I have come across a great new book: Genesis Interpretation A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, by Walter Brueggemann.  It was written 1982, but is very relevant for today - especially with the new frontiers opening in genetics.  In Brueggemann's view, Genesis 1 - 11 are a complete thought, so focusing exclusively on Genesis 2 and 3 misses the whole idea.  I am plodding my way through this book, just finishing up the Genesis 2:4b - 3:24 chapter (the chapters are long), so I can't comment on the results yet.

Some insights after reading the beginning of the book:

• the work (Gen. 1 - 11) is likely linked to the Royal Court - which sponsored scientific and philosophical investigations of life, perhaps commissioned during Solomon's reign.

• the work (Gen. 1 - 11) is neither mythological - confining meaning to the world of the gods, nor scientific - giving creation its own intrinsic meaning.

• Creator and creation have to do with each other decisively.   Neither can be understood apart from the other. 

• Creator/ Creation/ Create/ Creature - not equal to "cosmos" or "nature" rather "Creator creates creation"

I will write more on this later.

On Eden, God's plan and authority in: Heaven and Earth, Part V

In Genesis 2 (the Adam and Eve story) not Genesis 1 (the seven days of creation) evil is already in the world, in God's good creation, darkness lurks.  Despite this, God still has perfect communion with the humans (all 2 of them) in the garden.  here two people not encumbered by sin, free from idolizing, objectifying, hating or being jealous of each other.  God is their authority but, they hardly notice this authority - they are fine without extensive rules.

So a quick synopsis of authority (hierarchy):

1) Eden: no need for human authority or hierarchy

2) Post Fall: Individual Worship; Gender Hierarchy - Genesis 3:16b - "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Also, equal (preist-less) but individual (no special defining covenant*) worship of God - Man built altars or brought offerings to God and worshipped Him individually or as the head of the family (Gen. 4:3-4, 8:20, 13:18, Job 1:5 )

3)Mosaic Covenant: Community Worship; Spiritual Hierarchy - Priests are intercessors between covenant followers and God.  Priests were born into priestly families.

With Jesus' restoration:

4)New Covenant: Community Worship; Non-hierarchial - a royal priesthood, a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9 - hierarchies are gone, turned upside down (the last shall be first), no priestly human intercessor, no gender intercessor (Galatians 3: 28).

Are we supposed to have a hierarchical authority in the New Testament (someone who we have to go to, in order to "get to" God)?

First, God wants us to be a new "nation" or gathering of people who identify as believers.  He desired this when he called Abraham (Genesis 12:2) - that is why he called out a man who was already worshipping him.  Second, God wanted a more Eden-like relationship with us.  No more priests (Mosaic), holy places such as the inner temple (Mosaic), or sacrifices (Post Fall till Crucifixion).  Just us with Him (to work the world and bring in a human harvest).

So, what should New Covenant (Christian) authority look like? A gender hierarchy as the Post-Fall world followed with men as intercessors for their family (see Job)?  A priestly hierarchy as the Mosaic covenant followed with priests as born intercessors for their nation? or Edenic hierarchy with God as the authority and a kingdom that follows God, not based on any earthly measurement (gender, bloodline)?

Ah, but, some will argue, even in Eden Eve was made as a helper for Adam (Gen. 2: 23).  And, the conclusion follows, women are just helpers - dress it up how you want, they are perceived as "under" men's authority.  Even in Eden?  If so, how does the curse change anything then? ...and he will rule over you (Gen. 3: 16).  Sounds like a new situation between the genders, not the original idea of a helper.

A farmer without a wife will eventually be found wanting.  And a farmer without a husband will eventually be found wanting.  Parents will die, siblings will get old with you so both (all) of you won't be able to farm together after a time (Anne of Green Gables relates this exact outcome), nieces and nephews will be busy with their own parent's or in-law's farm, hirelings/slaves will flee, steal, subvert or neglect (death by a thousand careless mistakes).  Farmers need spouses to help them have children (a future retirement strategy).  In the garden this is an illustration of fertility between two genders, not an illustration of the authority structure between two genders.  And, yes, the genders need each other for procreation.  Equal (both needed), but different.

So in the Post Flood world (Genesis 9:1), people are given the command to procreate and fill up the world.  Is this a code Christians are under?  If we are free from the command to procreate, are we not also free of the gender roles as helpers to each other?  We can choose to marry and have kids (we will need each other's help to do this), but it is not commanded of us.

Some people argue there is no gender hierarchy except in marriage.

Really? so a single woman can have authority over a congregation, but a married women can't?

