Role Reversal and God’s Plan: Genesis 25:21-28

It’s been a while since I have done an exegesis entry. A lot of that is because I have been busy with other professional things and so I am happy to be back with an exegesis entry. I realized when I was trying to figure out which part of scripture I wanted to do today that I had been too far ahead in the Sundays for this section of ordinary time in the book Women’s Lectionary.  Because I no longer know where I am in the calendar, what I’ve decided to do is just go entry by entry so Sunday by Sunday from where I left off. Furthermore, I’m planning to only do the Hebrew Bible passages from each Sunday because I think I’ll get more entries out. After all, I only will have one portion of scripture to work with instead of two.

With all that out of the way of my plan, the scripture that I have for today is Genesis 25:21-28.  It is the story of Isaac and Rebekah, specifically the birth of their children Esau and Jacob. I want to forewarn you that this passage talks very briefly but it does talk about pain and fear during pregnancy and so if that’s going to be harmful at this point I suggest skipping this exegesis entry and coming back to it when it will not be detrimental to engage with that discussion.

 Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife…

-Genesis 25:21

When this passage begins Rebekah has been infertile for 20 years. She and Isaac have not conceived children in their 20 years of marriage thus far due to this predicament Isaac praises the Lord for Rebekah to have children.  It is a similar situation to that of Sarah and Abraham however Rebekah and Isaac in the passage perform almost the reverse actions than what Sarah and Abraham did. For example, Sarah was the one asking for children and Abraham talks directly to God whereas, in Isaac and Rebekah’s case, Isaac is the one that is praying for children but Rebekah talks directly to God. They are a couple demonstrating different roles or at least roles playing roles that are not considered the norm based on their genders and based on their relationship to each other in the marriage. 

In many ways, Rebekah is an active participant in influencing the next generation of Abraham’s people and followers of God. She will do even more as a leader after this passage when she takes an interest in Jacob and then helps Jacob attain the birthright, more so steals it, from Esau to give to Jacob according to the Women’s Lectionary. 

  What I think this aspect of the story can show us is that God states that something will occur but does not necessarily promise that it’s going to happen the way that the characters expect.  God will operate to fulfill the promise and the way God sees fit, not around the expectations and Norms that humans hold for how Society works.  Rebekah can just as much talk to God to gain the assurance she needs and Isaac can take a more passive role as the one praying to God but not directly talking to God. According to the Womanist Midrash, Rebekah is not an active participant until she asks for a prophecy from God. The Womanist Midrash is making the argument that Rebekah is more passive in this section in that we don’t know much about what Rebekah is thinking regarding conceiving children. She does not have a voice in that process. She does not pray to God or does not mention at least in the text that she is praying to God for children as well as Isaac. While I agree that for this passage Rebekah, in the beginning, does not have a voice, Rebekah then has so much of a voice that she is the one that receives the prophecy of God. The prophecy is a source of power for Rebekah as knowledge about who is to be the true leader of her children. Even though it has to come to that point, Rebekah calling out to God is a catalyst for far more participation and activity from Rebekah than what is shown in Sarah’s example as a matriarch of this family.

“If it is to be this way, why do I live?”

-Genesis 25:22

Rebekah’s call out to God is what really struck me in this passage and also is not clear as to what Rebekah meant by that it even states in the Bible itself there’s a footnote that states Hebrew uncertain.  The Women’s Lectionary offers that Rebekah could be afraid for her life or just want the discomfort of carrying her or being pregnant to end.  I find that very plausible but I do think that the explanation undercuts the importance of that verse in the story because that is the Catalyst of the importance of the severity of the gravitas that this pregnancy is about to bring forth in creating Nations.  The Womanist Midrash states Rebekah’s cry could be in fear of losing one of the twins due to their fighting in the womb.  once again I could see that making sense though I’m not sure if at the time Midwifery or healthcare for pregnant people would have been to the point of knowing that she was carrying twins I am not sure if that would have been possible but I do think that explanation speaks to the Curious relationship Rebekah will have with her two children as is explain later on.

“…the elder shall serve the younger.”

