b. Creation Ordinances
But first, I would take us back to the start, to Adam and Eve as the sole representatives of humanity, in covenant relation to God. We may be inclined to think that only that one prohibition against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil counts as ordinance, but that would be a serious mistake. That is, I think, the only prohibitive ordinance, but there are other ordinances given which are of a more positive nature. For example: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Ge 1:28). This was not just some friendly blessing or kind thought toward their future together. This is a commandment given. Traditional Jewish understanding of this particular ordinance is not seen as being fulfilled unless a couple has produced at least one son and one daughter.
That same ordinance must be seen as increasing the evil of Adam’s failure when he and Eve, by their disobedience in regard to that one tree, paved a way for the usurper to take from them their role as rulers of the rest of creation. Do you wonder that Paul speaks of creation groaning as it waits for the sons of God to be restored in full (Ro 8:22)? Somewhere down deep, in whatever sense we may speak of creation as knowing anything, it knows that its present futility is a result of that usurpation of rule, and it knows that when the children of God are brought fully into their glory, then creation, too, will be set free from corruption (Ro 8:20-21). The dominion of man over creation was to be and shall in due course be a benign, benevolent dominion, a caretaking of God’s creatures for their benefit and ours alike.
To this degree, we should find the thoughts of the environmentalist harmonious with our own. But when environmentalism becomes a religion in its own right, or when it is pursued without thought for God, then of course it’s going to become off base and detrimental to life. Surely, when proponents of environmental concern arrive at the point of suggesting mankind as a disease of which the planet would be well rid, there’s a serious problem. Sin’s corruption of God’s intent is evident. When the baby seal matters more than the baby human, sin’s corruption of God’s intent is evident.
We should also have to include the marriage ordinance as part of the creation ordinance. God makes the woman from man as helpmate to man – not as inferior, but as partner – and causes it to be written: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Ge 2:24). It should be clear enough from God’s clear displeasure with divorce, that this ordinance has never been rescinded, nor has it been modified to expand the options available. There are two possibilities: The life of the celibate, where God has given one the gift to live celibate in holiness (1Co 7:7), and, I should have to say, only for so long as said gift remains active; or the life of marriage between one man and one woman. Sadly, we should have to now make it abundantly clear that by man and woman we mean organically, physically so from birth.
I have to say, I might find cause to disagree with the good doctors of theology as to the appropriateness of counting this as an ordinance of the Church. I suppose, insomuch as it is not a rule required of each and every believer, we might have grounds to reject it as an ordinance in that strictest sense. But surely, marriage that accords with God’s instruction does have the means of sealing to us the promises of the gospel. That gospel speaks of us as the bride of Christ, and He our bridegroom. God speaks often of His people as wedded to Him, and as such, all forms of idolatry as matters of adultery. Harking back to that one-flesh nature of the relationship, Paul stresses the particular evil of sexual sin, in that it is a defilement of this wedded state in which we abide. We are promised to One, betrothed from the moment of our calling, and really, from the dawn of creation and even farther, into infinity past. By Jewish practice, to be betrothed is as binding as being wed in full consummation. This is modeled for us in the marriage of man and woman, in their devotion to one another, and their living out of this one-flesh life. Here is depicted for us daily the nature of our relationship to Christ our Lord. How better to be kept in remembrance of our promised eternal life with our Lord Jesus our husband?
[09/19/20]
I still need to take a moment with that one prohibitive ordinance. Even this comes set in the midst of promise. “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die” (Ge 2:16-17). Here is assurance of provision. God planted the garden, in which grew every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food (Ge 2:9). Here, too, was the tree of life, and also the sources of many waters. Even where God saw as yet an unmet need in Adam, He provided, creating Eve to be his helpmate (Ge 2:18). All that was needful to fulness of life was made freely available, and only this one condition supplied. Don’t eat from that one tree. That was it.
Why this rule was necessary is not explained, only the result of disobedience. It is not explicitly said, “This is a test.” It is not explicitly said that the obedience or disobedience of Adam would impact all who came from him, nor that this would qualify or disqualify partaking of the tree of life. Indeed, no prohibition is made against doing so until later, when sin had entered in, and that prohibition is, seen in the proper light, a magnificent mercy done Adam by God. To be partaker of eternal life in a state of sin is hardly a blessing. And so, when sin had made entrance, God ensured that access to that tree made exit – until such time as His fullest Provision in the Person of the Son should come about.
I believe I have commented elsewhere in this lengthening effort on the necessity of Adam having some understanding of right and wrong for this prohibition to even have meaning. What did Adam, for example, know of death in this perfect existence in Eden? How was it even a concept? On what basis could he determine to comply or defy if there was as yet no concept of morality or consequences for actions? I conclude that the knowledge of which that tree imparted is that knowledge that comes of experience. Indeed, it could be argued that Adam’s behavior toward that tree constituted his knowledge of good or evil. I change the conjunction of necessity. So long as he obeyed, the only experiential knowledge he could have had is that of good. This would, for the duration, put him on par with Jesus in that regard. Jesus also knew only good in that He always obeyed. That is not to say He had no understanding of evil, nor that He could never have recognized it if He saw it. Clearly that is not the case, for He addresses issues of evil, both in motive and in consequence, quite forthrightly. I see no reason to suppose Adam was ignorant of evil. He simply had no personal experience of it.
I’ll take it a small step further. If Adam and Eve were wholly
ignorant of evil, then it would seem to me there were extenuating
circumstances contributing to their fall. How could they recognize
the insidious nature of the serpent’s urgings of evil, given no
comprehension of evil, of right and wrong? I suppose we could still
argue that mere awareness of God’s prohibition ought to have sufficed,
and indeed it should. But I should find it at least a tad unjust to
impose moral penalty where no moral basis pertains. Suffice to say,
then, that the first couple did have some sense of right and wrong
prior to eating. What they lacked (and that to their great benefit)
was personal experience of doing evil. Right up until they did. And
then, this couple who had been naked and unashamed in their innocence
found need to hide from holy God.