"Oh, no!" They retort, "the whole congregation needs to come under the "authority" of the head pastor (a man)?"

What?  Are we or is he responsible for our relationship with God?  If we are, then it matters not a whit who is teaching, leading, etc.  We need to judge their words for ourselves and gender doesn't matter.  If they are an intermediary for our relationship with God, then don't they also need to be a Levite (the Jewish tribe that were their priests) as well as men?

"Oh no, that's Old Testament covenant!"

Okay, so how are we a priesthood of believers if only some can be chosen to lead?

"Well, this was how God made us!"

He made a hierarchy in Eden?

"Yes, Eve was his helper."

"And Adam was over her?"

"Yes, she is the helper, not him."

So, why did the curse curse her with something that already was in place  "...and he will rule over you"?

"Look, I don't know!  This isn't something I can explain right now, there are many other parts of the Bible that say this, etc."

So somehow this ancient observation about the husband and wife's need for each other's help in procreation has now become a biblical blue-print for husband/wife hierarchal relations.  As if we were born with a spiritual role embedded in our DNA.

No human is a spiritual ruler/leader over another human in the Garden of Eden, and to literalists, our DNA doesn't have a hierarchy embedded in it, since it wasn't in the original plan.

* See Genesis 9 - the covenant God makes with Noah only deals with man's authority over the animals.  To humans he bids them to fill up the earth, it doesn't assign mediators or leaders to guide people spiritually at this point - only a sign from heaven to remind them of their covenant with Him (a rainbow).

On Eden, God's Plan and authority in: Heaven and Earth, Part 4

Things I have learned lately:

- there are many atonement theories (why Jesus died on the cross)
- the early church had a different atonement theory than the Reformers
- the Catholic church changed the focus of the atonement from a Christ Ransom (Christus Victor) to Satisfaction Theory (similar to Penal Substitution) around the 11th Century, about the same time they started writing the apostle Junia's name as Junias (thus changer her to a "he").
- the Eastern Orthodox church holds to a form of Christus Victor theory (Ransom Theory)

Things I am learning now:

- The Genesis accounts are fascinating, as soon as you let them be Myth
- I will need to seek God to hear what he is saying in Genesis
- without the Holy Spirit, the Bible is pointless - as no interpretation of it is clear - seeing as even the purpose of Christ's Death is not agreed upon - where the Spirit is, there is life.


God's plan...

Create a beautiful world for Humans to reflect/respond to Him(Them)

and authority...

Have the Angles guarding over the earth and Humans working on the Earth

in Heaven...

The King's realm

and Earth...

The King's garden? refuge? not sure.

Part 4

At some point between the creation of the Heavens and Earth and Adam's arrival something has gone wrong.  Once the world was made, and people put on it, God saw his creation as good.  However, once Adam and Eve are in The Garden with God, evil is lurking (not good).  Now, on earth there are Principalities of evil.  These aren't human principalities.  When Daniel is in exile in Persia, the Archangel Michael has to battle with the Prince of Persia to get to Daniel.  Not the King on earth, Daniel had access to him, but the Angel couldn't get to Daniel because a powerful non-human principality was blocking him (read the book of Daniel).  We know little of this principality, other than, it was somehow a prince of Persia (a non-human Prince).

A suggestion from Greg Boyd is, God intended for the Angels to have dominion over the earth, and do His will, but at some point the angels with earthly dominion rebel against God and are kicked out of Heaven.  It is debatable when using various verses (one verse says God bound them in chains till judgment day), but it is commonly understood that the Principalities are these fallen (excluded from Heaven) angels.  They are referred to in the Bible interchangeably as Demons.

So, by the time God is hanging out with Adam, the former angels are now evil, but still ruling the earth.  I am not clear how, but Genesis makes it clear non-human evil has now entered God's creation.

This evil tempts Eve into disobedience, she didn't bring evil into The Garden, by the second Genesis chapter and story, it is there.

My thoughts...

Since Adam and Eve are clearly an agricultural people, and, specifically, a Mesopotamian agricultural people, taking the creation story as a story about a specific couple who was put into an already-created world by God in order to save it (making Adam and Eve special humans, not first humans)
can eliminate the literal problem.  They were planted there by God, to make God known.  They were given a beautiful, easy place to live.  They could walk and talk freely with God.  When they sinned, however, they joined the rest of creation in being under the Daemons' power - they had a choice, yet chose to join evil.  The rest of us may not have had a choice, and our life line - God's plan for bringing Eden to earth was a rescue plan of some sort, Eden represents a beach-head of God's - just fell under the bondage we were already born into.