-Genesis 25:23

God’s response to Rebekah’s question of why she lives, meaning either why she’s through this pain or why she is potentially carrying a pregnancy where one child won’t make it, God answers in a prophecy for two sons. These two children will not live as equals.  the older child will serve the younger child and the Nations that come from them will do the same. 

According to the Womanist Midrash, Rebekah gives birth to the first set of twins in the Bible.  

These two sons are Esau and Jacob. Esau arrives into the world first covered in red and hairy.  He goes up to be great at game, a skilled Hunter man of the field, and a beloved Son of Isaac.

And in almost direct contrast Jacob also arrives into the world grasping Esau’s heel. Jacob grows up to be a man that prefers life in the tents, a quiet man and the beloved of Rebekah. 

At this point in the text, I question the prescriptiveness of these roles between the parents and the children.  It is unclear in the text whether Rebekah revealed to Isaac what God prophesied to her about their children.  in a way, the fact that  Isaac favors Esau in his relationship with the two sons to me demonstrates that  Rebekah did not tell Isaac about the prophecy because if she had I could only imagine Isaac would put more effort and more attention towards the child that’s about to be the stronger of the two and the one that’s to lead the sons and their peoples into the future.  maybe Isaac would give you some more attention because Rebekah did tell him and therefore he knew Jacob was going to be blessed more blessed of the two children potentially and so out of some sort of guilt is giving you More attention to Esau but due to the tradition at the time of the firstborn child having Birthright to all the parents own according to the Women’s Lectionary.  I interpret the text that Isaac does not know about the prophecy and is assuming that Esau is going to be the inheritor of what Isaac and Rebekah have. 

Photo by ROMAN ODINTSOV on Pexels.com

In a way, Rebekah’s favoritism towards Jacob is strangely motivated potentially.  would Rebekah have given as much attention to Jacob without the Prophecy from God? Would have she helped Jacob as she did in later passages to take the birthright from Esau by trickery and giving it to Jacob?  I’m not sure.  In some ways, these questions are answered in particular ways depending on how one interprets the first statement from Rebekah in this passage.  If Rebekah is concerned about both of her children making it out of birth this prophecy would be a way of reassuring Rebekah that both of her children are going to make it and not only make it but the youngest one of them will excel and be blessed. If she’s calling out to God because she’s nervous about her survival or her pain it could be a way of God saying that the child who will not be favored by her husband will be a source of power and influence that Rebekah can control.  And so it’s ensuring her well-being through her second son because he will be under her influence instead of her husband’s. That second explanation brings a cunning to the text that I don’t know is necessarily present in this passage in some ways and could be supported by later passages once the birthright is stolen from Esau but just this passage on its own I’m not sure if it upholds that type of cunning from Rebekah. However, I think there’s space for both interpretations to be possible. 

As in past stories about the family of Abraham, this passage is in many ways the origin story of the Edomites from Esau and the Israelites from Jacob.  It’s a way to explain the ranking that the two peoples have in their current society and the relationship that they have with each other. It’s based on the relationships of the founders. 

 I’m having a hard time thinking of an original or unique interpretation of the text or a takeaway from the text for people that live in the 21st century that I have not said for other  Hebrew Bible texts in the past weeks.   It is another example of God creating leaders creating people of influence or that will be influential in society from unlikely people.  Both Rebekah and Jacob are unlikely members of society at this time to have influence and to have power.  Rebekah is a wife of almost 20 years with no children and with an older husband and Jacob is a second-born son.  and yet they rise above their prescribed roles and go on to fulfill God’s plans for them.  So maybe the messages God creates change and blessing in the unlikeliest of places and therefore perhaps the systems in place that create those empower and those controlled as not systems of God but systems of man. Perhaps a wife can have just as much if not more power in a household as her husband and should.  Perhaps the brawny the most physically strong should not inherently be the leader. The people of God have shown that such assumptions are nothing in comparison to the Creator.

Incest and Disciples: Notes from the 12th Sunday of Ordinary Time

Hebrew  Bible Passage-Gen 19:30-38

30 Now Lot went up out of Zoar and settled in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar, so he lived in a cave with his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. 34 On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.” 35 So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger rose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son and named him Moab; he is the ancestor of the Moabites to this day. 38 The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi; he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day.

