Wednesday, 05 January 2011
-
Genesis 1-5
Chapter One
If you think about it, there is a lot of controversy over how our culture relates to what the Bible says, including such polarizing topics as abortion, homosexuality and the death penalty. But what hit me here is that you can't even make it through the first sentence of the Bible without a major controversy arising.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1
Already we have controversy about whether this statement is true or not, not to mention the controversy that surrounds the rest of the chapter:
should we should take it literally, figuratively, or throw it out all together? I don't want to begin a creation v. evolution debate, that's not my intention. For me, regardless of whether Genesis 1-3 is true in a literal 7-day, dust-from-the-earth, historically accurate sense or not, the fact is that God chose to communicate the beginning of the world and mankind to us in this narrative, and the truth is in who God is, who Man is, and how God relates to man and creation. The detail is incredible to me. How easy would it have been to say, "God created the heavens and the earth, and the sun and moon and stars, the animals, fish and birds, and all the plants. And finally humans, male and female, in his own image." Yet instead, creation is communicated in a detailed and beautiful poetic style (especially when you read the Hebrew). The amount of care this shows God taking over creation is incredible.
Other brief thoughts:
- God tells humans to have dominion over the earth (v. 28). What does it mean to exert dominion over the earth?
- Being created in the image of God=AMAZING. I shouldn't take that for granted.
- God gives mankind the plants as food, but makes no mention of animals.... (v. 29)
- The creation of the universe is explained in the context of the narrative's intended audience, using their"Three-Storied Universe" Cosmology, though we know this cosmology to be incorrect.
One of the first things that's hard not to notice is a second, and rather different, creation narrative in chapter 2. This makes sense in light of the Source Theory that they come from two different sources (more on this in the Intro to Genesis), but my question is why did the redactor leave both accounts separate?
I also wonder about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What was it about this tree that made God tell them not to eat it? What was it about knowing good and evil that was bad for mankind? In chapter 3 God makes it clear they could have eaten from the tree of life and lived forever, so the issue here isn't that they were going to physically die (3:22). Donald Miller in his book Searching for God Knows What proposes that knowing good and evil meant that they took the right to choose what is good and evil for themselves, not looking to God for that distinction, and that is what's at the heart of the fall: wanting to take God's position. What do you think the tree is all about?
Chapter 3This isn't really a new insight, but it really struck me in a different way reading this time. Satan hides the lie in truth. When Eve is tempted by the serpent (assuming that the serpent=Satan), he outright lies when he says "you will not surely die" (3:4), but the lie is incorporated with the truth that their eyes would be open, and they would know good and evil. It's so difficult to separate the lie from the truth in what Satan/the world/the flesh says.
What's the point of the nakedness? In verse 7 they know they are a naked, and they cover themselves. Again in verse 10, they hide from God because they were afraid, and they were afraid because they were naked. Why is realizing their nakedness such a key point in the fall? Is this pointing to their loss of innocence and naïveté? Or is this the introduction of shame into humanity?
Chapter 4What was it about Cain's gift that didn't please God as Abel's did? Neither God nor the narrator make an explicit point as to why God had no regard for Cain's offering. The closing thing to an explanation I see is that Cain brought "an offering," whereas Abel brought "of the firstborn." This is often the explanation given, that Cain didn't bring his first and best, but we don't see anywhere in the Bible God telling them to bring their first and best. It's possible God told them and it doesn't show up in the Bible, but regardless, what a sad way to begin the history of mankind.
On another note, where does Cain's wife come from??? (v.17)
Chapter 5Instead of skimming the genealogy, try doing the math. How many generations of descendants did Adam see? How long from Adam to the flood? Actually really interesting stuff!
What did you find interesting in this reading? What questions do you have? Did you receive any insight? What do you think about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the nakedness of Adam and Eve?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: adisciplelife
- Name: Karl Johnson
- Location: Sacramento, California, United States
- About Me: A graduate of Azusa Pacific University with degrees in Youth Ministry and Biblical studies, daily learning what it means to be follow Jesus. My main blog and home of the bible:365 project: adisciplelife.wordpress.com
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 21 Views: 0 6784 Comments: 0 67 View all posts by adisciplelife
Comments (10)
Your points are very insightful. It is so true that Satan hides the lie in truth and your explanation of how Adam and Eve "took the right to choose what is good and evil for themselves, not looking to God for that distinction". It is still a struggle of humans, Christians not excluded, today. I was fascinated by the diagram of the Three-Storied Universe - I am always interested in old maps, as they shed so much light on how people used to see and perceive things. One question that arose after reading your blog: Who wrote Genesis? When was it written?
@Sanura - Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible. The most probable time he would have done the writing would have been during the 40 year period of wandering in the desert.
Also, Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7 both stated that God did not create the earth like the Three-Storied Universe so I always wondered why they didn't see that earlier.
