (“every” tree) and its restriction (“the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” – obviously situated within the garden).

Is God’s commandment inherently contradictory? There are two reasons why God’s commandment is not inherently contradictory. Firstly, the phrase “every tree of the garden” is immediately qualified by the phrase “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…[etc]”, indicating that God’s use of “every” was not meant to be all inclusive but served to signify the abundance of trees to which the couple had legal access. The serpent’s understanding of the phrase as meaning “all inclusive”, therefore, is unwarranted by the commandment itself. The question of content must always be assessed in light of context.

The second reason why God’s commandment is not inherently contradictory is given in the woman’s response to the serpent’s question. In 3:2-3, she states:

“We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”[4]

By differentiating between “the trees of the garden” and “the tree which is in the midst of the garden” we again see that God’s commandment does not lack logical integrity, but simply communicates the same information differently. Whereas the first defense of the commandment’s logical integrity depends upon the context of the phrase “every tree”, the second depends upon the type of communication being employed by God. The commandment was given in the narratival context of relationship (between God, man, and woman), and is, therefore, spoken accordingly.[5]

The Procession, Logic, and Content of the Serpent’s “Argument”

As we move through the text, we see that the serpent leads up to his argument against the truth and authority of the commandment by questioning 1.)its authorship and 2.)content (i.e. its logical integrity). Genesis 3:4-5 reads:

“Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Having no other recourse, the serpent attacks the moral integrity of God, implying that the commandment was birthed out of nothing more than His own desire to withhold a certain privilege from the woman. The procession seems to begin with reasonable questions, only ending with a fallacious argument against the truth of God’s Word. However, while the question of authorship is a valid question, the question of content is fallacious in that it is an example of equivocation, seeing as the serpent uses a different definition of the phrase “every tree” than that which is used by God in 2:16-17.

What is interesting, almost ironically anticlimactic, is that the most obvious error in logic, the serpent’s ad hominem “argument” against the truth of the commandment, is what convinces the woman to break the commandment. Despite her swiftness to confidently assert its divine authorship and clarify (to some extent) its content, she nonetheless is deceived by a groundless assertion about God’s moral character. Really?

As I reread this passage, I found myself remembering conversational debates that seemed to run in this same cycle: authorship (reasonable)-content(fallacious)-authority(fallacious). The more questions I honestly answered, the more my opponents chose to berate the character of God, mangling the Scripturesin order to do so, in an attempt to thereby disprove the veracity of the scriptures. This same style of “argumentation”, however, can be seen in the most contemporary popular atheists who, failing to provide a valid argument against the truth of God’s Word, resort to calling God a “tyrannical despot” who makes unreasonable demands from the humans He interacts with. Sound familiar?

I believe that Genesis 3:1-5 provides believers with an outline of an ancient strategy of attack. Not only this, but it seems to purposefully underscore the logical errors involved in the serpent’s questions of content and authority (respectively, equivocation and an ad hominem), for our benefit. What we should, therefore, also take heed to pay attention to is that the woman failed to see the error in his final “argument”, which aimed to play upon her subordinate position to God; for this is, I believe, where we are most vulnerable.

How should we respond? Where the woman failed is in her inability to again point to the commandment and respond to the serpent. If she trusted Adam to truthfully report its authorship and content, then why could she not trust the Author of life Himself? As it concerns us, I’ll ask: If we can show that the Bible is the Word of God and defend its content (by careful study and textual analysis), then should we have any reason to doubt the Word of God? No. Yet, at times we often fail to patiently weigh out the words of those who would seek to prove God wrong.

When we are confronted in a conversational debate, there are some things that we should watch for:

1. Interrogative Ambiguity: Although I interpreted the serpent’s opening question as being two questions, the fact is that it is difficult to determine what he is asking. What does evidence, however, is a possible question of authority and a possible use of equivocation. This is a purposeful strategy and is meant to drive his opponent into a trap.