Throughout the passage, there are phrases used to talk about the sex that the daughters had with Lot without actually saying the term sex. One good example is describing the dog the firstborn describing their inability to have sex as a custom all over the Earth that they won’t get to have or such as to come into us after the manner of all the world which I think is notable because it’s couching the ability to procreate as a universal right or as a universal necessity or need.  Part of me wonders if it’s being described this way to justify what the sisters did or if it was only a way of saying sex without having to say sex.  it seems as if at all points throughout the text they’re trying to avoid naming what has occurred by making it a universal experience or calling it a universal experience. Even though the distinction is then made very clear in the way that the firstborn and younger daughters named the children from this act.  

The children are named for how they came to be.  there will be no question as to whom their father is and what their mothers did to bring them into existence.  I couldn’t think or find a good reason why to name the children as such.  why put such shame on your child or would it not be considered shameful in the time period to be known as a product of incest?  why place that shame on the sons when it was the actions of the daughters that are the point of shame? 

It also comes to question how this piece of the narrative relates to the rest of Genesis relates to the rest of the story of Abraham. A big theme in these parts of Genesis is the promise God made to Abram about having much land many descendants and many blessings.  the story of Lot’s daughters is one episode among many that “ can be read as linked episodes. They share important themes including a three-fold promise of land descendants and blessing announce at the beginning of the story of Abraham.” ( The Old Testament) Arguably, the acts of the firstborn and younger daughters are part of God’s blessing to Abraham. The children that come out of these relations go on to become the founders of nations,  fulfilling the many descendants aspect of God’s promise to Abraham.  Due to this could the promise of land descendants and blessing also work as a curse when talking about the situation of Lot’s daughters?  Were they compelled to continue their father’s line even if that meant doing it in this incestual way?  

It is argued that intrafamily sexual relations happened before Lot’s daughters did what they did.  specifically in Lots family enter family sexual relations are mentioned multiple times.  family members have sex and children with other family members for multiple Generations until prescribed otherwise. (the Womanist Midrash) Having sexual relations between family members was not something out of the ordinary in the literary context of the story.  Yet Lot’s daughters situation is unique because the story portrays what they did as averse or repulsive that has consequences for entire nations. Even with the context considered what Lot’s daughters did was still considered bad or repulsive something not to be proud of.  this repulsion can be seen and how the Moabites and ammonites are treated throughout the Bible.  for example, the relationships between Moab and Israel and Amon and Israel were often hostile or described as hostile. (Old Testament)  Saul and David defeat the Ammonites as well as take the capital of the Ammonite Nation.  Ehud defeated the Moabites and Jephthathah defeated the Ammonites also in the Hebrew Bible. 

Photo by Ku00e1ssia Melo on Pexels.com

New Testament-Acts 16:11-19

11 We therefore set sail from Troas and took a straight course to Samothrace, the following day to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city for some days. 13 On the Sabbath day we went outside the gate by the river, where we supposed[b] there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had gathered there. 14 A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. 15 When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.” And she prevailed upon us. 16 One day as we were going to the place of prayer, we met a female slave who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners a great deal of money by fortune-telling. 17 While she followed Paul and us, she would cry out, “These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you[c] the way of salvation.” 18 She kept doing this for many days. But Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour. 19 But when her owners saw their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the authorities.

Two narratives are discussed in this passage of Acts,  Lydia’s and the enslaved girl’s experiences. 

Lydia’s story is a conversion story. Paul and his followers are in Philippi as they make their way through the region to find new followers, build new churches, new congregations, Etc.  while in Philippi Paul and his followers were holding prayers and speaking events and Lydia is an audience member that has come to hear them speak.  the text makes it sound like she was already a believer in God and the big change was her acceptance of the teachings of Paul.  She so believed in the work that Paul and his people were doing that she had her whole family baptized into the church. Her story is about her offering to open her home to Paul and his followers and new congregants as a home base while operating in Philippi. 