Before good and evil, only one alignment, that alignment is neutral. Innocent neutrality because there is no other alignment. In the eyes of God, the original mind of God, Neutral is Good, Neutral is natural. Once Adam and Eve ate that fruit, we humans are doomed to be obsessed with good and evil, capable of evil, capable of deluding ourselves into thinking that everything we do must be good while it may not be true. Each step humanity takes away from God, I see how He compromised for His love of mankind. At first, He was against Israel having a king, but He still allowed it, taking one step back but still demanded that the king be anointed through His authority. There are other examples as well. But since humans gain the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God began to sound different. He began to teach us dogmatic dualism, because we lost sight of original Neutrality, human nature and the fallen world we live in no longer favour those who live their lives with original Neutrality. I think there is nothing intrinsically wrong for being naked in the public. Clothes, to me, are only worn for practical reasons like keeping warm and protecting the furless skin, you know, from cuts, etc. In the beginning, God never said that humans MUST wear clothes. But His attitude towards this apparently changed after the Fall. Either it was only the Jews who were advocating those laws according to their own views, or God actually changed His views radically from being okay with humans walking around naked to not allowing humans to expose their genitals. Social norms and the legal system make nakedness illegal, but this doesn't mean that it is morally wrong or intrinsically evil to go naked. People are taught to be ashamed of their sexuality as well, and young people are mostly discouraged from sexual discussions; but I don't see anything evil about sex itself either. Sex is sacred, God intends it to be, and it is.
@Azn_Shenobi @Sanura- Thank you so much for your comments! Regarding the authorship of Genesis, Azn_Shenobi is correct that Genesis, along with the rest of the Pentateuch, has traditionally been attributed to Moses. However, since the early 19th century, scholars have pointed to a different method of authorship utilizing multiple sources. I wrote more in this in my Intro to Genesis for my blog. (You can check that out here: http://adisciplelife.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/bible365-intro-to-genesis/)
just a few thoughts...
- compared to other creation myths, there's nothing particularly unique when it comes to the elaborate language. i'd suggest reading a translation of the Enuma Elis. i read it in my Akkadian and Mesopotamian classes.
- the fact that God does not say humans can eat animals is often used as justification for veganism. and that, as part of the new covenant, God allowed humans to eat animals after the Flood.
- i don't know how familiar you are with the Documentary Hypothesis. but Genesis 1 is usually attributed to a "priestly" source. in comparison, Genesis 2 is a Jahwist source. that's why Genesis one uses God (translated from Elohim) and the other uses LORD (translated from YHWH). a simple reason that both were used is that both were considered valid. religious documents tend to care little for such things.
- i would argue that, if humankind had continued to allow God to make our decisions for us, we wouldn't have free will in the slightest.
- traditionally, the serpent was never identified as Satan in Jewish tradition. it's quite common in mythology to have a random character bring about change, without it being a major player in mythology as a whole.
I'm currently reading through the Bible, and I noticed that God gave Adam and Eve plants which had seeds in them as food. Other types of plants are not given for food until after the Flood. I wonder if seed bearing plants had some kind of nutrition that was needed then? I also believe that Genesis is an allegory. There wasn't an Adam and Eve per se--humanity was created by God, and humanity chose to disobey. There had to be other people on the Earth if Can obtained a wife. If Adam and Eve's children married each other, and then those children married, the human genome would eventually break down and mankind would end up sick. The same is likely true of the story of the Flood, too--you'd face the same problem with the breakdown of genetic material if the Earth was re-populated via incest. The truth that God is our Creator is affirmed, and the truth that sin can bring about the destruction of humanity are both presented in these stories. I'm sure you're aware that other religions have a Flood story in them as well.
All great questions -- my brain is pretty hopeless right now, but once the gears get greased with a few hours of sleep, I'm going to very sincerely consider them carefully. I don't know how important they are in the grand scheme of things... but shouldn't that be a question no Christian is afraid to ask?
Thanks for the post. Love it. :)
@Amythist_Malaise@xanga - Actually, if Adam's and Eve's genetic material was pure (no interbreeding between different races, which would have been impossible without separate races), there would have been no problem with their children intermarrying. There would have been no need for a proscription against interbreeding until there was more than one race of people -- as we see in Deuteronomy after the Tower of Babel and the devision of people groups.
I think the tree of life was simply God's way of giving us freedom of choice because He loves us enough to make us real people and not robots.
@GermanWrench@xanga - I believe the prohibition of intermarrying had more to do with protecting the religion of the Israelites. These days we are not allowed to marry close relatives because genes wear out if overused. So, I think the direct opposite of you. But, thanks for the insight. Oh, and one more thing--where did Cain find his wife? There had to be other people on the earth. This is why I see allegory in Genesis and don't read it literally until Abram.