2. De-contextualization: The serpent’s use of equivocation stems from his de-contextualization of the phrase “every tree”. This is also a trap, meaning to lead the woman to the conclusion that the commandment was inherently contradictory. This is, in my own experience, a very popular (and lazy) attack on the Bible. Learning how to spot it, therefore, is pertinent.
3. Ad Hominem Argumentation: As I noted earlier, this is typically the last recourse, although it surfaces immediately in some cases (see, The God Delusion).

Final Note: A very good example of a popular piece of atheist literature that incorporates all three of these errors is Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith.

---

[1] Genesis 2:16-17 informs us that God grants Adam the freedom to “eat of every tree” of the Garden, while the serpent asks if God has prohibited him to “eat of every tree of the Garden”.

[2] Gen. 3:2-3:  And the woman said to the serpent, “We may the fruit of the trees in the garden; but of the tree which is in the midst of the Garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die’” (emphasis mine).

[3] cf. Gen. 2:16-17 & Gen. 3:1

[4] It is true that the text states this clearly in 2:9; however, this is not direct dialogue but the narrator.

[5] Compare this to Gen. 2:9, where the narrator, in his description of the geography of the land, closely parallels the woman’s description of the “trees of the garden” and the tree “which is in the midst of the garden”.

Does the Bible Discourage Scientific Endeavor? September 12, 2009

A common mistaken belief about the Bible is that it discourages scientific endeavor. Typically, this point is made by a brash appeal to Genesis 2:16-17 & 3:1-7, which runs something like this:

1. If God encouraged scientific endeavor, He would have allowed Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
2. God did not allow Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
3. Therefore, God does not encourage scientific endeavor.

Let’s examine this argument.

The Major and Minor Premises

1. 1. If God encouraged scientific endeavor, He would have allowed Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The major premise of this argument presupposes that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to a scientific endeavor, but is this is the case? While it is true that eating from the tree would, indeed, produce some type of “knowledge” regarding good and evil, it is not the type of knowledge that would square with “scientific” knowledge. And it is precisely this purposeful failure to distinguish between the awareness-knowledge resultant from eating of the tree and the (supposed) scientific knowledge (which the serpent claimed would afford Eve an advantage previously available only to God) that aids in deceiving her. Therefore, eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil cannot be seen as a scientific endeavor, although this may be what the serpent had in mind when he told the woman “Your eyes shall be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5).

2. God did not allow Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

However, for the sake of argument, let’s grant that eating from the tree was equivalent to a scientific endeavor we must ask: Does it then follow that God’s encouragement of scientific endeavor would necessarily include allowing Adam and Eve to eat from the tree? No, it doesn’t. As Sovereign King over His vassal subjects, God possessed the right to allow scientific endeavor in many areas of life and, with or without explicitly stating His reason(s), simultaneously disallow scientific endeavor in any other area of life. If we view God as completely sovereign over His creation, there is no contradiction here.

The Conclusion

Considering the above, we can conclude that God was not opposed to scientific endeavor. In fact, we can confidently argue the opposite on the basis of a comparative reading of Gen. 1:1-31 & 2:18-20. The first chapter of Genesis presents us with the creation of the cosmos by the Word of God. The importance of this lies in the fact that when God creates, He is simultaneously taxonomizing His creation. The Word of God, therefore, is, quite literally, the Logos or logic of God, whereby creation is inherently ordered according to a general framework/environment (1:1-19), as well as creaturely purpose/function (1:20-31).

Therefore, when we read that “…the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them…” (2:19), we are watching God delight in the crown of His creation as he engages in the science of taxonomy. Adam is not discouraged, but encouraged by God Himself to examine the creatures in the world around him as they stood in relation to each other and to himself. Adam was the first taxonomist, and he was ordained, compelled even, to hold such an office by Almighty God.

However, let us remember that Adam’s taxonomy was finite and limited to what he could observe presently (as we see in the case of the functional-relational name change from “the woman” to “Eve”, cf. 2:23 & 3:16, 20). Not only this, but it is also subservient to God’s taxonomy, which is inherent to creation itself. God does not discourage scientific endeavor, but allows it, ordains it, and (seemingly) enjoys man’s involvement therein.