"BEGINNING" (2)
“BEGINNING” (2)
JT As indicated already the thought is to look into chapter 2 in Genesis this afternoon. While we touched on the sixth day at our earlier reading, we did not complete the details. We ran on to the end of chapter 1. Indeed, the whole matter of the creation runs on from chapter 1 to the end of verse 3 of chapter 2, and then the second contemplates a new title taken on by God; a dual title really, the Lord God, Jehovah Elohim; meaning He had entered into special covenant relation with man. It is thought now that we should touch on the further part of the sixth day and then enter definitely on chapter 2 in which the covenant relation which God had taken on with man was contemplated. Chapter 1:26 reads, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over the whole earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth on the earth. And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”. Another thing is to be noted: that word for ‘man’ in verse 26 is somewhat altered; in verse 27 it signifies the Adam, the man. That is to say, that great creature had taken on definiteness in title. Thus we can understand chapter 2 which properly begins with verse 4 in which we have the word called ‘history’. “These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens”. That is to say, the earth is taken up definitely as a creation and having a history. The word ‘history’ signifies origin, so that we are now [p. 27] introduced into more definiteness and more detail in the word ‘origin’ or ‘history’ of the heavens and the earth. It is hoped that we shall, with this in view, see more clearly what the creation of man signified and how it works out into knowledge, as we might expect; that God would introduce the idea of knowledge, especially in connection with man. The hope is now that we shall reach something as to knowledge. Men and women are to dwell with each other according to knowledge, according to what God has revealed as to the race.
CHH In addition to the term ‘create’ we get the thought of being made and formed and built. Would the last three express skill?
JT I should think so; especially when you have the word ‘built’, pointing to the assembly itself.
SMcC When you refer to God entering into covenant relation with man, just what is implied in that remark?
JT The word ‘Jehovah’ added to the word ‘Elohim’. We noted already this morning that word for God. Chapter 1 commences with, “In the beginning God”, the word is ‘Elohim’, meaning power, and the note says, ‘Elohim, the plural of Eloah’,the Supreme’. It is Deity in the absolute sense’. That is the primary thought, the creative thought really; the word denoting God in His relations with creation. But then the word ‘Jehovah’ is a covenant word and is drawn back, we might say, in the history from Exodus to introduce it in the beginning of Genesis so as to connect the thought of relation, of covenant relationship with man. It is dwelt on at length at the beginning of Exodus.
RRT Would that illustrate what you were saying this morning, that God speaks of things in part to be taken up later — the word ‘Jehovah’ being brought in here, but to be enlarged upon later?
JT [p. 28] Just so.
ANW Do you have any idea as to what was in Mr. Darby’s mind in saying Jehovah Elohim and not Jehovah God?
JT It would be to bring us as near as possible to the origin, which is power. It is the plural of power, I understand. ‘Eloah’ would involve power. ‘Jehovah’ added to that would be to strengthen our minds in the whole matter, make men out of us. Of course, we see how it works out in later days when God takes on Abraham; that is, after the flood. He takes him on and reveals Himself to Abraham in that connection; the everlasting God. But then there was a further thought that He did not enlarge on until we come to Moses and that is Jehovah.
RWS Has God still to say He waited a long time until man was brought on the scene? I understand from ministry, man is the most recent of the creations. Does that bear on God’s affections entering into covenant relation with him as creating and forming him? All the years that geologists wish to bring in may be brought in between verses 1 and 2 of chapter 1, so that as you say, man is of a recent creation.
JT Quite; recent from the standpoint of verses 1 and 2. Indeed, we cannot say as to how long the time was. Geologists guess it. We cannot just be sure whether they know themselves but we do know that man is relatively a recent creation and it is in connection with him that the whole matter stands. And so as we remarked the article being placed before man is to call our attention to what he became in the mind of God, and the dignity attached to him; the man.
