Christianity is a Love Story || Rachel Gilson || RESET 

Our thoughts exactly!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Great point! But the light triumphing over darkness on day one is even earlier :)

@@SpeakLifeMedia And the Spirit "brooding' upon the waters, even before that (now we're getting into the kind of territory Job touches on... Dr Hugh Ross' book is excellent here), but the third day of course shows how God causes life to spring from death in seed bearing things... very apt for your conversation.

@@howardbabcom Yes, true. And don't forget the very first word... bereshit - "in the Head"!

@@SpeakLifeMedia Wow, what an insight!

Evening Pete!

I'd be interested to know what the term for 'crafty' is in their reading! From a look at the Hebrew, the term for 'they were both *naked*' is not identical to the term for 'crafty', but I'm guessing arowm and aruwm is the similarity being teased out! Even then, I think "these animals were all created as candidates for Adam’s companion, the “helper suitable for him.” is one of the more tenuous links in the chain - nowhere in Scripture is there an indication that the animals are supposed to be Adam's equal, and the mandate is to have dominion over them. So I don't think the serpent's 'nakedness' necessarily makes the serpent some spurned lover.. And even then I'm not too sure how that speaks to our sexuality! But interested to hear more :)

@@josmurf Thanks for the reply. I asked a theologian friend of mine abut what's stated here and he replied: in Genesis it is "aruwm" in Hebrew or "gumnos" in Greek (LXX). Naked or bare. In the Hebrew Scriptures it is fascinating to see all the times it is used - of being born naked; but often also being exposed or shamed. The Greek word gets used in the NT in similar ways - but also in relation to a naked seed being sown that then becomes clothed with a resurrection body - 2 Corinthians 5:3 and 1 Corinthians 15:37. In Hebrews 4:13 it is everything naked to the sight of Jesus Christ, our judge. The Hebrew and the LXX diverge in the Hebrew uses the same word for both Genesis 2:25 and 3:1 - "aruwm"... which seems to be always used of nakedness. The LXX uses the Greek word "phronimos" which is about intelligence, especially in your own estimation - Proverbs 3:7. Is the serpent more aware of its nakedness than any other creature... more aware of itself as sexual as capable of relationships? Is it more "open" about who it is? more self-conscious than any other creature? Given that the LXX is the Bible that Jesus Himself seemed to use (given that He always quotes from it), I always take seriously the way the LXX translates the Hebrew. Does the LXX feel that there is a nuance to the nakedness of the serpent... a self-consciousness about its own nakedness, its own openness? When the serpent becomes twisted, his "wisdom" is selfishness - the deep conviction that life comes through putting your own interests first. If sexuality/relationship is essentially about being open/naked/vulnerable/exposed... then the serpent was capable of more relationship and vulnerability than any other creature: the very fact that Adam & Eve could talk to the serpent - and they were not alarmed at the idea of such deep conversation with the serpent... indicates something like that. What makes sin so terrible is that something so precious is twisted around to its opposite. Augustine is brilliant at this sort of thing - that love for God and others becomes twisted to self-love. Satan was most open/intelligent... most open to relationship, most aware of how to connect with others... the best candidate among all the animals for Adam to relate to... and yet, not like Eve. Eve shares his nature, his flesh and bone... related at a deeper level, becoming one flesh together... a higher level of connectedness than Adam & the serpent could ever achieve. (Can it be an accident that the climax of the sexual perversions of Leviticus 18 is verse 23 - the coupling that causes the land to reject humanity...? When we tie that to the couplings of Genesis 6... deep thoughts). The serpent was then more open to relationship - self-consciously in need of intimacy, of union. In Job 38:7 the angels sang - and they are given the privilege of gazing at the Father's face - Matthew 18:10. In Ezekiel 28:12-13 the serpent was staggeringly beautiful and full of "wisdom" - the very wisdom given by the Spirit in Exodus 28:3 and 31:3-6; 35:31 In Ezekiel 28:14-16 the serpent is the Guardian Cherub, entrusted with the very highest levels of access and responsibility from the LORD God. He is granted free access to the fiery stone - which are at least all the stars and galaxies of the universe, but seems to include full access to the very mountain of God in the highest heaven... the fiery presence of the divine throne. The serpent then was more open to the ways of God than any other creature - self-consciously aware of the possibilities of relationship and intimacy. YET... when Adam was not satisfied with the serpent and required Eve... it is as if the serpent could no longer be satisfied with... the LORD Jesus, the wisdom of the Spirit, the throne of the Father...? Ezekiel 28:17 - "your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendour".

