Better than Beautiful

When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, “She is my sister,” for he was afraid to say, “my wife,” thinking, “the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, since she is beautiful.
<citeGenesis 26:7 (NASB)

One reason the rabbis suggest the men of Gerar never kidnapped Rebekah is because she wasn’t, in fact, “beautiful.”

The Hebrew word here is טוֹב (tov). It means GOOD, but is sometimes translated as beautiful.

Sarah, in Genesis 12, is יָפֶה (yafeh), which is always BEAUTIFUL.

Good and Evil

When you read through Genesis 1-3, it doesn’t appear that the text presents us with a cosmic battle of good verses evil. It appears that Good and Evil — the fruits from the tree similarly named — are inside of us, and that the “bad guy” in the story is merely one who whispers and makes us feel ashamed. But the whispering one is ultimately cursed and doomed to die by having its head crushed.

Perhaps this makes the little cartoons of the devil-and-angel on your shoulder (as versions of yourself) a good metaphor of our day-to-day lives.

God Reveals

Abraham said, “God will [a]provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” So the two of them walked on together.
Genesis 22:8 (NASB)

[a] Lit: see

Most translations say “God will provide” when Abraham answers Isaac regarding the sacrifice.

But in fact, the Hebrew word is יִרְאֶה־ (yireh), which means “to see.” Interestingly, this can also be used to mean “to reveal,” as in “to make seen.” This is an important word.

If you go back to Genesis 1, the text repeats the phrase “God SAW that it was good.” It’s this same word. The first instance is LIGHT.

Perhaps the correct understanding is not that God saw it for the first time, but that God REVEALED to us what was good. It’s a lesson.

When we get back to Genesis 22, the phrase isn’t merely “God will provide” or “God will see” the lamb, but that God will REVEAL the lamb to us.

This is followed by “and the two of them walked on together.”

Good vs Beautiful

The sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
Genesis 6:2 (NIV)

Translators do violence to the text.

This word we translated as “beautiful” here? FIFTEEN TIMES this Hebrew word is used before this, and EVERY SINGLE TIME, the word is “GOOD.”

“Good” is how God described the world he created in Genesis 1. It’s the same “good” of the Tree of good and evil knowledge.

The theological paths you can take here are absolutely tremendous.

The daughters of humanity were GOOD. What does this teach us about women? What does it say about God’s view of them? Who or what corrupts them by way of violence?

There is much water to draw from this well.

Another important link:

When Sarai is taken by Pharaoh in Genesis 12, she is described as beautiful (yawfeh), but when Esther is taken by Xerxes in Esther 2:7, she is described as both good (tov) and beautiful (yawfeh). And actually, the whole book of Esther links Haman with the concept of “falling,” which is the same root word as the Nephilim in Genesis 6. One might argue that Haman is Nephilim, and both the Pharaoh and King Xerxes are like “sons of God” who take women they please.

Ish and Isha

The big question in Scripture I’ve chewed on for years is this: Why does shame not enter the world when Eve eats the fruit? Their eyes are not open and they don’t realize they are naked until ADAM eats.

Every answer I’ve heard has been untenable.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Genesis 3:6-7 (NIV)

The structure of the answers often start with this: “Adam was told the instruction before Eve existed.”

From this starting point, we get answers like this:

“Eve was deceived. Adam should have told Eve and stopped her, but Adam was tempted by Eve.”

It’s gender/marriage focused.

In this view, Adam failed in his responsibility, so men must take charge and lead. However, we’re still stuck with a question: If Adam didn’t eat, what happens? Why is there no shame yet?

But also, in the absence of sin, how does Adam “fail?”

This is a broken answer.

Another view suggests this is not a gender/marriage story at all. It’s a story of those hear God’s words directly vs those who don’t. Those who know the rules are accountable; those who don’t get more grace. But we all experience the consequence of the former’s disobedience.

In this view, Eve isn’t accountable; she didn’t hear the words from God directly; she only heard second-hand. The explains why she might have added to the law (“nor shall you touch it.”) It’s ignorance, and while it’s not sin, it makes you more vulnerable TO sin.

But…

While this view is more palatable (it helps answer “What happens to those who never hear the Gospel?”), it only roughly aligns with certain spiritual/religious views of the world, but NOT AT ALL with our lived reality: ignorance doesn’t prevent a consequence. It can cause it!

So both of these views, although interesting, are unsatisfactory. They fall out of alignment with the rest of scripture and our perceived reality, so I’m forced to reject them and keep studying. And in my studying, I’ve noticed a few things that are hard to ignore.

At the end of Gen 2:24, the text says something important: “… and they become one flesh.” They are ONE. In the Gen 1:27 creation account, it says the same thing.

(NIV breaks the translation and says “them” in both places, but it’s IT/HIM and THEM. It says they are one.)

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃
H853: אֹתָם (‘ēṯ)

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them <- (it/him);
male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27 (NIV)

And while they are one, they don’t have names. I know you think “Adam and Eve,” but early in Genesis, Adam is actually “the adam/human” and is called by a noun and not by a name.