ANW Verse 31 confirms what you say. While on almost every day the comment is made, it is good, on the sixth day when man was set there it says, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good”.
JT Quite so.
RH Does the expression used in Peter’s epistle — “a faithful Creator” bear on this appeal of God’s covenant with man?
JT That fits in with Peter’s line of truth; the government of God.
APT Paul seems to have the idea in his mind in speaking in Acts 17. He has the whole thought of God in his mind.
JT We touched on that this morning and I think it is quite in order now that we should introduce it into our inquiry.
APT I was thinking of verse 23, “To the unknown God”, and then, “The God who has made the world and all things which are in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is served by men’s hands, as needing something, himself giving to all life and breath and all things; and has made of one blood every nation of men to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, having determined ordained times and the boundaries of their dwelling, that they may seek God”.
JT That helps in what was meant. It is a remarkable address by Paul at Athens. It enters into what we are saying — the place man has; the remarkable intelligence that presently shines out in him according to chapter 2. And so we have added certain thoughts in chapter 2 that we should not overlook, what was properly left out this morning, and that is the seventh day in chapter 2; and God blessed it. It is said, “And God had finished on the seventh day his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it, because that on it he rested from all his work which God had created in making it”. It is further enlarged on in Exodus 31. God was refreshed on the seventh [p. 30] day; one of the most remarkable facts we get. According to the written page it is not said He was refreshed in Genesis; it is said in Exodus and it throws light on the whole position as to the advance that had been made and is, indeed, constantly being made — the advance in the relations of God with His creature.
Rem Would man as having been created on the sixth day be the crown of God’s creation? He had rest on the seventh day. It would be complete in that man was created.
JT Quite so. He rested on the seventh day. He blessed it and rested on it so as to bring the thing itself out; not the person but the thing. The word, ‘day’ being blessed is remarkable and no doubt leads up to what we have now; the first day of the week. But the seventh day was blessed and God had been refreshed on it to bring out the progress which was being made in God’s relations with His creature. Not so much with His creature man but with the whole position, the whole creation.
CCT Would you say this seventh day stands out by itself more than the other six? God had something for His own pleasure.
JT It does. He rested on it and was refreshed on it. It brings down in a touching way what God can be to us; how simple He can be with us and how He would set us in liberty with Himself. When we come to Exodus we come to the time of naming things officially and there is a responsibility attaching to the things.
JTJr Enoch being the seventh from Adam would be suggestive of what God found in him — refreshment, coming out also in Noah?
JT It might enter into it. Of course, Enoch was not there when the seventh day was blessed but still God was looking at things from His own standpoint and Enoch would come into His mind undoubtedly,
[p. 31] because it was a question of the acquirement of knowledge — the knowledge of God and the relationship with Him. We, therefore, now must touch on the renewed or added thoughts as to creation in chapter 2. Verse 4 says, “These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens, and every shrub of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground”. So that we have certain negatives here in order to bring out positives and clarity. We have things mentioned here that have no existence at all except an abstract existence. That is to say, it is said, “and every shrub of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew”. So that we have abstract thoughts here of a peculiar character and they are something we are to learn to use in dealing with the things of God. We have to learn to use them. We get a special allusion to them in Psalm 139; a special allusion to the assembly only in an abstract sense. That is to say, before it was really formed, it was there in the divine mind.
JH It says in Romans 4 that Abraham believed in the God “who quickens the dead, and calls the things which be not as being”. Is that the same idea?
JT Just so; so as to clarify what has been said about Psalm 139.
CHH Would not that correspond to verse 27 of chapter 1? “Male and female created he them”.
JT Quite so, showing how God can speak of things. This passage in Psalm 139 is one of the most striking covering this point.
CHH Would you think according to Psalm 139 that the substance yet unformed would be included in that verse 27 in the making of the man?