I'd never considered before that the serpent was considered and rejected as a helper suitable for Adam. Wow. An extra layer.

@@SpeakLifeMedia Indeed, which is no doubt part of the more detailed insight we're given in Genesis chapter 2, allowing us to unpack chapter three with more definition.

@@SpeakLifeMedia From our friendly theologian.. "The word for deepest sexual intimacy is the word the Orthodox use for the shared life of the Trinity - perichoresis". I'd add to that : From what occurs here in Genesis 2 & 3, it’s pretty clear that everything is spiritual, and sex is probably the deepest expression we posses of the manner of the eternal astonishing exchange that envelopes the trinity - hence the deep and perpetual expression of this in creation. When we truly converse with another, then, we gain an understanding of them - they become more ‘naked’ to us. The problem of our being fallen is that this manner of transparency has been marred by pretence and hypocrisy, so we can mislead and thereby destroy each other. What begins externally - hearing something truthful or false - becomes internalised, and ‘conceives’ something which either renews or murders us, so physical copulation is an expression of something much deeper, either joining or alienating us from another. The current oneness exclusive to marriage is, therefore, no doubt an expression of the kind of intimacy and oneness we shall all know and share with each other in the new creation, where all will be ‘known' and everything fully and genuinely shared. Sin is the reversal or perversion of such, seeking to make gifts like sex selfish and thereby meaningless. Redemptive life for God’s children is eternally bodily, hence the establishing of creation and its precious renewal, so it’s odd to then believe that all that is good in that realm (eating, drinking, sex) will cease in the new creation. Romans 8 suggests to me that only then will we begin to experience and enjoy these things in their fullest manner, without the grief of sin and death.

Which Jesus are we talking about? There's a true portrait of Jesus and many false ones (2 Corinthians 11:4). And Paul distinguishes the true one by the conformity to the apostle's witness. For us, what could that mean except conformity to Scripture?

@@SpeakLifeMedia God lived and existed before a single page of the Tanakh had been compiled. GOD is not bound by scripture. And - in order to interpret scripture - we need the guidance of God in Spirit. The problem is too many church-goers fashion God in THEIR image, rather than the other way around.

@@Mark_Dyer1 You began by rightly drawing our attention to the Word of God - the Divine Logos. The eternal Word is the one who explains/interprets/reveals God. So to know God we need his Word, Christ. And to know Christ you have also rightly pointed us to the Spirit. So the Spirit reveals the Son and in the Son we know God. Yet in all this you cannot escape the Spirit-breathed Scriptures that show us the Son. To by-pass the Scriptures would leave us groping in the dark, imagining a Christ-in-our-own-image and therefore a false God.

@@SpeakLifeMedia Your term "Spirit-breathed scriptures" betrays your problem. This term indicates a BELIEF concerning the sanctity of the pages of scripture. This is the problem with referring to the Bible as the HOLY Bible. It takes us into the realm of the Koran. The Judeo-Christian scriptures are the writings of men and women: nothing more. Yet, notwithstanding this fact, when combined with the wonders of Creation (revealed increasingly through the exercise of our brains, through the sciences and the arts) and Evolution, we are able to glimpse the Father.

@@Mark_Dyer1 It's the Scriptures that have given you the language of Spirit, Logos and Father. You can make false accusations of bibiolatry all you like, you haven't pointed to a single example of it. Instead you use biblical categories and then tell us we need to de-privilege the Bible. You worry about Islam-like veneration of the book. OK, that can be a problem. But, lest we accuse Jesus of this fault, let's follow him in saying "It is written..."; "the Scriptures must be fulfilled..."; "the Scriptures cannot be broken..."; "your word is truth...", "these are the Scriptures that testify about me."

The issue is whether the genders are interchangeable. And biology, experience, the romance of the heaven/earth binary, and every Scripture that discusses same sex sexual activity says No.

No, we're in a series working backwards through Genesis 1-4. Rachel happened to be next in the series