Lydia is a unique character for the time because she was a woman described with significant power and means in imperial society. As described in Introducing the New Testament, “Lydia apparently was a wealthy woman, and she hosted Paul and his missionary team while they worked in the city.” (Introducing the New Testament) Her vocation is as a merchant in specifically purple cloth.  purple cloth at the time is a color that only the higher-ups of the Roman rulers can wear.  Lydia’s textiles and living are connected to the Roman rulers which makes her very powerful. furthermore, it is described in the narrative as her business she is the merchant that is doing the work of getting the cloth from buyer to seller it is not her husband, it is not her son, it is her. Lydia has the wealth Lydia has the power. 

She then uses that power for Paul and his work by opening up her home for them to live in while they are preaching and as a meeting place is what can be assumed from the text.  So what’s important about this piece of the passage is the conversion of people in multiple stations of society during Paul’s work.  Lydia had her whole family which usually included slaves as well to be baptized into the Community of Christ followers. 

A significant contrast is the story of an enslaved girl that Paul and his followers engage while teaching in Philippi. She was a slave used by her owners to do fortune-telling as a way of getting making them money.  The girl has a spirit of fortune-telling inside her that does the fortune-telling.

Where’s the Holy Spirit on Trinity Sunday?

Intro

Trinity Sunday is a Sunday set aside to celebrate and honor the Christian Theology of God as three in one. Trinity Sunday celebrates trinitarian theology,  the belief in a God made of three distinct persons of the same essence. These three persons are the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is a theological choice given great importance by many Christians including one of the lectionaries I use called The Women’s Lectionary. In the work, the author centers narratives and outlooks in the Bible about and from the women in the Bible. For Trinity Sunday, the author centered the Holy Spirit through the choice of scripture. The Holy Spirit is considered the feminine aspect of God detailed in the Bible.  

Scripture about the Holy Spirit for Trinity Sunday in The Women’s Lectionary demonstrates the limitations for women or for female leadership found in the conceptions of God as an entity. neither section really talked about the Trinity as a concept itself or why it should be used to understand the relationship between Jesus Christ God and the Holy Spirit.   it felt like a stretch to use these two passages to talk about Trinity Sunday because they really don’t talk about Trinity Sunday they just talk about the Holy Spirit and the characteristic of the Holy Spirit and so it’s not as helpful to understand that day and his relation to the Bible.  The Holy Spirit is described as feminine and used as an example of the feminine within God. It is a feminine characteristic. However, as demonstrated in the scripture this feminine characteristic is submissive and dependent upon the son and the father.  

 Holy Spirit as a Feminine participant

The Women’s Lectionary offers Genesis 1:1-2:4 and John 7:37-39 as the readings for Trinity Sunday. In these two passages, the Holy Spirit is mentioned. 

In Genesis 1:1-24 the Holy Spirit  “a wind from God swept over the face of the waters” that make up the deep, what was before creation. The term wind has also been translated as “the Spirit of God” as well hence its inclusion. 

In John 7:37-39, the Holy Spirit is “rivers of living water” which Jesus “said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive, for as yet there was no Spirit because Jesus was not yet glorified.” The Holy Spirit is an aspect of prophecy that has not happened yet and is dependent on the status of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is a benefit, for the followers of Jesus Christ. 

In the Womanist Midrash, “it’s subject in Genesis Ruah, Spirit…is feminine… the gendering of God’s spirit is feminine and calls for the feminine pronoun yet generations of translations have gone around this by religiously avoiding the pronoun altogether.” Because Ruah is feminine the pronoun for the spirit should be she and her. Part of the issue is that the author is stating that the spirit is not an object but a participant and therefore needs to have a pronoun to demonstrate them as an individual operating and doing things and have things being done to them in the world. 

The same text stated the Spirit of God who is also God at the dawn of creation flooded over the nest of her design as the most familiar expression of divinity created all. “The two in one are the first articulations of self-articulations of God in and the god of the scriptures.” However, I’m not sure if the text makes it out that the Holy Spirit is an active participant in what is happening and not something that God is commanding of others.

