Adult Study: Myths of Origins
Notes from Session 2 (Oct 27, 2009)
1. Theological Truth Revisited
I revisited the question of what constitutes “theological truth.” The Bible is made up of a series of books, each of which has an over-arching message. Those books are combined into a Hebrew canon and a Christian canon.
“Canon” comes from a Greek word meaning “cane” or “rule.” In its literary role, a canon is a “basic story line” or a “symbol pattern.” For the purposes of this class, the “basic story line” or “symbol pattern” of Scripture is what I mean when I say “truth” or “biblical truth.” It is the vision of God, the universe, and humankind that the Bible wants to convey to those who read and study it. It is the Bible’s truth.
For more about “canon,” click here.
2. The Seven Days of Creation Revisited
We revisited the 7 days of Creation in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3. Note, again, the sequence of creation: God creates, in this order: (1) Light (day and night); (2) a firmament (sky barrier); (3) dry land, seas, and vegetation; (4) the sun, moon, and stars; (5) sea creatures and birds; (6) land critters, animals and humankind – male and female; and, (7) the Sabbath.
We revisited the Hebrew poetic structure, used to provide emphasis:
(1) Days 1 and 4 are parallel. On day one God declares a distinction between day and night; on day four God creates the sun, moon, and stars to rule over the light and dark.
(Note that the Bible doesn’t say the sun causes light or the absence of sun causes the dark, only that the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night, which is also peopled with stars. This just occured to me: the Bible doesn’t assume a causal relationship between the sun and daylight. Rather, in the same way that God creates birds to put in the air and fish to put in the sea, so here God creates sun to put in the daylight sky and moon to put in the night sky. The sun, moon and stars populate the sky, but don’t cause light anymore than birds cause sky or animals cause land.)
(2) Days 2 and 5 are parallel. On day two God declares that a firmament (a sky barrier) shall separate the waters above the firmament from the waters below it. On day 5 God creates the sky creatures that will occupy the space between land and firmament (sky), and sea creatures that will occupy the waters below the firmament. This step presupposes the withdrawing of the water to reveal the land, which occurs next.
(3) Days 3 and 6 are parallel. On day three God declares that the waters under heaven, under the firmament, shall draw together and dry land shall appear; further that that dry land shall bring forth vegetation. On day six God creates the land critters and animals that will walk on that land, and creates (last of all) male and female human beings.
We also noted that the first 3 days of creation are creation by “fiat.” That is, by spoken command. On those three days all God has to do is say “let there be” and it happens; instantly, obediently. On the second 3 days of creation, however, God decides something needs to populate each of the realms created during the first 3 days, and sets to work making/creating suitable inhabitants for heaven (firmament), sky, water, and land. Clearly God is active in creation, choosing and fitting inhabitants for the world he has called out of nothing.
Seeing that it was all good, God rested, thus creating Sabbath and the time to reflect on God’s good creation – and our place in it.
3. The Second Account of Creation
Then we turned to Genesis 2:4, which begins a new, second account of creation with the words: “This is the history of the heavens when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…”
That phrase parallels Genesis 1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
In both cases, a similar phrase is used to introduce a creation story. But the stories don’t match up. The sequence of events is not the same. In this second account, God creates in this order:
(1) Before any plant of the field or animal for the ground, God creates humankind – but not male and female. As Phyllis Trible has pointed out (in the chapter I gave as reading, which has withstood 30 years of analysis and critique), the Hebrew word we translate as “man” or, more accurately, “humankind,” is best translated as “earth creature,” and in neuter form. That is, without any sexual characteristics. So first, according to this story, God creates a non-sexual earth creature “of the dust of the ground, and breathed into its nostrils the breath of life: and the creature became a living being [nepesh: soul].” (Gen 2:5, 7)
(2) Next, God creates a “garden,” which includes the trees of Life and Knowledge of Good and Evil, and God places this earth creature in the garden, “to tend and keep it.” (2: 8-9, 15-17)
(3) Seeing that the creature is lonely, God next creates all the birds of the air and animals of the land, hoping to create “a helper comparable to it.” But none of them sufficed. (Gen 2:18-20).