JT “I will praise thee, for I am fearfully,
[p. 32] wonderfully made. Marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My bones were not hidden from thee when I was made in secret, curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my unformed substance, and in thy book all my members were written; during many days were they fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. But how precious are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I would count them, they are more in number than the sand. When I awake, I am still with thee”, Psalm 139:14 - 18. It is remarkable as indicating how the Spirit of God anticipated the assembly in an abstract sense, although it could not be spoken of at all and was not spoken of at all until it was made manifest, as Paul says in the last chapter of the Romans. But at the same time, we are instructed as to how things come out and should be ready for them and should learn how to think abstractly at times because God does it; especially in the first epistle of John.
SMcC That would be particularly important on Lord’s day morning in assembly service, learning to take account of ourselves abstractly so that God might be served according to the desires of His heart.
JT I think that is good; especially if the epistles to the Corinthians are in mind, because they deal with the public service of God, the public worship of God, and were it not that we have the abstract thoughts found there it would be difficult to carry on the service of God, because there is so much contrary in fact among the saints at times. As, for instance, in the second letter Paul says he had in readiness to avenge all disobedience when their obedience was fulfilled. He was ready to let matters stand that had to be dealt with until certain other things had happened. And so in the constitution of the assembly he begins the first letter saying, “The assembly of God which is in Corinth”. And it runs on for about nine [p. 33] verses to speak of things that had taken place; that had been actually in Corinth only in an objective sense; not in a concrete sense but in an objective sense. There were certain things that were there and they are contemplated as there and their presence there enables us to carry on the service of God with a good conscience and at liberty. I will just read those verses to the brethren so that they may see how abstract things are there before they are actually in a sense present. In the first letter to Corinth, chapter 1, verse 4, it says, “I thank my God always about you, in respect of the grace of God given to you, in Christ Jesus; that in everything ye have been enriched in him, in all word of doctrine, and all knowledge (according as the testimony of the Christ has been confirmed in you), so that ye come short in no gift, awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall also confirm you to the end, unimpeachable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye have been called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”. That illustrates what has been said and is to be understood if we are to rightly carry on the service of God freely and happily even although there may be certain things still undealt with.
HB Is that confirmed in chapter 5 where he says, “according as ye are unleavened”?
JT I was about to refer to that. “Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened”, (verse 7). That is abstract.
RH Would the apostle have written to Corinth, were not the houses of Chloe and Stephanas setting out the thing representatively?
JT You refer to the house of Chloe. Someone had judged the thing, you mean. The position of the assembly is maintained in the sense that someone had a judgment about it.
RH [p. 34] They were unleavened.
CAM They would have to break bread week by week viewing the saints in a certain sense in an abstract way.
JT That is what we are saying. The epistles enable the saints to carry on the service of God by these abstract thoughts being there, being recognised.
SP Is it suggested in the matter of Balaam? God put His word in his mouth twice. It was an abstract word and then the Spirit of God came on him the third time as if God would force the abstract before him.
JT Just so.
ANW When it says every herb of the field before it grew, that would have in mind that it would grow.
JT God can call things that be not as though they were. The question is whether we have ability to speak in that way and follow the divine mind in what is said.
CHH Would the abstract thought be supported by the Holy Spirit being with them in Galatians? There is no redeeming feature there among the personnel but the Holy Spirit Himself being with them.
JT Well, the question is whether we should attribute the abstract to the Spirit alone, or whether as in Galatia and as in Corinth there is some formation there. I doubt that God intends the abstract to go as far as no formation. There is some formation in mind.
CHH “God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father”, Galatians 4:6. That is different from Romans 8.
JT Our hearts are in action. The Spirit is using their hearts. Is that not so?
CHH It seems so.
JT It is so, because the Spirit is pleased to use our hearts and that is in measure a concrete fact both [p. 35] in the statement in Galatians and in the epistle to the Romans.
APT In 1 Corinthians 6 the apostle says, “but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (verse 11). Is that the same thing?