Photo by Maria Orlova on Pexels.com

Holy Spirit as Feminine Object

The distinction between the Holy Spirit as an active participant or object/entity that is commanded by others needs to be reconciled between the New Testament and Hebrew Bible scriptures. Is the Holy Spirit an active participant or an object moved by God? Even if the Holy Spirit is a participant they are not a participant with agency. God commands the holy spirit. It’s not a negotiated relationship. Especially when this text is in conversation with the New Testament text for Trinity Sunday in The Women’s Lectionary.  In many ways, the New Testament text explains the Holy Spirit as a thing an object a non-participating element that will be given to the people who are Jesus Christ believers.

Holy Spirit as Living Waters and the Holy Spirit as wind as other experiences characterized in other parts of the Bible are examples of the non-agency characterizing the Holy Spirit. The characterization of the spirit being Living Water seems to be more of a ingestion of the Holy Spirit which isn’t really seen in the other events regarding the holy spirit. There’s something about the Holy Spirit and the person becoming integrated or the Holy Spirit filling a particular thirst where the Holy Spirit was not so individualized in its experience and events. In both cases, particular and universal change the Holy Spirit is used by another to commit the acts. The Holy Spirit does not make the choice of action.    

Final Thoughts/Implications

Don’t get me wrong I do believe in the Holy Spirit. I have experienced times when the Holy Spirit has felt present and it’s usually moments of experiences or events aligning in such a way that it can’t be just uncanny.  There is a presence of a push from the energy that cannot be defined or seen based on scientific and objective measurement methods. In some ways, the Holy Spirit to me is a neutral power energy, Magic, that operates in the world that is mainly about pushing creation forward but not necessarily moral good. It’s Holy in its power not in its inherent nature. 

When I reread the Trinity section of my credo, statement of faith, I see the attempts I make to try and mold my beliefs to the orthodoxy of the Trinity. I try in multiple paragraphs to equalize the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to contrast filioque where God and Jesus Christ precede the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is an analogy to show the full power of God and the importance of divine relationships. I even critique the masculine nouns set up as divine through the Trinity. It’s painful to read myself defending and contorting myself into an aspect of Christian Theology that today I don’t find important and don’t really support. 

It’s not a theological concept I believe personally. Frankly, trinitarian belief is a balancing act of definitions and placements in a narrative that a contortionist could be proud of. To me, Jesus Christ, Son of God is not indicative of his divinity. Son of God/Son of Man was a title offered as a protest to the imperial powers of the writer’s context where the rulers would be given this type of title to denote divinity. To me it’s subversive, not to make Jesus an exception amongst people.  Jesus as a unique identity of God is not important to my experience as a Christian. The Trinity theology is only necessary if Jesus Christ is also God. Trinitarian theology is the way to make sense of God being in two places at once; on the cross and in heaven. In many ways, the Holy Spirit is not the reason for the development of Trinitarian Christianity. So why should the Holy Spirit be beholden to it?

Exegesis Entry: Gen 3:17-19-Dusty, Dusty Humans

I along with many Christians had ashes put on their foreheads to signify the beginning of Lent. In that process, the pastor makes the cross on your forehead with the ashes saying “from dust you came, and dust you shall return”. The cryptic, if not slightly rude, phrase comes from the book of Genesis in the Christian Bible. Below is the full pericope or segment.

Unto the man he[God] said “because you have listened to the voice of your wife have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you you shall not eat of it a curse to the ground because of you and toil you should eat of it all the days of your life thorns and thistles she’ll bring forth for you and you shall eat the plants of the field by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground for out of it you were taken your dust and to dust you shall return.”-Genesis 3:17-19 (NRSV)

This part of the text is a curse, maybe reconfiguration, that God places on Adam due to his actions. The full curse placed upon Adam specifically is about how the ground will have to be toiled and worked over to generate food and this will be difficult but it’s the only way to get food. In summary, Adam’s food will come from the ground and it will be hard to get it out of the ground. 

The severity of what occurred with the woman and Adam eating from the tree is further explained in the chapter. In verse 22 it is stated that the humans Adam and Eve are now “like us” as in like God and therefore know that they can eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal. They had gained a sense of understanding that they did not have before, a sense of how that was only exclusive to God and other divine beings. 

After, God clothes the man and the woman named Eve. And then makes them leave before they try to eat from the tree of life. This is the final part of God’s declaration for eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

Well, what is this story anyway?

