Creation: Genesis 2:8-25

Verse 8, And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed, and out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first was Pison, that is, it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold, and the gold of that land is good.

There is Bedelium, and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon, the same as that which compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hidikul, that is, it which goeth toward the east of Assyria.

And the fourth river is Euphrates. And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it, and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden I am as free to eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it.

For in the day that thou eatest it off, thou shalt surely die. And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone. I will make him and help me for him.

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam, to see what he would call them. And whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field.

But for Adam there was not found, and help me for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept. And he took one of the ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of the man.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, and the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Now these verses that we look at, there may be a little reflection back in the previous verses of the previous reading that have certainly much to do with the one that we're in now.

We have to agree all together in the meeting that Genesis of course, the book of beginnings, is progressive revelation. And within the six day period sometimes there's touching something in chapter one, and then you'll have it again coming up in chapter two. But it's within the same scope of the six days.

So what we're looking at here is really man in his innocence before the fall. We want to keep that in mind. And therefore, as we go down the chapter, and while I like the outline very much, we all have our own little paths.

And I've learned a lot in the readings thus far. In fact, I have to confess to you, so you'll have to pray for me, already you are doing that, that this is the first bible readings I have been in on Genesis chapter one and chapter two. I have never had the privilege of sitting in a bible reading taking up these particular chapters as we have taken them up today.

So it has been very instructive to the mind, educational and practical and helpful in our appreciation of the awesomeness of the God of Genesis. Now we're going to look at this very simply because we're coming into what I would call a more practical understanding of things in this chapter. The other is more to do with expositional in relation to the vastness of God's creation and how it came in and how we bow in absolute reverence at the great creator.

But now when we're coming into this chapter, we have another lane of truth that I hope we'll be able to develop in this section that we're looking at. You know, if I was to divide it, and I'll simply go down it this way, and if we can keep you on this pad fine without getting too many directions and other paths, I want to look at the planting a garden and the placing of the man. That will take us to verse number eight.

The planting of a garden and the placing of the man in the garden. Verses nine to fourteen, we're going to see the provision that God has made for that man that he put into that garden. Number three, we're going to look at verses fifteen to seventeen and see the purpose for which he placed man in that garden, to keep it and to dress it with the prohibition of forbidding to take off the one tree of knowledge in good and evil.

When we get to verse eighteen and put another P in, and that is the thought of the plan of God. Because when you get to verse number eighteen, we will notice that the Lord God said, it is not good. Now chapter one, it is good, it is good, it is good, and it is very good.

But here's a negative, it is not good. Because God not only has purpose in mind, he's a great plan. And that is, he knew that Adam, as a lonely unit, needed a complement.

He needed someone to fill up. We were looking at that word fill up in relation to creation until he brought it up to its fullness and completion. And so you have here in the plan of God that Adam is going to be completed.

And that we will see in this plan. Then we find in nineteen to twenty, they often talk in Mark's gospel about the sandwich miracles. I'm using this in a sense because he touches the plan and then he goes to the naming, giving Adam the great responsibility of naming the animals.

Could you let me say that we have the perception of Adam in the naming of the elements. It was quite a thing that these animals coming two by two before Adam, that he had the discernment and the responsibility and perception to name them exactly as we have them. Then he moves to the final conclusion in the chapter and we find that he brings in the partner provided.

And so we're going to see that when you get the partner provided, you have a great, not only historical account, historical account of this woman being brought to the man, but we also have a typical understanding of teaching that goes beyond that. Do you come to the second man and the complement that filled him up. We read that in Ephesians, of course.

He's the head of all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness or complement of him that filleth all in all. If you wanted to put it another way, I'm going to borrow and poach here, he doesn't mind. You've got the finished work in the opening verses of chapter two.

You've got the fertile garden, the fertile garden. And then you've got the formation of the woman and you've the first marriage. Thanks brother.

Is that right? The first marriage. So really that covers it likewise. There's different ways in which you can look at the passage.

But if we can go down to the planting, I want to say just a couple of things. And sometimes you can get things over like this better than up there in ministry because it leaves you. So when you're more at ease and just, my brethren so helpful to me and praying for me, you feel more at home.

The garden, its origin was from God. It was planted by him. I doubt it.

I doubt it. If any man, with all his genius afterwards, could plant a garden like it. It's the same when you come to the tabernacle.

When the pattern was given of that tabernacle and it was performed and finally brought together, its origin was from God. I don't think a man could ever, or all the geniuses could ever, if you handed them materials, could ever bring a tabernacle like it. It's the same with a church made up of living stones.

It stands in absolute uniqueness that it can't be reproduced. But I want to get the practical note in. When it comes to a local assembly, brethren, it's a divine planting.

And it stands unique. Its origin is of God, just like the garden. And it can't be reproduced by human genius or intelligence.

It has to go according to the pattern. So I just want to point that out, lest to forget it, that we're going to look at this garden. Let me say likewise before I sit down.

I love Genesis from this standpoint and my own observation. God is a God of order. We've touched that.

But remember, he's a God of beauty. When he finished that garden and his last touch was put upon it, the fragrance, the beauty, the smell of that garden was certainly an aroma, the like of which was never witnessed before. Not only is it a garden of beauty, it's a garden of variety, for our God's a God of variety.

Should I say in beauty, he's a God of color, you know. I have no, as long as you're not too loud in colors. Colors are nice.

We're all dressed in a drab color here with a kind of look drab, you know. It's nice to have a little color. God's a God of color.

The rainbow has many colors. The coat of Joseph had many colors. And we know the masterpiece of the church, the very vivid colors of that will be displayed in the coming day.

So anyway, just to point out, the God's a God of beauty. We're going to see that. Now God of variety, he's a God that's marked by authority, because he invested authority in Adam in relation to the garden.

And always remember that God is that. We want to give him the supreme place, and he invests authority in that man, Adam, in relation to the garden. You know, maybe I should sit down, I could go on and mention that God is a God of activity.

