Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-7 (NRSV) 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the
garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may
freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it
you shall die.” … 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.
Year A
First Sunday of Lent
March 5, 2017
Cross~Wind
Title: God Outside the Garden
Introducing the passage
We find one of the biblical accounts
of the origin of humanity. It implies a breaking of the first and second
commandment, breaking the tenth commandment by a profound reflection on
coveting. The story is tragic. Humanity, although set in paradise, quickly
turns away from God, the source of life, and therefore begins to die. Humanity had
authentic and open relationships with God and with each other. Yet, in the
small act of eating forbidden fruit, humanity reveals its character. The
temptation is the dilemma of maturity, and the moment of enlightenment becomes
the moment of a sense of guilt and shame. The story connects sin and death. The
story assumes that life comes from God. Since sin is turning from God, sinners
separate themselves from the will of God and the source of their own lives.
Death is the nature of sin and its consequences. As important as the appearance
of the crafty snake is in this story, the focus is on human responsibility for
choices. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of all of us. We think of the
innocence and playfulness of children. Yet, at some point, we do something we
know transgresses limits set by parents. We have shame and guilt. We hope no
one discovers what we have done. The serpent asks the first question in the
Bible. He questioned divine authority. He questioned whether humanity would be obedient.
In wanting to be like God, humanity is denying recognition of its own limits.
The irony is that the destiny of humanity is toward fellowship with God. The
desire we have for the forbidden fruit means we think we have better knowledge
for what will promote life. The serpent brings into the light the inclination
to turn from will of God. The fact that they had to eat fruit to gain a certain
kind of knowledge means they did not have perfect knowledge. The serpent
suggests that they will find real life by transgressing the limits God set.
Once they do so, they have shame. They hide from God. They wrestle with guilt.
Disrupting the relation to God, humanity now experiences the sorrow of shame,
fear, and tension between the genders. The story is a powerful and graphic
example of temptation. We see a wonderful description of the process of sin,
having its origin in the breaking of the Ten Commandments, especially the tenth
commandment that one shall not covet. She “saw” and had “delight.” She then
“desired” wisdom that would come in disobedience to God. The story begins with
goodness and ends in the struggle with evil and death.
Introduction
Seen recently on a T-shirt worn by
a middle-aged man: "I am cleverly disguised as a grown up."
At one level, I envy that
sentiment. I was the oldest of five children in a home with an alcoholic
father. We did not have it as bad as I hear from many people, but one of the
effects was that I acted grown-up for as long as I can remember. I do not
remember having the carefree spirit that such a T-shirt suggests.
I want to introduce a study of gender
relationships in the UK. It suggests that men do not grow up until 43, while
women do so by 32. The typical woman believes men do not stop being childish.
Given the types of things men consider funny may suggest they are right.
Personally, I recall other guys finding flatulence, burping, and sounds with
the arm pit funny. I found myself embarrassed. Boys like to eat fast food until
late at night, video games, and retelling old jokes with their buddies. Most
women know what it is like to tell the man in their life to act his age. Men
are even likely to evaluate themselves as immature! At least, they are honest.[1]
If I could, I would offer a high-five
to the American men hearing this, for I am sure we are much more mature than
the Brits.
I did a little google search with
the phrase “men are immature.” 77 million hits! Women do not want to admit
their age, while men do not want to act their age. As long as you know that men
are like children, you know everything.
On the positive side, though, such
immaturity on the part of men can help them bond with children. One saying is
that “immature” is the word boring people use to describe people who are having
fun. In this whole matter of maturity, a side of me wants to remind us that
childlikeness in the sense of playfulness is a good quality to maintain. It can
help to keep relationships be fresh and fun. I suppose I am most like that with
Suzanne when I am in a setting where a song is playing to which we used to
dance. Yes, I will even pretend to sing and dance. I like it when I come across
a good joke and share it. I wish I could remember them.
Yet, we also need to admit that another
type of immaturity can be at work. Childish usually refers to selfishness. We are
thinking of what we want. We do not care what others want. We especially resist
the limits of those in authority. If we remain immature throughout our lives
and most of the time, we become a liability rather than an asset.