This whole event regarding Adam and the woman is part of what is known as a Creation myth. According to the Queer Bible Commentary, the story of the Garden of Eden is a primordial creation myth to help explain how the world works and the identity of humanity within it. According to Coogan “it is a type of folklore to answer perennial questions such as why fear snakes? Why do snakes crawl on their bellies? Why do people wear clothes? Why are the Sexes attracted to each other? Why is life difficult and why is their death?”  The second Creation myth answers questions about why things are the way they are in the world. 

 However to complicate things the Garden of Eden story is only one of two creation myths in the book of Genesis. Before Adam and Eve eat from a tree another creation myth was told. The creation myths are very different from each other. In the first creation myth, according to Coogan “there’s no mention of the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life or the tree of knowledge, or Disobedience leading to Divine punishment for actions done by humans.”  In many ways, this is a completely separate creation story from what was first introduced with a different emphasis as well as aspects to it. 

What makes this particular pericope narratively significant to the narrative is that it closes the circle of Adam’s creation narrative. In Genesis 2:7, God formed humanity from the dust of the ground and breathed into humanity’s nostrils the breath of life turning the dust into a living being. As explained in the Global Bible Commentary, the link can be made between Adama, the term land in Biblical Hebrew, and the term for human being Adam, which demonstrates the connection between humanity and the earth. The term for man and the term for ground demonstrate the close connection between humanity and the earth. The ground and Humanity have intertwined destinies. Humanity was made of dust and it is shown Humanity will return to dust. Overall the pericope is narratively important to the book because it closes off the piece of the story where humanity was created and it shows the ending of this Saga and Adam and Eve’s next chapter.

Photo by Julia Volk on Pexels.com

Context of Creation 

There is not much known about the historical context in which Genesis was created or particularly whether these two creation stories are being formed or where they came from. Most likely the second creation story and probably the first as well were composed together around the first-millennium BCE during either the ancient Persian or Hellenistic periods in the Middle East which preceded and then succeeded Alexander the Great, according to the queer Bible commentary. The intended audience for the time is also unknown due to the significant amount of communities represented in either of the vast empires discussed.  According to the Queer Bible Commentary, the context of the author of Genesis is also unknown and this is also because of the diversity within second temple Judaism. There are multiple communities represented in the idea of second temple Judaism furthermore there are three different versions of this type of text there are three Masoretic recitations of it there’s also the Septuagint and the Samaritan versions of these stories and so this version of the second creation story is in good company.

Furthermore, Genesis was not the only account of its kind during its initial circulation due to the existence of the pseudepigraphy writings of the same period. According to Coogan “neither the questions implicitly asked in the second account of creation nor the language used for the answers to them are unique to the bible.” The Second creation myth is similar to stories during the same time period. Mainly Genesis is very similar to The Epic of Gilgamesh, from Mesopotamian mythology. The myth of Gilgamesh also focuses on death as well as including the character of a snake serpent and offering immortality through eating a specific plant.  To Coogan, there’s also a similar transformation in Gilgamesh jump-started when a character does something that they aren’t supposed to but in doing so they gain knowledge and wisdom that is represented by being clothed where they were once naked. These are motifs that can be found in multiple stories of creation during this cultural context.  Other stories were at play in the cultural context in which the creation story as we see in Genesis is being formed. It is not a unique story but one of many.

The who, when author, and audience are all unknowns when it comes to the second story of creation. Therefore, it can be hard to guess how this story informed its context and vice versa. Such little information left me with many questions.

So where to go from here?

First off, there is not one way to interpret the Second creation myth in Genesis. I will offer interpretations from multiple Christian viewpoints along with a Jewish viewpoint. There will also be intersectional interpretations as well by gender and race. 