I mean, God was active in what he did. And when he hands something over to Adam, the first man created and formed and made, you find that God wants him to be active. See, Brian, God is a God of activity.

And so we'll find that. But just let me sit down with this. God's a God that's marked with glory.

And I like what our brethren, I was glad to mention that there's a covering upon them, a covering of glory. God's a holy God. And let us always remember that the chief end, as the old way used to say, that chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.

You know, Brian, that's the whole thing of the Bible readings here. We want to go out and give God the glory. And we want to be marked with variety.

We want to be marked with beauty, activity. And I trust that as we go down the chapter, we're going to go into chapter, verse number eight. And maybe someone may have a few things to say.

I think David might have in verses number six, the mist. And then we'll jump in and we'll move to the planting of this garden in Eden, the divine planting. And we'll move from there down the chapter.

May God bless. Now, someone come in in verse number eight. I want to commence there with regard to the Lord God.

That's the covenant word for Lord God, the triune. Plant it, a garden. That's chapter 13.

Yes. Yes, it is. And I think what our brethren said has to be, again, reemphasized that in the final analysis in that millennial kingdom, it will be a garden.

The desert shall blossom as a rose and so forth. I think comes in and the millennial place will be a garden that will be of God's design. We're having technical difficulties.

Further down the chapter, verse 21, he is seen as a physician putting a man to sleep. And he's seen as a builder, taking the rib and building the woman. Now, in this, I see Christ in the gospels.

In John chapter nine, he took the clay and he put it into the sockets. A man had no eyes. And the man himself said, such a miracle has not been wrought since the foundation of the world.

So it takes me back to the Father, doesn't it? And then the second one here that we read. The gardener. Pardon? Go ahead.

The gardener. The gardener. Well, the Lord Jesus, as Brother Oliver has presented it to us, was interested in gardens.

And when Mary came, she supposed him to be the gardener. Every plant that my Heavenly Father had not planted, the sower went forth to sow. So the idea of the Lord Jesus as the gardener seems to be pictured.

And then, of course, as the physician, he did something here that shows his knowledge, as Brother Crawford showed us, of the human body and all its parts. Taking a rib, Sir James Y. Simpson learned the use of putting a man to sleep by reading this passage when he brought in chloroform to put a man to deep sleep. But then it was years later before medical science recognized that a rib is the only bone in a human body that resuscitates.

Other bones taken away never resuscitate, but the rib grows up, the stem in it again, and resuscitates. So this is something that medical science took centuries to discover. And he took the rib and closed the flesh.

Already men in medicine are seeking to close the flesh without stitching. Close it over, it might join again. Everything here is tracing back to the physician.

Christ was the great physician when he was here. And then the last one, of course, takes me to Matthew's Gospel, chapter 18, the building. The building, 16, is that it? The building of the church.

Yes. So he's a builder. Would that be, reading into it, the devotional idea of the gardener and the idea of the potter, the gardener, the physician, and the builder.

Very good, brother. Appreciate that. Did you have something, Jim? It's a garden in which, we'll see later, where the man will be tested.

Yes. But when the Lord Jesus came, he was in a wilderness. Yes.

So everything was conducive for Adam to stand. Everything was not conducive for the Lord Jesus. Very good, brother.

And that's the doctrine of probation now that we're looking at. The doctrine of probation is a man who has not sinned, but could sin. Yes.

And he's placed in a garden with a will. I think this proves the will of a man. And he's there on probation.

The probation is, will he obey God, or will he follow the dictates of his own will? Very good. The opposite, of course, is the Lord Jesus was in a wilderness. Yes.

Where there was nothing to sustain him. Adam had every advantage, and he fell. The Lord Jesus had none.

He did not fall. The difference between innocence and holiness. Holiness.

Correct. Yes. Did you have something? With the wild beasts.

Right. They're not wild in Adam's case, but they are. And I don't say that they could touch the Lord.

The Lord was sovereign over them. I'm not saying that. No, but I'm just saying they were wild, though, but they were not wild to him.

Mark chapter 1 shows they were wild, doesn't it? Yes. Did you have something else to say? No. Brother, you mentioned in your opening, you mind if I go to something very practical? God does love color.

Yes. He does. Look at what he created.

Look at the beautiful rose. Look at the beautiful, we at Brother Procopio's house, he's got beautiful hydrangea growing all around the windows. Absolutely beautiful.

God does love color. And can I say something very practical here? Let's not make up our own rules about what we should obey and do. When we do that, we weaken the word of God.

I've heard men talk about a woman not wearing a red dress as if that was scripture. It's not scripture. Not at all.

And if we go beyond the word of God and say those kind of things, we are only weakening the truth because people can say, well, these men say you must do this and you must do that, but it's not in the scriptures. So when we do teach what is in the scriptures, it gets less power. It gets less power.

Exactly. And we don't want to do that. We want to stick to what the word of God says.

And that's good because it's quite in order to say there should be modestly attired, but when you start to use, as you say, these type of things of colors and one thing another, you're running into rules. Yes. But I'd just like to advise, Brother Crawford wins the fashion award in many places, but I'd like to just advise them not to wear a red suit.

I think that's for common sense. Okay. There is a principle, a divine spiritual principle.

I should not be seeking to draw attention to myself, but to the Lord. That's the principle. Now, this river that went out of Eden to water the garden has four heads.

Have you any thoughts perhaps on the dividing of the river? Well, I'm not as before that. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Well, it mutters. Yes, there are. Just not.

It's just I was thinking of verse nine out of the ground by the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight. So God is interested in the aesthetic. Yes.

And then we see good for food. And I take it that food was not merely for nourishment, but for satisfaction. And God is showing the pleasantness of it, the tree of life in the midst of the garden.

So we really should have some help on these two trees. Yes. Well, I would say the tree of life just and others come in here.

The tree of life was a literal tree of life. It may be that you find its counterpart in Revelation 22, where you've got the mention of the tree of life in the midst of either side of the river and so forth, which may be more figurative. I am not just fully convinced of that.

