So, what if we did the same thing today – what if God inspired us today to tell of His power and authority against atheistic evolution? I use this term to note only an evolution which dispenses with God completely and not evolution as a whole which includes theism, etc… Or, perhaps, what if we told the tell that Science tells, but using mythological language? What would it look like?

via Genesis 1: Contra Darwin | Unsettled Christianity.

 

And James McGrath has a nice round up as he Explores the Matrix.

Creation and Inerrancy ‘Round the Blogosphere.

 

The story of Adam and Eve doesn’t make much sense if we think about it, and it’s not supposed to make sense. That is, like the story of Santa Claus bringing presents to children, the story of Adam and Eve breaks down upon closer inspection.

Like trying to both examine and pinpoint the location of an atom, discussing both the circumstances and the meaning of Adam and Eve’s story is therefore a doomed task.

This is all anyone needs to know, and all we can know: Adam and Eve (stand-ins for you and me) comprehend their mortality. That’s it. Nothing else to see here, folks, move along.

As you might imagine I have to disagree with Dave. The story of Adam and Eve can of course be read on a very surface level and in so doing provide some meaning and context within which the audience is to understand their world. But the story makes even more more sense when we think about it deeply.¹ So examining Gen. 2-3 is not a “doomed task,” rather it is a necessary one.²

I would also argue very strongly that it IS supposed to make sense. We have something that was written, leaving divine inspiration out of the discussion for now, by someone with intent and purpose. The author intended it to have meaning and to convey something to the audience. That is why it is necessary to take the time and effort to consider the story and what meaning and messages might well be in it. Furthermore, the very process of investigation is itself worthwhile and illuminating for the investigator, even if one fails completely to understand the story.

My previous posts make it obvious that I do believe there is a lot more to the story, especially within its canonical context, than simply the contemplation of mortality. There is, for example, the contemplation of morality (odd that only a “t” separates the two words). What does it mean to “know good and evil”? Robert Holmstedt had some great observations on that. Certainly Gen. 2-3 provides us some insight into the author’s view of God and humanity’s relationship to God, creation, and one another. And so on.

Dave’s site, iCyclist, is well worth visiting (as is his photography site). He is, so the site says, “Cycling through the meaning of life with the help of bikes and cameras.” I assume Dave takes pictures along the way as part of contemplating the meaning of life and a way to remember the journeys he has taken. I would suggest that considering the meaning of Genesis serves much the same purpose. These stories are snapshots full of detail and depth and by looking closely we realize there is so very much to see.

 

1. As an aside, that the story of Santa Claus does, in fact, also have deeper meaning, especially when one understands more of the historical background to St. Nicolas.
2. I should add that if Dave’s point is that trying to understand historical aspects of the story, e.g., where is the Garden located, etc. is doomed to failure, then yes, I would agree with that. But he suggests what the simple meaning of the text is and I too am arguing that there is meaning to the text.

… 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.

 

your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

So when she and the First Dude did partake, what happened? Sure enough, her eyes were opened and God would later comment to himself (the celestial court/flying spaghetti monster) that “the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” But in that moment in the narrative after they ate we find an echo of the serpent’s words, with a significant difference.

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.

My question to the class and to y’all is are we to understand the awareness of nakedness as being the equivalent of knowing good and evil? The structure of the narrative, echoing the serpents words and yet changing them, would seem to imply that. Does that mean being naked is evil?

I know that many scholars suggest that this is a story of sexual awakening (although when I went looking for references I could not find them, any suggestions for readings?), but I have always pushed back against that reading. It has always felt too anachronistic to me, as if an early 20th century psychologist with mommy issues were writing Genesis rather than an ancient Israelite. Now I am not so sure. My students asked a couple of simple questions that have me thinking again.

• How old were Adam and Eve when they were created?
  • The answer, as is so often the case in Genesis, is that we do not know. Yet when we consider the next question this becomes more interesting.
• Did they have sex before they ate of the fruit?
  • Again, the text is silent but remember that the command to “be fruitful and multiply” is NOT present in Gen. 2 rather it is in Gen. 1. Given that they seemed not simply to be unashamed of their nakedness (Gen. 2:25) but actually unaware that they were naked, it seems unlikely that they would have engaged in coitus.

I still do not think that this is a story about sexual awaking, but I wonder if that metaphor is being used to convey the impact of what happened. It is difficult if not impossible for us (and the author) to imagine what it might mean to suddenly know “good and evil” but we know (and as parents we have seen it happen in our children) the gradual revelation that Jenny is not like John. There is a change from the innocence, a term we often use in this context, of my son and the girl next door running around the yard and playing soccer to the awareness that the one may be attractive to the other. (I don’t think that this is all socially constructed either.)

So while I do not think that Gen. 3 is telling us that nakedness=evil I do think that the awareness of maturity, of Eve and Adam being different, symbolizes their awareness that there is now evil in the world. I suppose that much is obvious and I have taught that for years. But now I think there is much more to the notion that Adam and Eve were in a sexually innocent state before the fruit was et as well.

 

1. NB: It is simply a “fruit” of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not to be confused with an apple, pear, or pomegranate. I simply liked the alliteration of “pear.”

