Targuman Rotating Header Image

Genesis

“They saw that they were naked” and sexy?

http://bizarrocomic.blogspot.com/Two-thirds of the way through the semester in my course on Gen. 1-3 and we finally have gotten to that moment when the fruit has been eaten. Yesterday we discussed exactly what happens when Eve and Adam “who was with her” ate of that pesky pear.1 You recall that the serpent told Eve that when she ate of it

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.” []

The origins of mercy & God’s justice

Wall Street CrossThis morning was a short homily due to other items in the service. As you may be able to guess Gen. 1-3 has been on my mind lately so I took a bit of a liberty to bring it in to the lectionary for today. If you are patient you will find I offer an interesting take on the origin of sin and mercy.

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. (more…)

 

New (to me) Blog: The Welcome Matt

I have not had a lot of time to read or write blog posts, but Matt linked to a Genesis comment and shared and thus I became aware of his very interesting blog The Welcome Matt. It looks like it will be well worth reading. A sample on Genesis 2 and where humanity came from (particularly relevant to me since we just got to Gen. 2.4, five weeks into the semester).

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.

 

Did God “let it be” or did he “make it so”?

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.” []

Why did God create the world?

Just a simple, quick question, right? I am teaching Gen. 1-3 this semester, just a 1-credit course, but needless to say full of discussion. (I have not even gotten to Day 6 yet and we are five weeks in.) During our discussion a few weeks ago the question of why God made the world came up. Now I often say that Gen. 1 is not a guide on how to create your own cosmos, but that it was written to tell us who created the world and why. I realize now that I have been very loose in my language.

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