Application
If we think of the realm of
spiritual formation, we want to head toward maturity in the sense of moving
from our natural self-centeredness to a focus on genuine care for others. Paul
referred to a contrast between the spiritual who can handle solid food and the
infant who needs just milk (I Corinthians 3:1-2).
Maybe we need to look at the Garden
of Eden as a story of what it means to grow up. It presents us with the dilemma
contained in growing up.
For one thing, God tells the couple
not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for it would bring death.
The fall, as Lutheran theologian
Gerhard Forde puts it, is really a rise, one that repeats itself in every
sinner's heart. As Genesis describes it,
God created both Adam and Eve with limits. The limits become the focus of
rebellion. They wanted the freedom to set their own limits and define happiness
in their way. They wanted their destiny in their own hands. Little did they
know that turning away from the source of life meant their death.
Think of it. We see the rising tide
of rebellion in children. We tell our children to play in the yard. We set the
boundary. Yet, the child wants to move beyond the boundary. We want them to
obey and trust. They do not. Most likely, we did not obey our parents either. The
story of Adam and Eve is so powerful, in part, because we recognize ourselves
in it.
For a second thing, we learn the
first couple was naked and not ashamed.
Small children do not seem to mind
walking around in the buff, even if you have guests over to your home.
The serpent enters the story in the
form of a temptation to push beyond the limits. Children have that temptation
to take the limit set by the parent and push beyond. As soon as you say “Do not
go into that neighbor’s yard,” temptation arises to go into the yard. You say
do not smoke, but they want to do so. You say no to drugs, but they wonder what
it is like.
Once you taste of the tree
knowledge of good and evil, other knowledge comes with it, such as shame, fear,
and vulnerability. You cannot untaste the fruit.
The first couple had such an
unquestioning and untroubled relationship with God. It was gone. They now hide
in fear from the presence of God. When God asks Adam why he is hiding, he
replies that he was afraid because he was naked. God recognizes that Adam now
had knowledge he did not have before. Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the serpent.
The serpent blames no one. Everyone blames God.
For a third thing, let us reflect
upon unintended consequences.
The first couple did not intend to
cause themselves pain and death. However, unavoidable consequences come with
our actions. We also try to help our children understand consequences when it
comes to how we lead our lives. You will have to work for a living. Having
children of your own will change your life. As you age, you will have anxiety
about the choices you make. Some doors shut. We want them to understand that
life is not for the weak. They will need to be strong. They will need courage.
As the first parents go out of the
Garden, God made garments of skin, clothing that would cover them better than
the fig leaves they used. We try to equip our children for the new lives they
will live.
The story of the Garden is a story
of growing up in the world. Maturity means moving from innocence to knowledge.
We move from unquestioning accepting to wise evaluating. Yet, we also gain in
our worries, cares, responsibilities and troubles.
Maybe the lesson is that living as
an adult in this world is hard. We are naked and vulnerable. As the first
parents could not return to the Garden, we cannot return to the innocence of
childhood. We may even try holding on to our immaturity as long as we can for
that reason. We are holding onto what innocence we have left.
For a fourth thing, what will life
be like outside the Garden?
We will need to move past Genesis 2
& 3. We will read of the patriarchs, prophets, poets, priests who live with
the presence of God outside the Garden. God is present outside the Garden. The
God who made the Garden and the world loves us and is worthy of our trust as we
mature into adult life. At least, we have such testimony in the Bible.
"God is our refuge and strength, a
very present help in trouble" (v. 1).
"For I am convinced that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to
come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation,
will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord"
(Romans 8:38-39).
"Let us therefore approach the
throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to
help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16).
Conclusion
Even if we cultivate
our immaturity into mid-life, we have been around the block enough times to
know that life as an adult is not paradise. We know we need help because we are
all vulnerable. We need the clothing of divine grace to face the challenges of
this life.
We are
outside the Garden of our childhood. Yet, our help comes from the God who made
us and continues to be with us, whether within the innocence of childhood or
beyond it in our adult lives. This truth remains, whether we cleverly disguise
ourselves as grown-up or are actually well on the way toward maturity.