To some interpreters of the Bible, Genesis 3:17-19 is the final curse that reshapes the relationship between God and Adam and the earth. It is also known as the Fall.  According to the Queer Bible Commentary, death is introduced to the world by Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.  Eating from the tree condemns humans to a life of struggle and pain through the curse placed by God after this incident. Furthermore, they are kicked out of Eden so that they could not eat from the Tree of Life and become fully immortal. They were kicked out of Eden and therefore death is now part of human life. The woman’s Bible  Commentary also stated Adam and the woman shared responsibility for altering their status by their consumption as well as blaming someone else for the actions that they took; Adam blamed the woman and then the woman blamed the serpent. For whatever reason, the declaration shows a point of separation between Adam and God, the separation between the Creator and the created.  Within the Christian Bible, this pericope is important because it is the final curse that remakes the trajectory of humanity away from god. Existing with God has been changed because humans ate from the Tree of knowledge when they were told not to. 

And yet, are there other alternatives in understanding what is happening in this pericope and how legitimate are those other interpretations of the text that don’t involve eating the tree of knowledge being a way that sin is created?  Would have Humanity returned to dust regardless of what happened with the tree of knowledge? Where does the connection to mortality, to death, come into play in this section of scripture? 

For many Christians, this is seen as the moment of the Fall, but for some Jewish Traditions, it is not. According to the Woman’s Bible Commentary, the knowledge imparted to Adam and the Woman from the tree of knowledge is described as marks of social life and culture, so good and evil knowing clothing and concealing gender roles, etc. According to the Queer Bible Commentary, Judaism recognizes it as a point where Humanity has changed. They feel that by eating from the Tree of good and evil, evils are brought about in human nature, and therefore that addition has now led to the existence of death but it is not a total separation or damnation from the Divine. Humans still need to find the good and make the Earth Heavenly but they’ll have to find that goodness within themselves as well as with it without themselves.

Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

The Womanist Midrash takes a very different angle. The interpreter calls the full declaration, after the revealing of eating from the tree, a reconfiguration and not a curse. The interpreter says the biblical Hebrew term interpreted as “cursed” can be better defined as a “reconfiguration” that God is doing to Humanity and the Earth. I don’t know enough of the language in the passage to think about how to consider how much of that type of interpretation can be given weight but is important in the conceptualization of the relationship determined by the declaration from God.

It’s also interesting in verse 15 of this chapter it says the Lord took the man and put them in the garden to till it and to keep it so what makes that interesting is that part of the Declaration from God is that Adam will have to farm the land to create the wheat to make food to feed themselves however that was already substantiated in the earlier part of the story of being to work the ground in Eden. So what is the distinction between tilling the ground and eating and farming the ground outside of Eden? Coogan explains that “God plants a garden in Eden in which the man works just as in Enuma Elish and other myths humans do the work that gods had formally done.” Adam is then left to do the tilling of the land in the way that God had done it before. So it could be argued there’s a distinction between what Adam was doing in substitution for God once God had created the plants and Eden to what Adam will have to do outside the Garden of Eden in regards to planting and growing for food. A word study could be done to further look at what words are used in those particular points if it’s the same word or if it’s a different word and what that entails in the choice of word. Is the word used in both pieces of the story the same word or if there’s a difference what does that indifference show in meaning?

Genesis 3:17-19 Can be interpreted in multiple ways. the Christian understanding of the Fall is not the only or even most supported interpretation of the text. other traditions,  specific aspects of both tradition communities find other messages and lessons in regard to the relationship between people and God. It may not be an entirely other fleshed-out interpretation as the fall is however there is evidence and reading that does not make it the assured way to understand the text. 

The Message

I’m having trouble conceptualizing what all this information leaves readers of this creation myth with in regard to lessons or messages about how to live in the world as a human. Clearly, it is not only a Humanity against God narrative where humanity is put in its place as an Earthly creation. There are issues of what the actual declaration means for man as Men in particular because that’s who this section of the Declaration is directed towards. It is not fully clear what the consequences of Adam and the woman eating from the Tree of Good and Evil are. Even the fairness of having a declaration or a change happen because of the action is not fully clear as Fair personally.  I think what can be said is the actions of humans of humanity can have significant consequences in a way that other beings that live on earth don’t. the choices of humanity such as the eating of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil changed the relationship between Creator and creation that has consequences throughout all of creation. what I think is also shown is that the relationship between Humanity and the Earth is completely intertwined. the relationship between Earth in some ways is more closely connected than even then even that of God and humanity. Humanity is of Earth. 