But anyhow, I'd like some of my brethren to come in and not this tree of life that was in the midst. It was for his good. There's no doubt about that.

And then the other tree of the knowledge of good and evil is linked, no doubt, to his conscience. And when he when he sinned on Adam sinned and Eve's partner, and they became very conscious of their nakedness and sin because of that. Could we relate this even to the physical Brother Hull? When God made man, and we just have him forming man of the dust of the ground and breathing into his nostrils and then became a living soul.

When God made man, he made him with a body that is capable of reproducing itself in every part. In other words, well, every seven years, physicians tell us that our body actually has totally different cells than it had seven years ago. So what is death? What is decay? What is age? It's a mystery.

We know what it is. It is sin that did it. Okay.

Do you think it possible that men partook of the tree of life as on a regular basis in the garden? But once he had sinned, then he wasn't allowed to partake of the tree of life lest he live forever in that sinful state? Yes. So I would think this, that this is part of the paradise of God, that the tree of life is for the partaking and the enjoyment. But then when he disobeyed, he was not allowed to partake.

Because it does disappear from record, doesn't it? Completely gone through the scriptures until you get to Revelation. So it indicates that very thing, that when sin entered in, that disappeared out of sight altogether. That's to the tree of life.

So it seems that it would have been for the actual maintenance of life. And the enrichment of life. Yeah.

Yeah. Does anyone else have anything to say on this particular point before we move on to the river? Well the tree of knowledge of good and evil evidently was the grounds of the probation in which he was there. He had access to everything, including the tree of life.

But there was one, so he had everything to enjoy and only one thing to, and that was the thing he took. Is this river that's flowing apart from it? Answering your question just at the moment, this river that's flowing, it was certainly good for the production in relation to the garden and the trees and all that was there. So God had everything in order, God of order, that he provided for even the sustenance of the garden itself in that river.

Then it went into four heads. And of course all my simple understanding of the four is always linked to universality and may be linked to the four gospels. Four, four, four, we ever get that four, four winds, four this, that is always linked to that.

The four sides of the altar, the brazen altar is all very linked to the universality of things. That's how I'd look at it. Isn't it true that they say that Pison is the Ganges, which runs through India, of course, and it means full flowing.

Now, Giron is said to be the Nile, which is a very, very long river that goes right across the African continent. And Hidiko is the Tigris of the Assyrian area. And the Euphrates, of course, we know it came up from Babylon.

So that it seems that the purpose was, and it's interesting to see that it's from Eden, the tree, the river does not originate in the garden. No, it's from Eden and it goes into, into Eden and there are the four heads that then come out. So from that garden, it seems to be the divine intention to supply and satisfy the need of a whole world.

And that's a principle. Like the Lord coming in the Gospels. The four Gospels, I would say is evident, coming from him.

But I should say that these, in my understanding, this is in the state of innocence before sin entered and before the flood. And when the flood entered, of course, all that changed as you have here about the rivers. They may have taken different courses, of course, and the names carried on and so forth like that.

But here in the state of innocence, when that went out of Eden into the garden to water it and for the produce and so forth, and then into four heads, going out into all. Whenever there's four things always, there's three alike and one different. Yes.

You know, like the Gospels, there's three alike and John's different. Well, there's one of these rivers is different here. And we talked about colors.

The gold of that land is good. Gold and the sphinx. And there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

The Gospel by John is the Gospel of gold. It's deity. And the bdellium is only mentioned here.

And once in another place, in Numbers 11, the manna was like bdellium. And the only place in the New Testament where we have the manna is in John's Gospel, likened to Christ. He's the manna from heaven, the true manna that came down from heaven.

The bdellium speaks of his manhood. And then the onyx stone is the stone of priesthood. There's two on the shoulders and one on the heart and the breastplate.

And the Gospel by John is not only his deity and his humanity, but it's his priesthood. But it's interesting that this fourth river has these things that features the Gospel that stands apart. Well, you can just take that this step further, that actually what you have here is God's presence, which makes Eden paradise.

God's presence is to be the source of refreshment for the world. So you have the four Gospels that reach out to the world, the Jew and the Gentile and the Greek and Latin and the whole world in John's Gospel. The source of refreshment and supply for the whole world is in one Christ.

But I like your thought, Albert, that the assembly is likewise the place of his presence. That is to be a source of refreshment to unlearned and unbelieving to the whole world, as well as believers themselves. I think the word planting would suggest that from First Corinthians three.

Yes, absolutely. You're God's guard. Yes, that's it.

Isn't that true in the millennium also that from under the altar, the waters flow for the blessings of all that time will come from God through Israel to the millennial earth. So the same truth applies if you take it from here to that millennial scene as you did before. There's a very simple observance here that Eden must have been high.

Yes. You see, it was elevated. So when God planted a garden, he gave it a place of elevation.

Otherwise, the rivers could not have flown up, flown out from it. So maybe it is believed generally that whenever pagan people built their places of idolatrous worship, they were trying to imitate that. They're called high places.

Well, the temple from which that stream flows in Ezekiel, the millennial temple is evidently on a plateau that's pushed up for the building of that. That's a special temple, isn't it? Not the other temples. Is it pushing it too far to say that the Lord's supper was instituted in an upper room? The room above street level, the vine renders that.

So it's elevated. Well, above the general level of mankind, higher. That's what we're saying.

The language of the street is not for the upper room. I was pointing that out when people use slangy language in the assembly and modern idiomisms and so on, that the street language is not for where we are, upper room conditions. If anyone else in verses 10, we'll move into the next section, the purpose.

When was this river? Did God form this river here? When did God make this river? Well, it had to be within the six days. That's right. And that's the point.

So we're not given all the detail in chapter one. That's the idea, brother. It's progressive here and unfolding further of those six days.

Now, when the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden, even to dress, that's the purpose, to dress and to keep. And I don't think in the sense, of course, again, in the state of innocence, it was to protect. It was more in service.

That is God given activity to do in that garden. God was active in creation and forming it, as we've been observing in the six days. And now he's putting man in here and he's making them active in relation to his responsibility.