Going deeper
In
Genesis 2:4b-8, 15-18, 21-25, 3:1-13, 20-23, 4:1-10 we find the J account of
the origins of humanity. It implies a breaking of the first and second
commandment, breaks the tenth commandment by a profound reflection on coveting,
and breaks the sixth commandment. The Shechemite Twelve Commandments in
Deuteronomy 27:25-26 also call for rejection of murder. Humanity, although set
in paradise, quickly turns away from God, the source of life, and therefore
begins to die.
Genesis 2:15-17
15
The Lord God took the man
and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. [The human being
is brought to rest in the garden not for the human's sake but for the garden's:
"to till it and keep it" (v. 15). The Hebrew verb translated
"till" is 'avad, which means "to serve," and a closer
translation of "till" in this context might be "work" -- to
"work it and keep it." The original human condition, as Genesis
depicts it, was not one of idle leisure; agricultural labor -- tending and
preserving the garden that belongs to the deity -- was the reason humans were
created. In this, Genesis shares a fundamental notion with other stories of
creation, notably the Old Babylonian story of Atrahasis (17th century B.C.):
"Let the midwife create a human being, let man assume the drudgery of god."[2]
As the story unfolds, work, per se, is not the divine punishment; hard,
frustrated, unproductive work is. Barth asks what kind of place is it. Eden
means delight. Hence, the Garden of Eden was undoubtedly a kind of pleasure
garden. Humanity has no home. Humanity does not seek or find one. God prepares
the home for humanity, and in a special third act of human creation, he is brought
home, and all this in the course of human creation, which has not yet been
completed but is still on the way to completion. Where is this place? The biblical witness
speaks of a definite place on earth, and not of the idea of a perfect country
or Utopia. It is toward the East. It was a real place on earth, distant from
and unique to all other earthly places, yet belonging to the same plane. The
reason is that real humanity could be there on the real earth, and to this day
the known and accessible places on earth there was and is also that unknown and
inaccessible place, that in addition to his own place there is also that which
is lost to him, and that that place is his home. It was there that God
originally put humanity and has it rest when God had formed it. It was there
that humanity could and should live. What humanity was there is its reality as
the creature of God. The general nature of Paradise is that of a sanctuary. Not
humanity, but God, is the possessor and Lord of this Garden. Humanity finds
itself in a place appointed for this purpose by God and fenced off from the
other earthly places. God specially brings humanity here and gives it rest.
This fact indicates that the establishment of Paradise is a distinctive spatial
parallel to the institution of the Sabbath as a temporal sanctuary in the first
saga. The duty of humanity in this place is to cultivate and keep it. The text
emphatically describes Paradise as an orchard or sacred grove, and therefore
humanity’s life and function in it as that of a fruit gardener. All the
distinctive features of this place focus on the fact that it has itself a
center, a Holy of Holies. Among the many trees planted by God on the banks of
the one river there stand two special trees. It is with reference to them and
humanity that God allots humanity a place and gives it permission and
prohibition. These are the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil. A first point to notice is that humanity does not actually seem to
have needed the fruit of the first tree. Its presence means that God tells
humanity where it is, to whom the place belongs, and what it may expect and be.
It assures humanity of the benefit of life whose witness humanity is. For it
obviously does not mediate this benefit. It simply indicates and represents it.
The second tree in the midst of Paradise is not by name or nature the sign,
like the first, of a reality given to humanity by God, but the sign of a
possibility presented to humanity by God. To know good and evil, to be able to
distinguish and therefore judge between what ought to be and ought not to be,
between Yes and No, between salvation and perdition, between life and death, is
to be like God, to be oneself the Creator and Lord of the creature. The one who
can do this bears the supreme attribute and function of deity. We see here for
the first time how God stretches out the protecting hand of God over the
creature. God knows of a threat to its existence. God knows that we are dust.