JT That is it; but the actual fact is stated there. They had been washed, they had been sanctified, but then we have to learn to trust God in His statements and limit the bearing of them.
GMacPh While you speak of the abstract thought, do you see the formation of substance in the assembly as being a vessel taken on by God?
JT In measure; it is a question of what there is; what God can say. He has His own way of saying things at times that we have to follow. But to come back to our scripture, the actual formation of man is contemplated in chapter 1 and confirmed in chapter 5, but we have to fill out the thoughts from chapter 2; just as in the book of Acts certain things have to be filled out that had not yet taken place in Acts 1 before the Spirit came. It would look as if God wished to have something there that could be called concrete before the Spirit came; something that would be needed to confirm the idea of the presence of the Holy Spirit. And so Peter’s remarks or speech, as we may call it, in that chapter, mentions what was needed in view of the provision of another apostle; how it was needed and it came about before the Spirit actually came. And so here, before we have the actual formation of Adam we have the second chapter, as it were, the filling out of the position. The first and third might be carried on and the third might be added to the first. We should not have the concrete thoughts that we have in the second. They are mentioned to bring out the complete position; the position of man. He is formed [p. 36] first and he is formed before he is breathed into. It is not one action. His formation is one thing and the breathing is another; and then the idea of a real man that God had to say to before there was any woman. So the scarcity was in the feminine at first, and hence chapter 2 brings out the truth, although the first chapter mentions accurately that God created the man and the woman on the sixth day.
ABP It brings out the benign glory of what God is in Himself. The idea of things evolving out of themselves would be refuted by scriptures of this kind. All these things were there and existing in the divine mind and thought before they were placed in certain positions.
JT God has His own way and has every right to have His own way, and if He reserves in His mind that the thoughts of the second day should come in, these thoughts do come in and the actual facts take place. Adam was formed out of clay and then breathed into by God before woman is made at all. She is made from different material in a sense, from her husband. He was purely made out of clay. That is the word used. “But a mist went up from the earth, and moistened the whole surface of the ground. And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul”. That is what we have before we have woman at all. Then we have the thought of the need of her. The need of her existed and it existed in Adam himself, showing how complete the second chapter makes the whole position.
FNW In the end of verse 4 the order is reversed. It is not heavens and earth, but earth and heavens. Does that follow your line of thought now, as coming from this great range of chapter 1, focussing our attention on the earth and what God has in mind in connection with man in it?
JT It is the material used; the environment in [p. 37] which man is set; what a being he was; what his capabilities were before woman came into view. That is the idea; to seek to be set up in the true knowledge of God so far in what He effected in man before woman came into being.
LES Would the words of the preacher in Ecclesiastes bear upon this: “one man among a thousand have I found, but a woman among all those have I not found”, chapter 7:28?
JT I doubt very much that the preacher would allude to what we are dealing with in Genesis 2 in that. I would think he had a moral signification in what he said; what he had found in his experience. He had not found one woman; he had found one man, but he had not found one woman. It was in a moral sense.
LES I was wondering if the working out of this would be true — how we really morally arrive at it.
JT If you deal with it morally you will have to come down the history, because for the moral side you will have to have the history, and the history that Solomon alludes to is not Genesis 2. It is not the fact of the non-creation of woman; it is that she was not there in that sense. There was none that answered to the mind of God in the feminine sense. That is what Solomon found. But I question whether that would allude in his mind to Genesis 2 because we are dealing now with actual creation; not exactly the moral side at all, but the actual fact of it.
RWS It says in the end of verse 5, “there was no man”, and in the end of verse 20, “no help-mate, his like”.
JT That would be just the fact, the physical fact that there was not one. There was not even an Adam there as to physical fact. But in the passage we are reading now, that is to say verses 6 and 7, the formation has taken place and it could not be said there was no man when Adam was formed and [p. 38] breathed into; so that I think what is before us now is a question of the marvellous intelligence that comes out immediately as to that man and even entering into his terms as to woman.