So are you teaching that, would you be accused of teaching that every believer in the assembly is essential to the maintenance of that assembly? Absolutely, brother. So that everyone, he gave to every man his work. Yes.

So every believer in each assembly has a responsibility from God for the maintenance, the progress of that assembly. That's very, very important to say, brother, to my mind. That's what you have here, responsibility invested in the man.

And enjoyment. He enjoyed it? Yes. So when we come into an assembly, we enjoy all the privileges, but we share the responsibilities.

Well, the highest donor of an assembly was the highest donor of the garden in the cool of the day when the Lord God met. It's a place of communion with God. And that is the highest part of our assembly testimony, is a place where we can commune together as well as with individuals.

We commune with the Lord Jesus in a special way. Yes. The place of his presence.

That's right. Well, you see also in this idea of to dress and to keep, it's been said to cultivate and to guard. Now, if you take it just away just a minute from the pictures we're drawing, but to the literal, that there was a responsibility that seems to be given to Adam to guard this.

Now we know that later the serpent came in. And so I know we can, we can apply it to the assembly too. There's a lot of principle there, but he was made responsible in this garden.

He was given that dominion for a purpose. Yes. Well, Paul viewed that assembly as a place where Satan would beguile.

Use the picture here in 2 Corinthians 11. And as the serpent beguiled him, that's right. Yeah.

When I think too, would you not see a little difference here, maybe help me in this, that when it comes to this here in chapter two, it's still in the state of innocence. Oh yes. And therefore when you get the dress, I like that word cultivate and care for.

When it comes after the fall and the revelation brings it in clear as you go through the word of God, the guarding and the protecting and so forth, very definitely. But I thought things were all conclusive in this garden for his good. He had to cultivate and care for it.

But after sin entered, there's a different thing come in. And therefore there was a protection, a guard. There was a, you know, you have keeping out and bringing in all that type of thing in principle.

Well, I fully subscribe to that. But what I had in mind is that, did God not make Adam responsible? Absolutely. So what I have in mind is the fact that if he, now the late Mr. William True used to say that when the serpent came in and made his approach to Eve, she should have said, I must ask my husband is to recognize that.

Yes. In other words, God had made him responsible in that garden. And so there was the initial defense of the garden before the fall, because God knew the power.

I take it the fall of Satan had occurred. So he knew there was an enemy. I just wanted to support the gap theory here for a minute.

Amen. Keep going. That's good.

I believe there's a gap between chapter two and chapter three. That is, we're still in the very good creation in chapter two. Now something happens between the end of chapter two, actually the end of the seventh day and chapter three.

There's a gap of undetermined time in which there is an enemy now to be guarded. That's what you're saying. So I just wanted to bring the gap theory up to date.

Yes. Yes. Thank you.

So you're agreeing with that idea then? Yes. The word keep is guard, right? I like what you're saying, because when man failed in the keeping of it, God says, OK, from then on there was an administration given to the angels. The cherubim came in.

The cherubim at the veil. I mean, yeah, to guard the holiest of all. So right throughout, there seems man failed, and they're called the keepers around the throne in the book of Daniel.

So I can see that. What I had in mind, Brother Albert, was this. I have been in assemblies where there are those who are questioning the truth of guarding the assembly and so on, and to teach it from here before you teach the literal.

Do you follow my point? I think it's very important we could show that God wanted the very first unit that he produced for man to have fellowship with him. He wanted to see it guarded as well as cultivated. And if we could see that, then they can see the assembly.

But if we push the assembly without teaching that first, I think we do the truth a disservice. Do you follow my point? I think many of our brethren are guilty, perhaps I am too sometimes, of using typical teaching before we look at the literal. It must be the New Testament for what we're teaching.

We must have New Testament truth. First Timothy would back us up in using it. Definitely.

Oh yes. And even beyond saying typical teaching, it certainly is illustrating. It's a picture.

And that's what I see as far as the assembly. It's illustrated here. Illustrated.

That's right. And then there were those who crept in on a word, you see. It may be further more a type because it's used in 1 Corinthians or 2 Corinthians 11.

It's used by Paul when he wrote to Timothy, how the serpent beguiled Eve, how Eve was beguiled and Adam was not the transgression. That's right. So Adam really left the garden by a will of his own.

That's right. To accompany her. The purpose he left it.

He didn't stay alone in it. No he didn't. Absolutely.

Before he gives the prohibition, it's nice to notice that of every tree of the garden I must freely, I think the emphasis are freely eat. Everything was given. This is true liberty or true freedom.

The only prohibition was the one, a tree of knowledge of good and evil. So we'll have in picture here as we've been developing into Corinthians and even further that God had everything conducive for their good and for his pleasure and delight. And there was a freedom that they had given to them to enjoy everything.

Now when this teaches man as a free will agent. Yes. You know.

Absolutely. Whosoever will. Yes.

Let him take. And this I think is a basic passage today when some are streaming election to a degree that it's not a scripture with a book at all. It's very important to see that when God made man a moral creature, he made him with a choice.

Yes sir. Very definitely. And so actually, although we are born sinners and therefore sin, yet sin is also a choice.

Isaiah 53 and 6, if you can't think of any other scripture, we've turned everyone to his own way. But here, this is something that young Christians need to have help with. Why would God put man in such an ideal paradise and then put a tree there to tempt him? Why would he do that? And that's off.

We often have young folk come and ask us a question like that. It needs to be answered. You see, God had many creatures that did his will because they had no other choice.

There are all kinds of parts of God's creation that obey. Mr. Paisley was talking this morning about the accuracy of the movement of the heavens. And there are creatures everywhere that just do exactly God's word because they have no choice to do otherwise.

But when God made man, he made him a moral creature. And you see, if you made a machine, you could make it so it just did a certain job. That machine would do nothing else.

It has no other ability. It can only do that for which it is made. It cannot deviate from that at all.

All right. Can a machine love? No. Can a machine worship? No.