Twenty First Sunday after Pentecost
Proper 24
RCL

Jeremiah 31:27-34
Psalm 119:97-104
2 Timothy 3:14-4:5
Luke 18:1-8

The Justice of God

The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

A new covenant, God building up and planting Israel, people dying for their own sins, what a very odd passage this must sound to us today. The context lost to most, what we often miss is the realization that the prophet Jeremiah was declaring the salvation of the world. At the time he made this declaration Judah was besieged and Jeremiah himself had made it clear that Jerusalem would be destroyed because of the sins of the nation, because Israel had broken its covenant with God. And into this besieged city, full of famine and suffering, Jeremiah declares that God will not only bring punishment but after a time restoration and forgiveness of sins as well.

The nature of sin is something we do not consider very often from the pulpit but from time to time we need to reflect on just why it is that we must confess and receive forgiveness.

This semester I am teaching a 1-credit class on Genesis 1-3. Several folks here joined me a few weeks ago during our Forum between the services for a quick dip into the opening chapters of the Bible. I often challenge students asking them why it is that God bothered to put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden if Adam and Eve weren’t allowed to eat from it. The answer usually doesn’t take to long to uncover: if God had not provided an opportunity for them to disobey then they would also never fully understand what it means to love God, freely and fully.

There is a corresponding truth that takes longer to uncover. 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.

Jeremiah spoke to a people in complete despair as the watch and experienced suffering and death all around them and dared to say that it was God’s judgment for their rejection of him. They had worshipped other gods and had refused to obey the covenant, the special Law that he had given Israel and this was their punishment. But on that day of judgment God also declared that he would have mercy.

This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the LORD,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.

This is the new covenant we have in Christ. He came and died for the forgiveness of our sins. As Jesus showed in the parable we read this morning, when we appeal to God for his justice and mercy he will hear us. The only question that remains is

“When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

Amen.

 

Interestingly, there is increasing amounts of anthropological, archeological, linguistic, and even Scriptural evidence as well that mankind did originate from Africa, migrating northwest to the Middle East. (For some incredible compilations of research on this topic, check out the blog Just Genesis, and specifically posts like this one.) And when they did, they brought their culture, language, and stories with them

Stories, including those of creation.

 

Bizarro by Piraro

In my class on Gen. 1-3 we still haven’t gotten to verse 27, but we have had an interesting exchange regarding how God created things. This is a very general and intro class but there is one undergraduate who is in his 3rd semester of biblical Hebrew and made an interesting argument: God did not create by decree since the verb עשה is used repeatedly and this verb, meaning “to make,” carries with it the implication that God was using something in his making. This is in opposition to the notion that God simply said “let there be” and it was so. For example, ‏ וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָרָקִיעַfrom Gen. 1:7.

I do not know whether this argument is original to my student (I would doubt it, he is only a sophomore after all and just started studying Hebrew) but I had not come across it before. I know there is a whole debate about whether or not God created the cosmos ex nihilo, a debate that Chris Heard and I engaged in a few years ago, but this is a little different. Still, I am not persuaded, for exactly the reasons the student put forward.

Gen. 1:7 follows, of course, 1.6 and that verse begins, ‏וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם. In fact, this pattern is found throughout Gen. 1. The creative action begins with the statement “And God said, ‘Let there be…’.” This phrase is often (but not always!)  followed with the statement ‏ וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים((See, for a nice example, all of Day Three Gen. 1:9-13 where the phrase does not occur at all. Interestingly יהי does not appear there either.)) So I read this use of עשה as describing the action that went before (God creating through the  jussive, as it were)¹ rather than being the actual act of God’s creating.

I also think the fact that in Gen. 1:26 we have God saying, ‏נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ and the verb ברא used in 1:27 is relevant. Exactly how it is relevant I have not decided yet. Does it indicate God being more active in the creation of humanity? (Perhaps Gen. 1 and 2 are not so different after all in that respect?) Is עשה used because we now have the plural? I am not sure, but I do think it is significant.

I am sure others have commented upon this already and written up thoroughly thoughtful and articulate (not to mention far more scholarly) treatments of the Hebrew text than I can offer here. But what do you all think of my reading? Obviously I think it far more likely than not, but I can be, and often have been, wrong.

 

1. In our exceptional case just mentioned, Gen. 1:9-13 we find the jussive form of the verbs for “gathering” and “sprouting.”

It is obvious that I meant in the first instance that Gen. 1 was written to tell us about God and that he is the sole creator of our existence. But when I have said that Gen. 1 tells us why were created, I did not really mean “God’s motivation is revealed to us” since, in fact, Genesis and the Bible never indicates why God created our reality. There may be hints here and there that no doubt systematic theologians will present as a fully formed theology, but the biblical text never gives it to us directly. Was God lonely, bored, did he need us? I think our Jewish or Christian context (and perhaps Muslim as well) condition to immediately respond “no” to any of those suggestions, but what was God’s motivation? I am very curious as to what you think so please leave a comment.

by Margaret Shulock of Six Chix