SJH When Paul speaks of the offspring of God, would it allude to this breathing in of God? He calls them the offspring of God.
JT I think so. Adam is said to be of God in Luke; the son of God in a way. So that what is said later on elsewhere, “we are his offspring” would allude undoubtedly to Genesis 2.
SJH I wondered if the thought of the offspring of God involved the breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, and then Paul speaks of them thinking.
JT The thing is whether we should not distinguish between creation and generation. I think we should. We have not come to the idea of generation, and offspring means generation. It is an offspring from a Being, from God; whereas what we are dealing with is not that; it is creation. Adam was created or formed by God, and then breathed into. If we read into it the idea of generation we must bring into it the breathing. The breath of God made him live. So that I think it would be right to bring in the idea of generation on those lines.
ANW While Paul quoted the heathen poet in his preaching, he spoke of the creative side.
JT That is important. I think we should learn to have terms in our speaking so that we can all judge what we say to each other. That we are God’s offspring is a question of generation, and a question of new birth; not that Adam was born anew, but new birth implies generation. We are born of God; we originate from God; not that a person newly born can be said to be a child of God yet he is very near to it. John goes further than that in his gospel saying, “but as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God”, John 1:12.
[p. 39] That is not simply because we are born anew but because we received Christ. That is to say, the full idea of the gospel, and that gives us the right to take the place of the children of God. We belong to that generation: “to those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”, John 1:13. That is the full thought.
RRT That thought of being born of God in John 1:13 would come later than new birth that we get in chapter 3.
JT It would. It is the full thought in John’s gospel: what is accredited to believers. That is only touched on now with the thought of having the thing clearly before us as we proceed, because we have very little time left relatively, and we want to get on to the full thought of chapter 2. We have brought in the thought of generation, because I think it is needed to see the full bearing of Adam’s creation and his formation, and then the breathing. The breathing gives him the place of being of God.
LES Would you say a word as to chapter 5, the bearing of the generations? “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created” (verse 2).
JT It is just to complete the history. Chapter 5 resumes the whole matter and links it all with Adam in order to bring out Enoch. Chapter 5 is the resume of what preceded it; so that we might see the place man has. It is just the brief reference to man’s place in the day that he was created. “This is the book of Adam’s generations. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created”, Genesis 5:1. That sets the whole matter where it should be in the full history [p. 40] in chapter 5.
CHH Would the quotation in 2 Corinthians 5 fit in? “So if anyone be in Christ, there is a new creation” (verse 17).
JT It would in the sense of bringing us on to the full thought of new creation. In chapter 5 it is a very full chapter dealing with the subject, only it runs down in the chapter from our physical formation as in our bodies, as raised presently; our house which is from heaven — our part in that.
ANW In which chapter in Genesis would you place the “of God” in Luke 3? “Adam, of God” (verse 38).
JT “And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul” (verse 7). I would say that is where the setting is that Luke contemplates. He traces back the Lord Jesus to man, to Adam; and it is said that Adam was of God. You might say he was son of God in that sense.
AR Is that chapter higher than verse 27 of the previous chapter? Verse 27 says God created Man and in chapter 2 it says Jehovah Elohim formed Man. Is that greater than creation?
JT Maybe. The word ‘creation’ is a great word. It is sparingly used in our chapter because it is a very great word. It has an equivalent meaning to being born. They have equivalent meanings only I think the idea of birth is greater, morally greater. It brings us into line with the Lord Jesus, with man in Christ; not that He is born as we are, but “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father”, John 1:18 is the same idea. We are not begotten in that physical sense as He is, yet there is a remarkable link between Him and ourselves. New birth places us in line with Him on the line of generation.
SMcC It is interesting in that way that we could never speak of Him as being created. It would be blasphemy to do so, but the scripture does speak of Him as born. “The holy thing also which shall be born”, Luke 1:35.