Can a machine have fellowship with God? No. So sometimes parents say, you know, my child has broken my heart. Would you rather have a child or a machine? So here's what God did.

He made man a moral creature. He made him with a choice. See, what God was looking for was love that was spontaneous, love that was devotion that was true and genuine without fear.

I think that's what the word freely means. All moral creatures must be tested. That's right.

God made it easier for a man to obey than disobey. That's a fact, yes. Because he had all of the choices of the apart from one.

And could we say that it reminds us of the fact, that prohibition reminds us of the fact that it's God's garden, not man's garden. And it tests man's affection and it tests his obedience. Would you say too, Brother Olive, when you're on that, like when the Lord God commanded him not, he didn't command him only for one reason, he loved him.

I mean, God's love to man was evident. And he commanded him out of love, not to eat of that. He wanted a return of that love as a brother had coffered his boots spontaneous, which he didn't get thus with a field.

In this there is something beyond my ability to understand. But God put that prohibition and that tree there, knowing full well what would happen. And he had an original purpose of redemption before this ever happened.

And that does not make God responsible for Adam's choice. The two things exist side by side. God had plans and man had a choice.

And both are true. True today too. And that we offer in the gospel.

Let's make a genuine offer in the gospel to a sinner. Would you, Brother, agree with this, that when man made a wrong choice, God did not remove man's responsibility to make a choice? No. I don't think he did.

I think that I think man is still a moral creature who called me one day before he was saved. He just graduated from university. And he said, Mr. Crawford, there are men preaching here that I'm a sinner because I choose to be a sinner and I don't believe it.

I was born like this. I can't help it. So I said to him, Brendan, were you ever tempted to do something evil and you didn't do it? He said, thank you very much, Mr. Crawford.

It dawned on him if there were times when he chose not to sin, then the times he did sin, he must have chosen to sin. So I very firmly believe that man is still a moral creature with a choice. And you would see that, Norman, wouldn't you, in every dispensation almost.

That comes out even under law and all under the different dispensations, that he is responsible to God. It's inexplicable, the choice of man and God's sovereign will. And both are equally true.

Books being written today, and I want to say it plainly, books being written today to try and bring together two things that no human mind can conceive of. Impossible. It's impossible, brother.

I'm against these type of books. I agree. Are you? I am indeed.

Yeah, I'm against these kind of books trying to show man as chosen and election as beyond man's ability and so on. I believe that the simple way is what we learned at school was that when I was first saved was the parallel lines in a railway track. And I still believe it's as good an illustration as any.

We think men that get older and become sophisticated in their theology, they imagine they can see it joining. But it's still there, parallel lines. Because God is transcendent.

That's it. God is transcendent, beyond our knowledge. And there's many things about God we do not understand.

It isn't only election and free will. Do we understand the Trinity? Do we understand the Incarnation? Do we understand what brother Paisley tells us about sometimes? The hypostasis. The hypostatic union.

No, we don't. We don't. There's many things that are, as brother Oliver said, they transcend our highest thought.

We don't understand the mystery of prayer. No, that's right. How it is answered.

We can't explain these things, but we believe them and we understand them. That God has worked that out and that's his purpose. We need problems.

We do. We could have a whole Bible reading on things we don't understand. Well, we better move on to things we do.

Amen. And we still wouldn't understand. It's interesting to notice that all around was life.

Yes. And God speaks of death. Yes.

All around today is death. God speaks life. Believe and thou shalt live.

Amen. Isn't that really what you were saying, Albert? You were mentioning that God in his kindness and grace made it easy for man. Yes.

And only this one free. That's right. Man disobeyed.

Yes. In this chapter of creation, we don't understand the creation. No.

But just for the sake of understanding something, by faith we understand. The ages were framed by the way of God. So faith has to lay hold on God's revelation.

As far as, that's the way we're going to understand anything. Faith is seeing the invisible. Faith is believing the impossible.

That's what Hebrews 11 is all about. Men that saw the invisible and did the impossible. And when it comes to the first two boys, that teaches responsibility.

One chose to accept the path of God and sacrifice. And one did not. One paid the consequence.

They both were moral agents that could have chosen that. I believe that. Brother Ward had a word to say, excuse me.

Mr. Hall, I need help in my understanding. I had never thought that prior to the fall, the knowledge of the tree of good and evil was a temptation to them. Well, it's bringing in the moral responsibility that they had.

That they had the will to choose as to what they would do. That was put there as a test of love and loyalty to God. And out of everything that was given for their blessing, every tree freely did, except the one God was testing, as to their moral responsibility to him.

It just seems interesting to me that moving into chapter three, just to touch it, that Eve never saw the tree in the way that she did until she was influenced of the serpent. What evil would this be? I don't want to go to evil before day verse two, but I want to say that what evil would this be? I mean, this would have to be subsequent evil. Yes, no essential evil in this tree.

Yeah, so that one as well said that Satan deceived them that they would have the knowledge of good and evil. This is important. But though they would know good, they would have not the power to do good.

And though they would know evil, they would not have the power to resist evil. And that's very important because just knowledge alone that they had, they didn't have the power. So Satan deceived them, deceived them.

And that's an important thing. Very good, brother. Is it right to understand, Mr. Hull, then, that Adam was held responsible to teach Eve after she was created, or, excuse me, formed, built, if you will, that about this tree, because we have no record of God telling Eve himself.

This is headship, isn't it? That's what I meant. And so we see, if I can go back to the assembly again, 1 Corinthians 14, let your women ask their husbands at home. Yeah, well, you see, that is in our brother's chapter 2, in chapter 3, that she acted in independence, as we see.

And that's where she was first in the transgression. But that's in the next chapter, isn't it? But this is what headship is. Headship is responsibility and trusting.

In this case, to Adam, for Eve. Yes. What means the fact, brother, that Eve was the transgressor? How would she be a transgressor? You're in chapter 3, brother.

No, I'm talking about Timothy. Timothy. But that comes into... Oh, we'll go to Mr. Page and he'll give us that answer.

