Targuman Rotating Header Image

Criticism

Genesis of Evil

My prior post about Gen. 3 and how (and why) Eve and Adam realize that they are naked has generated a lot of excellent comments. Please do be sure to read them all. A number of comments are addressing the origin of evil and I wanted to remind folks of my earlier post from two weeks ago on this topic. I realize that my somewhat unorthodox reading may have been lost within the post since it is a sermon (short homily really) so I have re-presenting the cogent bits here.

… In presenting Adam and Eve with the opportunity to demonstrate their love and obedience to him, God also created the opportunity for sin. Sin did not exist in the Garden prior to this moment but the potential did.

Gen. 3.1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?”  2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden;  3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’”  4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die;  5 for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.  7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

We all know the story well, but consider two key points: the serpent does not (strictly speaking) lie and yet God seems to do so. The serpent craftily uses words to persuade Eve (and Adam “who was with her”) that when God said that they would die in the day that they ate the fruit that they would not, but rather they would “be like God, knowing good and evil.” After God discovers their transgression and curses the serpent, the woman, and the man, notice what he says.

Gen. 3.22 Then the LORD God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—  23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

God confirms what the serpent said, they have indeed become like God, knowing good and evil,” but the man and the woman don’t die on that day! Clearly God is a liar!

Now many will justify God saying, “They do die ‘in that day’ because they may no longer eat of the tree of life and live forever.” But I think this misses the real point, the momentous event that occurred. In the moment that Eve and Adam ate of that fruit the potential for disobedience became the reality of sin. And in response the justice of God was meted out and so too was his mercy.

Just as the actions of the man and the woman brought about the reality of suffering and death into the world it also brought about God’s mercy and grace. So long as they were obedient, they could do anything in the Garden they liked! just not eat of that one tree, so long as they were obedient, God did not need to show mercy and grace. When tested we humans succumbed to temptation and when tested God responded with mercy.

 

Tea is to coffee…

Steeping

As smoking a pipe is to cigarettes.

One is a pleasant diversion, the other a horrible addiction.

 

“Perhaps this generation of teenagers will pull away from religion for good.”

That is the concluding line from this oped by Bonnie Erbe. I suspect she is enjoying a double entendre here as her article makes it clear that she finds religion useless at best and narcissistic at worst. She is reviewing the already-well-commented-upon Almost Christianity by Kenda Creasy Dean. I have not read the book and only skimmed the reviews, but what I noticed about Erbe’s piece is how she is able to devolve religion into a thoroughly individualistic experience.

From where I sit, all religions are “mutant” in some way, shape or form in that people use religion to satisfy their personal needs. Since just about every person puts his or her individual take on God, then it follows that every person’s version of Christianity or Catholicism or Islam, Judaism and Buddhism is slightly different from everyone else’s.

…I bow to [Dean's] expertise as a minister and to Princeton Theological Seminary, but a lifetime of experience has proven to me that there is no one view of any theology

What Erbe should realize while prostrate before Dean and PTS is that variance and dissent within an order does not mean the absence of order. That is to say (and this is commonplace to most readers of this blog), there can be much debate and even division within a Calvinist community while they still adhere to a core theology. Our good friend Jim would call this dilettantism of the worst sort.

So while Erbe hopes that our successors will “pull away from religion for good” she offers us instead psychotherapy. Good luck with that.

 

So very wrong: Jesus & Jacko

I stumbled across this today. I have no idea of its origins, clearly dating to the time of Michael Jackson’s death; it is wrong on so many levels. But friends, tell me this, what will future art historians, scholars of religion, and archaeologists make of this in 1,000 years?

(And it is not just the glove, did we need to see a Jesus with that much chest hair?)

 

Liberal, minimalist, intellectually discursive John Hobbins

OK, he is not a liberal or a minimalist, but he certainly engages in appropriate intellectual discourse. This is the silly season for me, on the road presenting the college to prospective students and donors alike, so I do not get to read blogs or update my own very often. But there are moments like now where I am holed up in the corner of some Panera, in the corner of some town with a bit of time to my own.

My only goal in this post was to remind folks that John has one of the best biblioblogs worth reading, Ancient Hebrew Poetry. A recent post on the “absurdity of minimalism” is a great example. Just a taste:

Viewed in this light [that if we applied the same standard to any other historical epochs or figures], minimalism is quite simply absurd. It is a debunking enterprise gone viral. In controlled quantities, like chemotherapy, minimalism has its uses. At high dosage levels, it becomes lethal, and does in the patient – the goal, no doubt, of some committed minimalists.

Well phrased! Read it all.

(And the jazz on the speakers is quite good this afternoon.)