From all the reading and research it does not seem that Humanity would have always returned to dust regardless of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  there isn’t much in the text to show that eating from the tree took away some sort of immortality that Humanity had at the creation of humanity. neither of the curses or declarations or reconfigurations had anything to do with Humanity not going through death. they more were about suffering that is faced in life. Death was always going to be there because humanity is a mortal being.

I don’t think that then undermines the ritual of the ashes and the statement of the scripture however I think it takes away the shame that tends to be connected to this idea that Humanity dies and is different from God in that way. it is a humbling activity,  it is important for Humanity to remember that it is not an all-powerful aspect of the world because a person’s time on earth is finite. The Second Genesis creation myth demonstrates the power of humanity on Earth but also the limitations of humanity on Earth. 

Resources Mentioned

Coogan, Michael David, and Cynthia R. Chapman. The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. Oxford University Press, 2018. 

Gafney, Wilda. Womanist Midrash: A Reintroduction to the Women of the Torah and the Throne. Westminster John Knox Press, 2017. 

​​Lapsey, Jacqueline E., et al. Women’s Bible Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press, 2012. 

Patte, Daniel. Global Bible Commentary. Abingdon, 2006. West, Mona, and Robert Goss. Queer Bible Commentary. SCM Press, 2022.

Choosing Sword over Peace?

As a woman who finds family ties my strongest relationships it’s difficult for me to consider denying my family for a religion. To even write that brings to my mind ideas of impressionable young people running away from home and joining a cult. What to remember about Christianity is that it is a religion about community and society. It is about doing well together. Due to the community focus, the message of familial conflict and strife can be jarring. However, to understand Jesus Christ’s message to his disciples this way is to disregard the full context in which the message is given. 

The first part of the passage is finishing off the last argument and leads to the next. First Jesus Christ argues that the body and soul are separate entities where the body is less important, at least the suffering it experiences, than the suffering of the soul. Though the body will suffer as long as the soul remains intact the Disciple should have no fear. Furthermore, through a metaphor of how sparrows which are valued so little by humanity are kept safe in the air by God, so will God will be even more attentive to the lives of people. 

The value of people by God is broadened to a larger argument with entailments for the community. The Christian community that acknowledges Jesus’s teachings will be acknowledged by God and those who don’t will be denied. (Mat. 10:32-33) The message of Jesus Christ is dangerous, and it may seem better to deny it, to protect earthly life, but that will have consequences later. 

Specific examples of relationships that cannot be put above the relationship with Jesus Christ (Mat. 10:34-39). Jesus Christ came to promote his teachings and his teachings from God. This takes precedence over the household and familial relationships. And when stated in a society where the main security net is one’s family to deny those relations would make one significantly vulnerable in the community. The final verse transitions into the next argument of Jesus Christ’s message using a similar sentence structure. 

This passage teaches that God puts human life above the rest of Creation (v. 31) and that God will protect those that bring Jesus Christ’s message to the world and will be held in high regard by Christ and therefore God (v. 32 and 39). The church is to be a discordant entity in the communities in which they reside to grow closer to the Body of Christ. Jesus’s call to bring a sword and not peace resides in a longer narrative of what the disciples were commissioned to do. 

This teaching directly to the 12 disciples is also a larger call to those in mission and discipleship. The call is both warning and reassurance regarding Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Jesus Christ and his message are not coming to communities to uphold current power structures but to critique and deconstruct them through conflict. This conflict will bring life in the destruction, but it will be a life closer spiritually and less connected to earthly needs. Jesus asked for total buy-in from the Disciples to his message and teachings therefore Jesus Christ expects the same from those that say they are Christ followers today. Relationships, structures to keep order and earthly worries will not be above Jesus Christ and following Jesus Christ. And if one does that, they will lose favor with God.  

The message of Jesus Christ will bring life, but will not be through the earthly processes. God can overcome earthly death and therefore there is no reason to fear its loss. The section is an example of the Teaching of Jesus Christ. Discipleship is also a key theme and the message is alluding to what is expected from the disciples as they go out. What you learn about Discipleship is that it is not a path to lessen conflict but to incite transformation and change that brings chaos to the status quo. It’s highlighted here to make clear what is expected of the disciples of Jesus Christ.