I was just thinking of a woman being taught by her husband. Yes. And if that teaching did come, and I believe it did come, I believe it did come.

So the law was set from the husband to the wife. And the minute she disobeyed that by obeying the serpent, she was a transgressor. Yes.

She broke the law. Yes. She broke the law.

So God was telling Adam here, in headship, he was going to be responsible for his wife. Yes. And yet that introduces your next subject.

Yes. Yes. Now we're going to verse number 18.

And the Lord God said, it is not good that man should be alone, as we pointed out in contrast to all that was good. And he needed a help, meet suitable, a helper. So we've got introduced here, the fact that God could see the need of Adam, all the animals that were coming before him, two by two, each one and probably male and female.

And at the end of that, it says, but of Adam, there was not sound and healthy for him. So it seems to be connected. There are this great principle of having one to fill up, one to be a compliment to, one to be alongside with.

And as we'll have in the previous chapter, he made both male and female. Well, in verse 23, when the rib was taken and built, Adam said, this is now bone of my bones. So I believe that in verse 18, God looked into the heart of Adam and saw Adam's desire to have a bride.

I will make an answering one for him. It's an answer to prayer, as it were. He's longing for a bride as he looks at others, male and female.

And he's a prayer is answered or he's longing is answered. God saw what was in his heart. Of course, we're looking at something far deeper than that, which I know our brother wants to get to.

But I think it's interesting to me that God reverses the order. The revelation here reverses the order. But don't pass over this point right now, because it's an important point.

That this man longed for a bride, same longing as the Lord himself. I wanted to let Albert get to that, because I think that's lovely. Would you say that this is the first? Well, it is.

It's the first I will in the Bible. And the last I will is in Revelation 22. And I will make a help me for him.

I will show thee the bride, the lamb's wife. So we've got the bride. It's answered in the bride.

The first and last. But the longing was in Adam's heart. Yes, I can say that.

God looks into his heart and he said, it's not good that this man should be alone. That's right. Very definite, brother.

That's you're correct. It has been said that, you know, that sometimes you will go, say, to a nice area and you look at this for the first time and there's beautiful scenery. And if you are on your own, you have no one to share that with.

And there is a pleasure in that. You say, look at that and you see it. And there's a pleasure.

Now, Adam had all this. He had these beautiful animals around him and he had these trees and this lovely garden. But there was no, I mean, it was not good for him to be alone.

There was no, there's the desire in the heart of a man to have a partner to share it with. I think that's the major point in view, that even the bringing in of the naming of the animals is certainly important. But the big thing is, because that's sandwiched between what God saw in his loneliness and now the providing of a helpmate.

This is a definite picture of the church. Absolutely. The church is not in the Old Testament.

It's a definite picture. All these seven braids in Genesis are all pictures. The animal kingdom could not meet the need.

That's the point. Yes, brother. But is it not also perhaps the fact that God is showing Adam what he's going to do? Because as Adam looks at animals, male and female, Adam says to himself, wait a minute, this is how God works.

He must have something more in mind. So, I mean, I think God is just making the progress right down through. We go back to the beginning of the day, day six, when you have reference to the beast of the field being formed.

And after that, Adam was formed. And in between, now we're going into the time when Adam names them all. But it's not until he does all of that in this one day that God says, now let me finish what you knew I had to do, Adam.

Very good. So it's a filling up or a completing, isn't it? So in verses 21 to the end, we'll touch on the remainder part of this meeting, the part that's found. And we have all the, we look at it historically as we find it here written very clearly, but then it's typical.

That is what we want to see. Likewise, Christ and his bride. So what we have here is very nicely put before us in words that we can understand how this was brought to pass with regard to supplying a woman for the man.

Do you think with me, I couldn't prove this, but I would never apologize for saying it until it would be in heaven. I believe that the animals were brought before him. And I believe the first animal that was before him was a lamb.

And this is the first time that speech is used. He called them. The first time he used the language was describing animals, giving them names.

Young fella said to me in Australia, he was very limited in his knowledge, Adam, compared with us. I said, do you know what a hippopotamus is? Yes. Give me a better name.

I'll wait. He was able to give names to all the different animals that are continued to this day. But I have always thought that the lamb would, the divine persons are listening as they see this animal, whether it came first or fourth, as this animal came.

And the first words I would like to think that were ever uttered in earth was lamb. It suits my understanding. Nice thought, brother.

Well, that language was one language until we come to Genesis 11, wasn't it? While you're speculating, Mr. Faising, I enjoy that. Would you allow me to say that God named the lamb? Yes. The lamb before the foundation of the world.

So he named them all. The first animal that was mentioned. Yeah, that's it.

Before the foundation of the world. It's interesting. All the animals that were slain at the altar, you've thought of them many times.

The heifer, the dove, the pigeon, whatever it is. But you can never call them the same as the lamb. Pigeon of God would be blasphemous.

And to speak of a heifer of God, you see, the lamb of God is a beautiful title that can be only used of him. That's right. Would you think that actually, I'm sorry, I'm not helping you going ahead to this wonderful section, but would you think that when he's naming them, that it's part of his responsibility to subdue, to bring this to its purpose? He looks at an animal and he says, God has brought this animal into existence for this purpose.

He has given it these particular qualities. His name for that animal reflects the animal's unique capabilities and unique place. So he is actually exercising headship by naming it.

This is its purpose and capability. And as somebody was saying, I've forgotten who it was now, just a few moments ago. It's another evidence against evolution in that he wasn't an inarticulate savage, as some people say the early man were, but he was able to articulate and use these wonderful terms and give them intelligence.

Maybe we should point out that it does not say that Adam was given dominion over Eve. We ought to be careful about that. You know, headship is not superiority and inferiority.

If it were, then 1 Corinthians 11 is not at all possible because God is the head of Christ. There's no inferiority there. So I think that comes out here, too.

It does, brother. They're literally saved. Yes.

And it's good in the headship of the church. It said, put all things under his feet. But in Ephesians, it doesn't mention the church.