God has not formed humanity to let it dissolve into dust again. God has not
given humanity a soul, a life, to take it from humanity again. God will keep
what God has created. This prohibition is the first powerful promise with which
God meets death. We cannot evade two other questions. The first concerns the
threat that is so ineluctable that God cannot arrest its fulfillment if
humanity eats of the fruit of this tree. Humanity is to know that its life
originates and consists in the fact that God has affirmed and therefore denied,
that God has chosen and therefore rejected, that God has willed one thing and
therefore not willed another. Human life is to be lived in such a way that face
to face with the second tree humanity takes its stand consciously on the ground
of this divine decision, that humanity accepts it as such, that it acknowledges
and praises God as the One who in the sovereignty of God has willed and done
this and not something else. This is what God wills with the existence of the
second tree. Its function is to summon humanity to life in this knowledge and
adoration. God ordains the life of humanity to be lived in fellowship with God,
that is, in the acknowledgement of the deity of God and therefore of the
judicial office of God in creation. However, everything obviously hinges upon
human recognition and acceptance of the judicial office of God. This raises the
critical question whether humanity will do so. The second question is why was
not this divinely given prohibition more effective? Why did it take the form of
a prohibition that humanity could transgress and make it ineffective? One could
relate this question to the grace of God. Why is the grace of God not so
powerful, so triumphant and so penetrating, as to make superfluous the special
sanctifying of Israel and therefore all injunctions and prohibitions? The
answer is that God would not take Israel seriously if God were to make it
easier than this, not giving it freedom in and with the revelation of the grace
of God, and not demanding free obedience of it. God does not will only to
triumph over and in Israel. God wills this in fellowship, in covenant with
Israel. This is why God gives it the Law, and demands its sanctification.[3]]
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may
freely eat [The Hebrew construction translated “eat freely” is the
infinitive absolute, often translated as “indeed + verb.” One might capture the
sense of the command somewhat colloquially as “Help yourself!” or “Eat up!”] of every tree of the garden; 17 but
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat of it you shall die.” [The
presence of two specified trees in the garden with a prohibition against eating
from only one suggests that the other, the tree of life, was freely available
to the human beings who availed themselves of it. By virtue of the tree’s
nourishment, the humans enjoyed immortality; they were not created immortal
(cf. 3:22 and the NRSV annotation there). The inner logic of the link between
sin and death presupposes that all life comes from God. Since sin is turning
from God, sinners separate themselves from the will of God and the source of
their own lives. Death is the nature of sin and its consequences.] Barth says
that to know good and evil is a terrible thing. What one knows is so doubtful.
The knowledge of good and evil refers to conscience. It represents the ability
to make judgments and decisions about what is right, appropriate, and pleasing
for one’s life and what is not. However, the story suggests that one exercises
this judgment entirely from one’s own wisdom and experience. Over against this
is the life of complete innocence and dependence upon the absolute command of
religion concerning what is good for one’s life. The author pits two ways of
life or viewpoints against each other. One is the wisdom embodied in the
cunning snake. Another way of life is that of religion represented by the
divine command. The temptation is the dilemma of maturity, and the moment of
enlightenment becomes the moment of a sense of guilt and shame. Humanity
becomes godlike in its freedom to choose its own destiny, a freedom taken by breaking
the bounds of the divine command. It is this freedom and this ability to make
choices for one’s life that is the heart and substance of wisdom. Moreover, the
command had to be stated in the most absolute terms, because it represents the
religious demand upon one’s life and thus provides the chase for the snake or
wisdom against its claims. The inner logic of the link between sin and death
presupposes that all life comes from God. Since sin is turning from God,
sinners separate themselves from the will of God and the source of their own
lives. Death is the nature of sin and its consequences.[4]
Genesis
3 is the J account of the Fall of humanity. It has a parallel in the Gilgamesh
Epic and the Tale of Adapa. Joseph Campbell said concerning myth, "A myth
is something that never was, but always is." The text seems to skip the "where do we
come from?" question and goes on to the "why do we behave differently
from all other creatures?" question.
Genesis
3:1-7
Now the serpent [The serpent is one of
the creatures of God.] was more crafty [Serpents
were regarded in the OT, in general, with a mixture of fear and loathing (and
for good reason, cf. Numbers 21:6); only rarely (as in the case of Moses’
bronze serpent, Numbers 21:9) were they esteemed. The image of serpents
persists throughout the OT as a symbol of danger and undesirability. Only in
later religious tradition does the serpent in this passage become identified
with Satan/the devil.] than any other
wild animal that the Lord God had
made. He said to the woman, [J wants to keep responsibility with human
choices.] “Did God say, ‘You shall not
eat from any tree in the garden’?” [The serpent says it knows the purposes
of God better than the believing obedience of the woman The prohibition of
eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil suggests, since Adam gives no
argument, that it must have been a necessary rule. The first question in the Bible is not about
trees, but about authority and obedience.