In the Hebrew, Adam isn’t used as a name until Genesis 3:17. Eve isn’t given a name until Genesis 3:20.

For both, they don’t have names until after they both eat the fruit. Until then, they are the ish (אִישׁ – man/husband) and the isha (אִשָּׁה – woman/wife).

In Genesis 2:23, the ish doesn’t say that the isha is simply a female version of him. He says the isha is FROM him.

“In the image of God He created him (the human).”
“Male and female He created them (the individuals).”

Despite now being split (ish/isha), they are still… one. And while we want to view them as a literal man and literal woman, there’s something else to see here.

Immediately after the text shows us the isha, it tells us what she is like in Genesis 3.

She…
hears/speaks to the serpent (v1 and v2)
knows/speaks WHAT IS TRUE (v2)
builds a fence around the Law (v3)
sees FRUIT (v6)
shares FOOD (v6)
desires WISDOM and being like God (v6)
gives to the ish (v6)

This feels… spiritual.

And this is interesting: The Spirit (רוּחַ) of God in Genesis 1:2 is a feminine noun.

And “Wisdom’s desire” of Proverbs 8 sounds familiar:

Feminine (v1)
Knows the truth and can speak it (v6)
Knows good fruit (v19)
Shares food (v5)

What I see is that “the isha” of the human being is like the Spirit of God; she is built with similar characteristics.

Let me be clear: I’m not making a statement about women or Eve. Remember: at this time, the ish and the isha are ONE. One flesh. Of the same thing.

…but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
James 1:14-15 (NIV)

If the isha represents the part of humanity that is in tune with the spiritual world, able to see and hear the serpent/temptation and to know how to interpret and even safeguard the law (“nor shall you touch it”), perhaps the isha is our spirit. Perhaps the ish is our flesh.

In that, perhaps Genesis 3 is not merely a “how sin entered the world” sort of story, but it’s also a “how sin enters the world always” sort of story.

This way of framing the human condition also gives another message of hope from back in Genesis 2.

“It’s NOT GOOD that the man is alone.”
“In the day you eat of it, you will surely die.”

God doesn’t say “if.” It isn’t a conditional statement. The man will eat it. He will die. The only way to save him is to split him in two. The flesh WILL die, but the spirit will live.

The isha was built so the human could live.

When Adam gets a name, God tells says “to dust (‘adam’) you will return.” You will surely die.

When Adam names his wife, he calls her “Eve,” which means LIFE. This is why there is hope in her, and why her curse carries a promise.

Finally, their definitions (that is, the flesh and the spirit) are established, they have names, and God covers them in skin.

Going forward, it’s a story about a MAN, Adam and a WOMAN, Eve. Prior to having a covering, perhaps it was a story about our spiritual selves.

First Words

Humanity’s first words in the Bible are a poem of adoration about another human, and God isn’t mad about it. In fact, God set this up to be good; it solves the “not good” problem of being alone.

Love your neighbor. That’s what solves the “not good” problem.

The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
Genesis 2:23 (NIV)

For Reasons only God Knows

Guest Author @Randallthetrue from Twitter/X:

Genesis 2:15-20

Here God put man in the garden and said it is not good for him to be alone. Then God proceeded to create animals and send them to man to name one at a time. My question is how long did that take? What was man learning from it? Why did God do that before He made women?

Remember once God was done with all the animals none were a suitable helpmate. Obviously, God knew that would be the case but He still put man through all that prior to fulfilling the purpose, which He already had the answer. I can only assume it took many many years to name all the animals prior to woman being made.

To begin with God told man to serve and keep the garden the God said man needs a suitable helpmate. I see this in my life. God says He wants something for me then proceeds to take me down a road that seemingly has no relevance only to connect it all later.

I think if He made women first man would not have said “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” Anyways this leads to many thoughts maybe more later on.

Not Good

Some of our Christian theologies argue that nothing “not good” could have existed before the fall. But here, the text points out that the man was alone, and that being alone was “not good.”

But also, Gen 1 says it was dark and chaotic. God made that, too.

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Genesis 2:18 (NIV)

Some of our Christian theological perspectives are broken.

The text says God created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1, but God also created the chaos and the darkness in Genesis 1:2. Fortunately, He brings light and order in Genesis 1:3. That’s the correct framework.

Some of our theologies teach “God made it good, but we broke it with sin, so now we have to repent in order to be forgiven,” but this idea doesn’t flow from Genesis. I don’t think this teaching is correct.

Believing that God will heal us and bring us light is the good news.

It was Bad First

Our Christian theological “big picture” says God made a GOOD world, but we sinned and now God/we must fix it.

But the pattern of Genesis 1 actually says something different:

It was dark, but God made it light.
First Evening, and then Morning.
The land was barren, but then plants emerged.

Genesis is giving us a story about the human condition, and it’s giving us a message of hope: God will bring us through it.