The church is not put under his feet there. No. In Ephesians.

So you can see that headship federal one thing, but as his headship in relation to the church, the bride is not put under his feet in that respect. Jonathan, do you have any. Well, it's OK.

This deep sleep. Yes. He went into a deep sleep to get a bride.

I think maybe the words that are used at deep sleep is to convey that, isn't it? It's not death, but it's the nearest you can get to a deep sleep. And it links to the death of Christ. You've been to death.

Did Adam have a scar? No. See, the Lord Jesus has wounds. But this man, although his side was open and the rib was removed, yet I'm absolutely certain that when God closed it up, it was perfect.

That's what I'm saying. Yeah. That's what they're looking to do now in surgery.

Yeah. But the Lord will forever wear the wounds of Calvary. When the Lord restored the ear, I don't think there was any scar.

In fact, he created the ear. I don't think he had to lift the one that was on the ground. No, and this goes beyond all forms of human surgery in the end, because it would be perfect.

Correct. But it is interesting that it is Adam who now says, She shall be called. So just as he had intelligence to know the purpose and the capability of each animal, he recognizes with divinely given intelligence, this is woe man.

This is the completing of man. Yeah. So the Lord pronounced seven woes.

Now, I think we need to recognize in a society that's saying there really is no distinction apart from capability of childbearing. There's no distinction between male and female. This passage makes it very clear that woman is made for a sphere within the relationship.

Man was designed by God for a sphere outside the relationship. Each is their whole emotional, psychological, physical, mental capabilities are all in keeping with a different sphere that God has intended. Very good.

That suffix is interesting, isn't it? Ish. Ish. Yes.

Anisha. Because it speaks of a link with the man. It is inseparable.

And so the Christians, the disciples were first called Christians. Suffix is added. Christ and Christian.

Isha Nisha. It's the intimate relationship between Christ and his church. There's a figure.

Yes. And there are many names for man, but this is the one. This is the one.

And this is the institution of merit, right at the beginning. That male and female made he them. And this marriage is of the Lord to be designed that way.

And without getting into any other details, I would just say this, that while they march for marriages of the same kind, that's an absolutely sinful and an abomination in the sight of God. Right here he's designed something that portrays Christ and the church. Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.

And he never meant it to be other than one man, one woman. Husband and wife and joint. Cleave is cemented.

Yes. Interesting isn't it the term that's used? He brought her onto the bath. This woman had been made and then he brought her.

Now, when you go to Matthew's gospel, take onto thee. So you can see there's the public side to marriage that is so very important. This does away with lesbianism.

Yes, absolutely. All those vulnerable things that are in the world. Yes, indeed.

Wait a minute. Let's just follow up what you're saying. Yeah, please.

That we need to understand that marriage is not simply an agreement between two people. That's what I have in mind. That there is a public testimony of that.

And in our society, government has a responsibility for that. Yes. Every society has a different, many cultures have different way in which it's done.

But there is that definite evidence that two have come together in this way and have agreed to be husband and wife. That's the point you're making. And the Lord sanctified that by being at a wedding himself.

And he never was at a funeral. So actually, the Lord's presence there at that wedding actually gave approval to the public declaration of a man and a woman joined together so long as they both shall live. And isn't it? There was one name too, wasn't there? Genesis 5. Adam.

That's correct. It is interesting that the Lord's first miracle, the beginning of his public ministry in that sense, is associated with this that is so sacred to the heart of God. Why? It must be because this is God's purpose of the ages.

God has a bride for his son, which is what we have been working on. There really was no Adam and Eve in the garden. There weren't known as Adam and Eve in the garden.

People speak of Adam and Eve in the garden. As Brother Oliver has pointed out, it was just Adam in the garden. She was Adam too.

Mr. Govan, you told us in Charter Oak that it was Mr. and Mrs. Adam. That was it. He was right in his doctrine.

The all-absolute. He agreed with you. Isn't there another principle here? Not only have we the headship brought in of Adam to his wife and the picture of Christ in the church, but also the pattern in relation to, for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and they shall be one.

In other words, the setting up of another headship. Isn't that true in relationship? This is the idea. And it is the man's responsibility.

The man's responsibility to make this relationship a new, distinct, fulfilling relationship. So that we need to emphasize that while women have their responsibility to marriage unquestioned, the man has the primary responsibility for the relationship. Now, why does it say, therefore, shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife? Well, I thought the principle, brother, was it's the man emphasized because he's going to start up a new headship.

He's taking a woman and he's going to be head of his own house. Yes. When you leave that, you see, headship that he was under to take up another headship once he gets married.

Exactly. And what you're saying then is that when you take a woman, when a woman is married, she's leaving one sphere of subjection where she's subject to her parents. Yes.

And she's going into another sphere of subjection. Now, that's not nothing derogatory as it's been pointed out. But the man is going from a sphere of subjection to a place of headship now.

Yes. So that it's the man who leaves his father and mother. That's right.

From that. Correct. And of course, the beauty of that.

You're getting promotion when you get married. Promoted to a status, a spiritual standard. Yes, it is.

It is. That's that state of headship. You were going to say, Norman? I was going to say that the beauty of it is that the Lord Jesus does all the leaving and all the cleaving.

And you see that the picture is beautiful. I don't think we can get past Romans chapter 5, who is a type of him that is to come. He is the only man in the Old Testament who is actually said in the New Testament to be Tupac.

He's an actual type. But we're not putting that in by... You use the word very loosely, don't we, type? Far too much. A picture is better than a type, yes.

We're talking about subjection, Albert. But just to give the woman, that husband is supposed to love his wife as Christ loved the church. That is non-conditional, that John 3.16 love, does be a love that gives and asks nothing in return.

It's not hard to be subject to that. It's a command to the man, actually. That's right.

That's the command, and it's not hard for a woman to be subject to that. So this thing is true headship and subjection. But you understand that that love, your headship, brings you in a sphere of love, and a love that makes every sacrifice necessary in that relationship.