The woman expands upon the command of God. Upon eating of the tree, they do not receive
knowledge of good and evil, but rather knowledge of being naked. That perception led them to being
ashamed. Human beings are not divine,
but we are not like other animals. We
have tantalizing visions of what we might be, while our mortality torments us
with the truth of our simple mortality.] 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, [The
woman goes further than the command of God]
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, [(or “gods,”), which, in fact, is exactly
what the deity says has happened later in the story (v. 22). Pannenberg focuses
on the link between sin, finitude, and death in that sinners deny the finitude
of their own existence in trying to be as God. For this reason, they are riveted
to their finitude, and this takes place through death. The distinction between
finitude and death is one we can see here in the fact that the non-acceptance
by the sinner of finitude delivers them up to death.[5]
He says we are to seek the root of evil in revolt against the limit of
finitude, in the refusal to accept one’s own finitude, and in the related
illusion of being like God.[6]
Ironically, he says, human destiny is fellowship with God, and yet, for this
reason, it is a temptation for us. When humans snatch it as if it were prey,
whether by way of the religious cultus or be emancipation from all religious
ties, we miss it. We cannot achieve it by direct human action. The author’s
exquisite story-crafting is found not in reporting the out-and-out lie but in
preserving the ruinous half-truth.[7]
Pannenberg points out that Adam wants to be like God, while, in Christian
teaching, the Son distinguishes himself from the Father and submits to the will
of the Father.[8]] knowing good and evil.” [In verse 3-5, Pannenberg says the inner
logic of the link between sin and death presupposes that all life comes from
God. Since sin is turning from God, sinners separate themselves from the will
of God and the source of their own lives. Death is the nature of sin and its
consequences.[9] He also says that the desire that is oriented
to what is forbidden thinks it has a better knowledge of what will promote
life. It forces us to think that the command has a tendency that is inimical to
life, as though observing it would involve renouncing that which is part of
riches of life.[10] He also says that the
story links knowledge to eating the forbidden fruit, meaning that they did not
have perfect knowledge in paradise. Further, we read nothing concerning
original righteousness. The story of the first sin traces it to a lack of
affective agreement with the will of God. The serpent brings to light an
inclination to turn aside from the will of God.[11]]
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, [She does not subject herself to the Word of
God. God had already provided what was good. The serpent offers the possibility
of humanity going beyond the limits established by God. Once the serpent leads
the woman astray, she becomes an agent of temptation for the man.] who was with her, [The discussion
between the serpent and the woman (3:1-5) has had profound ramifications for
relations between the sexes for millennia. The woman may indeed have been
seduced by the serpent, but the presence of the Hebrew preposition immah —
“with her” — in 3:6 raises the very real possibility that the man was present
during the conversation and said nothing, hardly rendering him blameless.] and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of
both were opened, [Their eyes were “opened” to the disproportion between
their actual appearance and the magnitude of their pretension. They experiences
shame because of sin. They cannot remain hidden from God. They wrestle with
their guilt.] and they knew that they
were naked; [When they see their nakedness, their clothing becomes a symbol
that shame seek to conceal what one has done. Fear and shame are the result of
the Fall.] and they sewed fig leaves
together and made loincloths for themselves. [The narrator does not use
full-blown myth. Rather, he limits
himself to the disorders of present life--shame, fear, dissonance between the
sexes, ascribing them to human sin. All
sorrow, the author says, comes from sin, humanity's disrupted relation to
God.]
[We
have a graphic example of temptation in Genesis 3. Eve isolates herself from
Adam. While alone, the thought arises to do something God forbade, namely, eating
fruit from one particular tree. It bothers us that the command of God concerns
such an important think as fruit. Yet, often we reveal our character in small
events. An angry word, a selfish act, lustful meditations, inappropriate
consumption of food and expenditure of wealth, and so on, can reveal who we are
and what we value. In the small act of disobedience, Eve discovered who she
was. She wanted to lead her life independent of God. She also wanted to bring
Adam into her orbit. Then, they broke the familiar relationship they had with
God in Eden by hiding from God. The secretive nature of sinful behavior becomes
clear. Yet, even though Adam and Eve sinned together, the sin disrupts their
relationship with each other. The experience of authenticity they had in Eden
with God, with each other, and with nature, remains a hope, but is not human
life.]