JT That helps us as to the need of care in using words. “The holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”, Luke 1:35. We can never be said to be born in that sense.
ANW So that the Son was given, but the Child was born.
JT Just so. Now to proceed with our thought, we have to come down. We have spoken of the environment in which Adam was set including the garden, that is, Eden, and going over down to the end of verse 17. Then we have the divine thought, “It is not good that Man should be alone; I will make him a help-mate, his like”. That is God’s proposal. In verse 20 it is said, “but as for Adam, he found no help-mate, his like”. But the narrative proceeds from what God said. So it says, “And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name. And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no help-mate, his like”. So the position is made very clear for us and I believe it is intended to be intelligible to us to have in our minds in dealing with doctrine later; what pleasure God had in man before the woman was created at all, and that gives force to what the apostle says as to the priority of man. He was not made for the woman but the woman for the man, and the man was made before the woman. All that is to enter into doctrine and our understanding of the truth. So before we have the formation of the woman we have all this said about Adam. What a wonderful creature he was and what pleasure God took in him to see what he would call the [p. 42] different creatures.
ABP Does that help us to understand in a certain sense the idea of the greatness of man? In the world today human life is very cheap. Are we entitled to regard man in this light at this time?
JT I think it is right that it should be in our minds what man really is. The cheapness with which human life is held is surely obnoxious to God and it is a question of the saints being with God in these matters and holding the line of the truth against all comers.
GMacPh Would man in this connection suggest something of the greatness of Christ as set out in the gospels, and the woman come out in the apostle Paul saying, “I speak as to Christ and as to the assembly”, Ephesians 5:32?
JT Just so. What man is capable of, because he is a great creature: man is the image of God, Paul says, and we are to be concerned that we do not discredit Him.
Ques Would Psalm 8 suggest your thought as to man?
JT “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him”? We get that and some other psalms like it, and what we are dealing with now is to get knowledge as to the actual formation that we have in manhood.
AR What do you mean as to doctrine?
JT Doctrine is doctrine. How often we deal with it and we have to be conversant with the truth; when things come up we know what to say. Young people are listening to us and we should see that they understand what we say. We are now dealing with the general position of doctrine.
CCT Is that why Jehovah Elohim could trust Adam to use intelligence? God could expect him to be intelligent.
JT Quite so. You see how beautifully he is presented. The Spirit of God presents him according [p. 43] to his relative value as a creature, and so you read, “And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul”. The word ‘Man’ being written with a capital refers to the dignified title he has. He became a living soul and that was before Eve was there at all.
Ques God having to do so intimately with him in this breathing would involve His affections for the first time?
JT Very likely; although I would think that God knew well enough what He was making.
ANW So far he is a living soul as the animals were in verse 24. He was a living soul. One was by the word of God and the other by the breath of God.
Is that safe to say?
JT God is going back on the thing. We are not lumping all in the first chapter, lumping the sixth day and the animals with man; but the Spirit of God says in Job that God formed the animals with man, but this chapter would tell us God is going back on the facts so that we might have a clearer view. Hence we have intelligence. It is said, “And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them”. We have not anything like this exactly in chapter 1. We are now going back on the history. God is to impress us with this great creature, so that we might have a right thought of him. He is saying, I would like to hear what Adam would call this creature and that creature. So it says in verse 19, “to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name. And Man gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, he found no help-mate, his like”. That is the thing that God would now have us rest our minds on. Adam did not [p. 44] find in all the creatures of the whole realm of cattle or the fowls or any others, anything to suit him. It was a question of Adam’s own finding as well as God’s. Then we see what happened. Verse 21 says, “And Jehovah Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall upon Man; and he slept. And he took one of his ribs and closed up flesh in its stead. And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man. And Man said, This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, Man and his wife, and were not ashamed” (verses 21 - 25). This is the Spirit of God in verse 24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, Man and his wife, and were not ashamed”. That is the history. Very brief but how full it is, and it is that God would impress us now with the creation of woman in view of the assembly.