You see, what Brother Baker is saying about it being a command, it's not a matter of some young person coming and saying, well, I used to love her. I don't love her anymore. Wrong, dead wrong.

He's commanded to love her, and to love her with a love that is so great that it's like the love of Christ for the church. Let me go back to a statement our brother made earlier. From the woman's standpoint, she is in subjection, not initially to the man.

She recognizes this is a place given to me by God. She is subject to that place given to her by God, subject to the Lord, and therefore subject to her husband. That's from the woman's standpoint.

But let me say it from the man's standpoint, because what our brother and I have said has suggested this to me. That no man ought to expect his wife to be subject to him who has not given her every assurance that his only interest is her good, meaning he loves her. And the book that expresses that, that I'll go into, is the book of Osea.

What that man is asked to do to prove, just to illustrate God's love, is really beyond understanding. So there's a development of another 10 minutes. Yes, there's 10 minutes remaining.

It's an important subject for us. Pardon me trying to say this. It's important for us.

It's important for us. We'll struggle. We'll wait to see if we can answer the question.

Can I ask one question? Yes. This, verse 24, who said this? There were no other, there was no mother or father. Who said, who made this statement? I thought that was a divine command, brother.

From God, before there were even mothers and fathers. So, yes, I thought it was a divine statement that includes the, yeah. It's a principle and a pattern to be carried out and followed right through.

So you don't take it that the beginning of verse 23 goes on to verse 24 and Adam said. No, I, well, I thought, now, I mean, it couldn't be dogmatic on it, but I thought that it's reading, Adam said this is not one because she was taken out of a man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother.

It doesn't seem to me that those would be the words of Adam, but that rather God now is speaking. I don't doubt that at all, brother. It would be possible that Adam seeing God gave him such a place.

Yes. Would be possible that he could have grasped that too. No, I don't doubt that God.

Well, he mentioned this morning, brother Crawford mentioned the rube of length. Yes. I think that's what's in verse 25, the rube of length.

Yeah. They didn't see the nakedness because it wasn't there to their eyes. That's what I would say about that.

Actually, they didn't see it because their eyes could not see it. So there was glory there and beauty. And it wasn't until they sinned that they were ashamed.

That's Psalm 104, isn't it? That's Psalm 104. That's right. I'm looking at it this morning.

Yeah. Just so that people know that we didn't make that up. And I'll let there be light.

It's in Psalm 104. Does anyone have anything more to say on this? Would it be not a good thing, brother, if we just read those words? You'll go ahead and do them in Ephesians chapter 5. Would you like to do that? I just think they're so important. And also Titus 2, while you're looking it up, Titus 2 says that a woman should love her own husband.

Yes. Well, maybe we'll read chapter 5 and we'll read verse number 21. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God, wife, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church, and he is the savior of the body. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of the water by the word, that he may present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourish and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.

And then verse number 32, 31. This is the new belief. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and they too shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let every one of you, in particular, so love his wife, even as himself and a wife see that she reverence her husband. You see, in some sense, Adam says she's bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, which is a unique statement to Adam in terms of human husbands and wives.

But it points onward to something much greater that God has in mind, that there are those who will be one, one with Christ. What a tremendous truth. We'll be forever exploring the grace of God and enjoying that truth.

Now, let me bring that back to the practical. That's what God intends a marriage to be. A unity of heart and soul and mind of a man and a woman, so that there is that worked out practically, which reflects the absolute organic unity of believers with Christ.

Now, would you, brother, if I add to that, that redemption should bring us even into a higher understanding and appreciation of that very truth of Genesis chapter 2. There should be a divine beauty in marriage. There's something important here. It says one flesh.

And 1 Corinthians says one flesh. And that's true of every marriage, saved or unsaved, they become one flesh. That's important.

But then again, in 1 Corinthians 6, it says one spirit. Those that are joined to the Lord join one spirit. Now, what does that mean? That a marriage relationship is as long as the partner lives.

Partner dies, that's gone, broken. Bible's clear. Law of the husband, Romans 7. But the relationship with Christ is spirit, never broken.

That's what that's teaching. And so we're in a high relation. And that's why it says we glorify God in our body.

Because we see a future spirit is not there, but it says one spirit we're joined. And so that points to an eternal relationship that's never broken. And that's important to see that marriage.

Go ahead. Yeah, no, I was just going to add to that. Six times the term one flesh is used in the whole of the scripture.

And those two, of course, are very important ones that you've quoted. And it's important to see that that's what I take it that that's what God does. If that's more than just physical intimacy, that has to do with the divine.

That's why I think there's a divine statement in the Genesis passage, that the moment that he took her, she was brought and he took her. God said one flesh. And that's what happens the moment the two are brought.

God says one flesh. That's more than just a physical thing. It's a spiritual thing that God has recognized.

One spirit points out something else, that you are individually responsible with your relationship to the Lord. All right. And that you are responsible, not only individual, for a person being saved.

That's individual. Nobody gets saved as well. One flesh.

We both got saved together. Automatic. Oh, no, no, no.

See, there's a individual responsibility, individual link and eternally individually where this relationship breaks down at death and only at death. Alvin, could I write a little damage that I could hear? I spoke before Norm and he was going to say something over the floor. And he's been sitting quiet, open.

No, no, no, no. He knows me better than that. The time is up, but I'll let you say your statement.

I'm just going to say something very simple on Ephesians 5. Love is a genuine care for the well-being of the person loved. It's a genuine care for the best that can be there, isn't it? So this whole thing about romantic love in the world is a pretty shallow, sham thing. Because if there's a problem, I don't like to even bring this up because it's lowering the level of what our brethren have been saying.

But if there is trouble between a man and a wife, I'm going to put one word on it. Selfishness. And believe me, I'm not talking off the top of my head.

I'm talking from too much experience with so many troubled people. Selfishness. That's the story.

So if there was a true love as Christ loved the church and gave himself, it's the opposite. Then how could a wife ever not be glad to be subject to such a husband? Thank you. Thanks very much, Bob.