The theme of the tree of life comes
from early belief in Mesopotamia.
Pannenberg says Chapters 3-4 are an
explanation, not of the origin of sin, but of the origin of death and of the
difficulty involved in work and reproduction. Sin explains these things. We
rightly doubt an account of a one for all event of a fall. He notes that sin
does not attain by one event its dominion over the human race. It does so in a
sequence that reaches a first climax with the murder of Abel by his brother
Cain. We ought not look upon Genesis 3 in isolation and derive from it the idea
of single fall. We are to look at the whole process whereby sin increases in
the race and God takes countermeasures against its aggression to preserve the
race from the ruinous consequences of its own acts. This approach is more in
keeping with the biblical text in these stories of the early days of human
history. Thus, the serpent is simply there, a creature that God has made, but
is also crafty. The serpent tempts the woman and denies what God said in terms
of dying. We see a wonderful description of the process of sin, having its
origin in the breaking of the Ten Commandments, especially the tenth commandment
that one shall not covet. She “saw” and had “delight.” She then “desired”
wisdom that would come in disobedience to God, so she took the fruit and gave
it to her husband.[12]
Pannenberg thinks that the desire oriented to what God forbids means that
humanity thinks it has a better knowledge that will promote life. We see the
root of evil in the revolt against the limited of finitude, in the refusal to
accept one’s own finitude, and in the related illusion of being like God.
Humanity has a destiny for fellowship with God, and yet, this destiny becomes
temptation, for it seeks to snatch it as if it were prey. They now become aware
of their nakedness, which brings shame, alienation, and separation. Now, they
must cover themselves. When they hear the Lord God walking in the garden, they
must hide from God as well, suggesting further alienation and separation. As
they address God, the man blames the woman, the woman blames the serpent, and
God holds them all accountable. The Lord God makes new garments for them and
banishes them from the garden. Humanity has turned away from God, the source of
its life, and therefore death is at work. The home God intended for humanity is
no more. Truly, humanity no longer has a home here, on this earth, tainted as
it is with the alienation of turning away from God.[13]
The
woman will experience pain in pregnancy, dominion by the man, and lack of
fulfillment. Work is not a curse from the Fall, for they were to till and keep
the garden. However, the failures and waste of time are the result of the Fall.
In the end, the creator of humanity becomes the one who preserves them, even in
their disobedience.
The story puts everything into human
terms. The serpent receives human qualities and Yahweh receives anthropomorphic
characteristics. Yahweh speaks as father
to child, evoking the childhood of humanity itself. The author expresses here the great spiritual
experience of the whole nation. The
focal-point of the narrative is the tree of knowledge, the full possession of
mental and physical powers which the serpent incorporates in 3:5.
Chapters 2-3 close in profound sadness. Beginning in goodness, it ends in the
struggle with evil and death. Note the
isolation of the Yahwist at this point, for prophets do not refer back to this
story.
[1] "Men grow
up at 43 -- 11 years later than women." The Telegraph, June 10, 2013,
telegraph.co.uk.
[2]
(Atrahasis, ll. 190-191 in Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology
of Akkadian Literature, 2nd ed. [Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1996], vol. 1, 167).
[3]
Church Dogmatics, Volume III.1
[41.3], 249-88.
[4]
Church Dogmatics IV.1 [59.2] 234.
[5]
Systematic Theology, Volume III,
560-61.
[6]
Systematic Theology, Volume II, 171.
[7]
Systematic Theology, Volume II, 230.
[8]
Systematic Theology, Volume I, 310.
[9]
Systematic Theology, Volume II, 266.
[10]
Systematic Theology, Volume II, 265.
[11]
Systematic Theology, Volume II, 213.
[12]
Systematic Theology, Volume II, 263.
[13]
Systematic Theology, Volume II, 171,
230.
No comments:
Post a Comment