AEW Is the greatness of the man one reason why God turns to him in order to find a help-mate? It says, “but as for Adam, he found no help-mate, his like”. Then it proceeds to His turning to Adam himself. Does that suggest the greatness of man?
JT “And Jehovah Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall upon Man”. He is turning now to Man. That is God’s resource and He is using it, and now we see what He does in the procedure and what comes out. It is to bring out the intelligence of the man.
CHH Would the idea of finding enter into the thoughts of the Lord Jesus here? He was seeking according to Matthew 13 and He found the pearl and the treasure. Are the feelings and desires of the Lord indicated in Adam’s [p. 45] feelings?
JT If we pursue it in that way; we go right through to Ephesians too. At the same time we should seek to keep to the point of what is in the chapter and then proceed from that point to another point and so get intelligence, bit by bit; learn in part on these lines.
JH In 1 Timothy Paul makes much of the fact that Adam was formed first, then Eve, laying the basis for headship.
JT Showing how Paul himself used the actual facts of Scripture in dealing with moral things among the brethren.
RWS Paul says to Timothy, “Laying these things before the brethren, thou wilt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished with the words of the faith and of the good teaching which thou hast fully followed up” 1 Timothy 4:6. I wondered whether what we are at now in this chapter is followed up; one thing leading on to another. Is that a key in the ministry? It should operate that way.
JT I should think Paul used these two young men, especially Timothy, to teach us how to learn.
Ques Is that why the word for ‘man’ is changed in verse 23?
JT Yes; we have another formation. The vocabulary now is enlarged in what we are speaking of. We have two new words which we have not had before, showing how things grow. Even our vocabulary in dealing with the things of God grows as we are patient and learn bit by bit. So the word for ‘man’ is different here. It is Ish and Ishshah; Ish is man and Ishshah is woman. So that we are enlarged now; we have something. This reading gives us something we can stop at; an advance in our vocabulary in its use in divine things.
APT In verse 19 it says, “And ... Jehovah Elohim ... brought them to Man, to see what he would call them”. And in the end of verse 22, “he ...
brought her to Man”. Would Adam’s learning be somewhat cumulative in that? He says something. Is there cumulative learning, step by step?
JT It is just as Paul would have Timothy in his mind as an ideal for us in the sense of learning, how we are to learn. He was Paul’s pupil, as you might say. He would learn things as Paul had them, and so here. Adam is really learning from himself as if God would say, see what a creature I have. And of himself he finds words to express himself. So the passage says in verse 22, “And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man. And Man said, This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: this shall be called Woman, because this was taken out of a man”. He has coined a word. He has found a word to express himself. He has found a name for his spouse and he named her Ishshah. He says, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this shall be called Woman” (which, as I said before, is Ishshah), “because this was taken out of a man”. He gives the reason for it. So that he has finished the matter. God loves him to do it. He intended to bring out what a great creature He had made. Of course that is to be transferred in our minds to the Lord Jesus not as creature but as a divine Person. What a Man He is; that He should be before us in all these things.
RRT This morning we looked at God differentiating between light and darkness and now this is coming out in man. He sees the animals and differentiates in what he sees now and calls it woman.
JT God would say — not that we would put words into the blessed God’s mouth — but He would say, What a creature I have! He can converse with Me and I with him. He is conversing with Me about his wife. It is a question of holy conversation between [p. 47] God and man.
RRT God would see what was exhibited in Himself and take pleasure in it.
JT Quite so. That is what we should stop with and see if we cannot grow in it as conversing with God. And so the idea of the conversational idea that is found in the New Testament as, for instance, in Acts 20 when Eutychus was restored and brought up and the brethren were comforted, the conversation went on. The holy conversation between God and His people went on, and of course that is what these meetings are: God speaking to us and we to God.