(4) Finally, God puts the earth creature into a deep sleep, and from it takes the raw material from which he creates “issa” (woman). And God brings her to “is” (man), and he recognizes her as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. (2:21-24).
This is how male and female, sexuality, and mutual passion enters the world. It is how love is created. Trible calls it “eros,” which is love, passion, and desire. Is and issa want to be together, want to be united, want to melt into each other and become “one flesh.”
So, from this Earth Creature created without sexuality, God creates male and female, and because they are “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” a man will “leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Thus, when a man and a woman find one another and cleave together, becoming “one flesh,” the earth creature of God’s garden is re-created and God’s plan is fulfilled – but this time the earth creature is a community of two-in-one. Loneliness has been abolished.
There’s a lot more to be said about what the language implies; some of it will come in later classes. For now, notice that the order of creation is very different: in the first story, humankind was created last of all, and in genders; in this second story a kind of proto-human was created before anything else, and without gender.
In the first story, God created the vegetation on the 3rd day, the sky and sea animals on the 2nd day, and the land animals on the 6th day, just before humankind. In the second story, the vegetation is created second, and the sky and land animals are created third. There is no mention of sea creatures.
Finally, in the second story God uses the neuter earth creature as raw material from which to fashion woman; what’s left over, after God has divided out what becomes woman, is man. From the one unsexed creature God makes female, and the “residue” is male. In the first story, God directly created “man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (1:27).
Also, notice that in this second account there is no reference to God creating in “days,” only in sequence. And if we try to impose a “day scheme” on this sequence we end up with only a 4-day creation.
These are different accounts of creation. How do we account for that?
4. Documentary Hypothesis: P and J
We discussed a portion of what’s known as the Documentary Hypothesis. The Documentary Hypothesis uses the tools of literary-critical analysis, specifically “higher criticism,” to determine who wrote a passage, when it was written, and where. Using comparative studies of language, sentence structure, typical words, and so forth, higher criticism has identified multiple strands of tradition interwoven to create the text we know as Genesis (as well as other Bible books).
Higher criticism reveals that the first account of Creation was produced by the Priestly (P) class that worked over the Hebrew Scriptures around 500 years before Christ. That’s after the Kingdom of David – once thought to be the Kingdom of God on earth – had been fully destroyed by outside forces. The primary concern of P was to supplement the old traditions with material that would emphasize the character of Israel as a religious community (rather than a nationality or ethnic group) distinct from all other peoples or nations.
The addition of the first creation story to the very beginning of Scripture served a couple purposes. First, it puts the emphasis on God’s creative act. It is as if to say: from the very beginning, everything has been ordained and created by God. So, despite the destruction and disarray that has come upon us, we can take comfort in the fact that God is with us from the beginning to the end, and we are to be God’s special people from beginning to end, whatever happens.
That’s why the first account runs the parallel structure between the first 3 days and the second 3. In ancient Hebrew literature, parallel structure underscores a point. In this case it is that God has decreed and fashioned everything, and nothing has ever, or can ever, come to be in the world without God’s express permission.
It is also why the first account includes the Sabbath. Sabbath observance was a central part of Jewish religious practice as it had developed by the time of the P writers, and they told the story of creation in a way that emphasized the centrality of Sabbath observance, by making it part of what God created at the very beginning.
Higher Criticism also reveals some characteristics about the second Creation story. First of all, we learn that it was the earlier story. It was written around 950 BC as part of the celebration of Israel when David became King and the Hebrews believed God had now established the long-promised Kingdom of Heaven on earth. It was a part of a national epic recounting the official version of Israel’s history from creation to the entry into Canaan, written when the Kingdom was at its zenith. It tells a story – a good one, with a moral – but it is not really focused on “right behavior” the way the Priestly story is. This strand of biblical material is called “J” because the writer used the term “Yahweh” (or “Jahveh” in German) to refer to God.
5. Other Conversations
Why the Earth was Barren We had a side discussion about Genesis 2:5.
Notice what the passage says about why the earth was barren before God began his creative activity: it was because (1) God had not made it rain on the earth; and, (2) there was no earth creature to “till” the ground. So the fertility of the earth depends upon two things: God’s rain and humankind’s tilling.
(1) Notice that even though God had not yet made it rain, there was water on the earth. Verse 2:6 mentions a “mist” that “went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground,” and yet the earth was barren because, verse 5 says, God had not yet caused rain to fall on the earth.
We are to learn that fertility – life - comes from God. This yet-to-fall rain is God’s water; it is the Waters of Life that can only come from God – who is Life. So until God makes rain to fall there is no life. By extension, when God withholds His water, life is not sustained. Think about this whenever you read about the granting or withholding of rain in the Bible, and especially when you read that Jesus calls himself the “waters of Life.” If we drink of him, he says, we shall never be thirsty.
(2) Notice, also, that the ground’s fertility depends upon the earth creature’s tilling action. The Hebrew word translated as “to till” means to nurture, care for, love – to “husband” the earth, as the farmer does: to coax, encourage, support, protect, and build up desired vegetation.
We are to understand that we are created for a purpose. God made us of the earth itself, so we have a kinship with the ground we nurture: we share its substance. But God breathed into us God’s own breath – the Breath of Life – so that we became living beings, or souls. We are animated earth, and we occupy a place between God and God’s creation. We are the bridge between God and Creation; we are positioned to convey God’s Spirit of Life into the dead soil by our tilling work. We are the instruments by which God nurtures the earth into the fruitfulness God means for it to have. By our Godly husbanding of creation, we lift it toward heaven. We ennoble God’s creation for God.
This imagery returns us to a discussion from the first session, where we discussed what it means to have “dominion” over the earth. To have dominion is not to “dominate,” we said. By God’s will we are husbands of the earth, not tyrants; nurturers and lovers, not oppressors and rapists. But also, we are not to be ruled by the earth; we are to be rulers over the earth and all that is in it, for by our wise action we divinize the world, imbuing it with God’s Spirit and making it more holy.
And we do that; we are not wholly destructive. But we nurture creation imperfectly. Our challenge is to learn how to be better husbands of the earth tomorrow than we are today. (Of course, the Bible is hinting that we must first know our place and purpose in God’s scheme before we can relate properly to God’s creation. To know how we are to relate to the world, we must learn to “think God’s thoughts after Him,” which is what Bible study is properly about.)
Implications of “cleaving together” We discussed the implications of the story’s account of God taking the non-sexual earth creature and separating it into female and male, then bringing them to one another so that they might recognize their mutuality and cleave to one another, becoming again one flesh.
The story says that God’s intended creature for the Garden of Eden is not male or female, but the united couple. The undifferentiated, lonely creature was separated into two so that the halves might find one another and become one flesh again, but this time in community; no longer lonely.
What, we asked, does that say about single men and women? Are they not God’s creation? We pondered the idea that they may not be the fullness of God’s intent for God’s creation, though they are certainly God’s created beings.
We also explored the Catholic notion of nuns and priests – single in the worldly and functional sense of the word, but united to Christ and the Church in spiritual union, and so spiritually fulfilling God’s intent, though perhaps not physically.
And what of homosexuals? Are two men or two women “joined together” also God’s intent for the Garden, or something else? We left that open, recognizing that homosexually-oriented men and women are also God’s created beings, but not sure how to relate that to the story’s focus on the joining of male and female to fulfill God’s intention for the Garden.
Thou Shalt Not Kill We had a discussion about the Seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:13).
Often the command is written “Thou shalt not kill.” However, the Hebrew word is “murder” (which some more recent translations use – such as the New King James version).
The word “murder” has a different connotation than the word “kill.” “Thous shalt not kill” suggests Divine opposition to any taking of life. However, to murder is to take a life unjustly, which begs an issue, doesn’t it? It suggests that there are some occasions when taking a life is justified. Indeed, if taking life is justified under some circumstances, it may be required under those circumstances if we are going to live up to the commandment, for if “thou shalt not take a life unjustly,” then “thou shalt take a life justly.”
Under what conditions is a life forfeit?
From a biblical perspective, all life belongs to God. And life is located in the blood. (This is why, when an orthodox Jewish person takes an animal’s life, the animal’s blood is poured onto an altar - the “life” of the animal is being returned to God.)
When a human takes another person’s life unjustly, he has stolen from God what belongs to God. That creates an imbalance in the cosmos. Balance is restored by the murder’s blood being returned to God. For the life unjustly taken is now in the “possession” of the killer/thief, and by returning the thief’s life to God, the stolen “property” is also returned.
This is an argument for capital punishment. But the Hebrews took it further. If you interfere with a person’s ability to make a livelihood, you are attempting murder. A person’s ability to work is her ability to feed herself and those who depend on her; when you unjustly slander, or take unfair advantage, or in any other way unjustly interfere with her work or ability to work, you are violating the commandment. If you slander, gossip about, or otherwise bad-mouth a person, destroying or damaging her reputation, you are also violating the commandment.
Also, we are not permitted to stand by while one person murders another. To do so is to participate in that unjust taking of life. And rabbinical teaching permits the taking of a murderer’s life in order to save the life of the innocent victim. Indeed, we must step in if we are to not be complicit.
Furthermore, we may not excuse ourselves on the grounds that by interfering we might cause our own death, and thereby be complicit in the unjust taking of our own life. No, it is fulfilling the commandment to lose my life in the act of saving yours. If I die saving you, I have righteously taken my own life, for I have prevented or attempted to prevent unjustified killing.
“Soldiers of the Cross” Jesus said he is the Way and the Life, and that no one goes to the Father except through him. That makes Jesus the doorway, the bridge between this world and the heavenly; between us and God.
But evil seeks to damage us and prevent our unification with God. (It’s not necessary to believe literally in a Devil or in actual demons to acknowledge that Evil is a power that infests our world and seeks to do us in.)
Jesus stood in the breach between us and evil. He stands between the innocent and whoever or whatever would do harm to the innocent. Now: we are disciples of Christ. That means we are under Jesus’ discipline. We are to walk in his footsteps, doing as he does.
Paul took this concept so far as to say he was a “slave of Christ.” (English Bibles usually translate the Greek word doulos as “servant,” but it means “slave.”) Paul’s perspective was that as a slave of Christ, he had no will of his own, but only the will of his master; he saw himself as an extension of Christ in the world, doing Christ’s will exclusively. (Or at least to the abs0lute best of his ability.)
So, if Christ stands between the innocent and the evil, must we not also? And if we do, will there not be occasions when we must do violence in protection of the innocent?
To be a “soldier of the Cross” is to uphold the side of God; to stand between the innocent and whatever would do them harm. It might lead to violence, which might lead to taking – or losing – a life. Our challenge, as always, is to know when we are doing God’s will. And that’s tricky.
It’s also complex. Not all Christians agree with that analysis. Some are prepared to stand in the breach, protecting the innocent and opposing evil, and are even willing to give their lives to do so. But they are not prepared to take life, as Jesus did not take life, but gave his own. (Think: Ghandi.)
The question we wrestle with is whether nonviolence in the face of violence – that is, allowing ourselves to be killed without trying to actively stop the killer – is a fulfillment or an abdication of the Seventh Commandment. By being passive, have we fulfilled Christ’s example, or have we become complicit in our own murder?
6. Handout
I provided an outline of the Phyllis Trible article, “A Love Story Gone Awry” (chapter 4 of God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. I’ll post it as a supplement to this post.)
If you were at the class please feel invited to add your perceptions and your insights, and even things you have thought about since . Given the way we bounced around, I’m not sure I have remembered everything we covered, or remembered what we did discuss completely correctly.
Also, please add your thoughts and insights, whether you were present or are following along online. And ask your questions. Good questions lead to additional exploration.