On Eden, God's Plan and authority in: Heaven and Earth Part 3

I have been looking at Genesis 2 - 11, how some common assumptions about Genesis don't actually fit what is going on.  Now I am going to look at what may be going on.  This is new to me, but interesting.

First, we realize in Genesis 3 that evil (whether it is a serpent or the Devil working through a serpent isn't clear here) is alive and well in the Garden of Eden before Eve or Adam sin.  Tempting someone to do evil would be right up their on the sin-o-meter, so you can't argue it as an unclear or grey area - temping someone into disobeying God is a sin.

Did God put evil into the Garden just to check Eve's obedience?

Some say yes, but others say no.

If we take the tempter as part of God's plan to have us all fall, then rescue us through Jesus, it puts humans as the centre piece of the story, creation and everything God does.  When humans fall, the world goes bad, God needs to rescue us and we should feel really, really guilty for being born in sin (meaning we are already sinners before we sinned due to Adam passing on his fallen nature to all of us).  Everything on earth was great until we showed up.  Bad us.  The Story quickly becomes all about our sin.  It ignores that fact the world really is red in tooth and claw, evil lurks around, and death is part of our survival (if no bacteria died, we wouldn't have made it passed those first seven days).

Is it helpful to feel really disgusted with ourselves for being born as we were (sinners)?  Will that motivate us to avoid sin, or make us feel helpless towards sin?

If we take the presence of the tempter in the Garden as a state of how things were on earth before humans arrived, we see the fall as us being complicit with the present evil.  The world is already red in tooth and claw, darkness lurks and looks for company, and death is a burden we already have to bear.  We are born in bondage to sin and need to realize this - not just in the truth that there is sin, but in what that means for us.

Is it helpful to feel really disgusted with the devastation evil has wrought on God's creation?  Will realizing that our sin aids the forces of darkness to regain control over God's beautiful creation (including people) and our obedience to God reverses the dark kingdom's control?

That former view is the Fall summed up in Penal Substitutionary view of the atonement, the latter is the Fall summed up in Christ Ransom or Christus Victor view of the atonement.

On Eden, God's plan and authority in: Heaven and Earth

Usual reading of Genesis by an evangelical.

Gen. 1 - possibly literal (depending on denomination), possibly not in the time-frame given (not 6 literal days).
Gen. 2 - At some point there must have been a specially-made Adam and Eve (even if someone believes God could have made the world through evolution, Adam and Eve were the first humans).  Once Adam and Eve sin, the world "falls".  This can be interpreted a number of ways.  Often it goes like this (if you don't believe in a 6 literal day scenario); All of nature was in harmony, Adam, etc. was created (via evolution or special appointment), then  sinned.  At this point humans experienced death, disease, mutations, genetic defects, pain, war, evil - and all of creation was thrown into turmoil.  Many Christians believe we are steadily getting worse, sin is growing and eventually we will be so rotten, God will come and end the world (after the worst suffering the world has ever seen).

IF an evangelical believes in a 6 day creation reading of Gen. 1, then Adam's fall brings death - many believe no living creature died before this point.

None of this is in the Bible per se. There are consequences laid out for the three guilty parties (Adam, Eve and the serpent), but they don't die a physical death when they eat the fruit as the Bible said they would (Genesis 2:16-17), so it is often interpreted that humans (if not all creatures) became mortal once Adam sinned.

What this all ignores however is; IF no evil entered the world before Adam's fall, what on earth is the serpent doing in the garden?

Evangelical standard responder (ESR): "Easy, God put Satan there to tempt us (give us a real choice between good and evil)"

But why would Satan even be in God's holy creation?  God removes himself from human presence when we become sinners (God was with Adam and Eve until they sinned, then he judged them and removed them from the Garden of Eden).  If we lost Paradise because God couldn't tolerate being around our evil, why does he tolerate the worst source of evil mentioned in the Bible hanging out in his presence (the Garden)?  And if he can handle Satan's evil being in his presence, then he is capable of being around evil...something I had been told was impossible for God (more later).

The Bible doesn't say we are removed because God can't handle the presence of wickedness, the Bible says we are blocked from Eden because the Tree of Life resides there and he doesn't want us to live forever ( in, I will suggest, our now fallen state) see Genesis 3:21-24.

Still, Satan has access to the Garden God made for Adam and now, also, his helper?

Because Satan is on earth before Adam.  Not just existing before Adam but right here on earth before Adam.

On Eden, God's Plan and authority in: Heaven and Earth Part 1

I don't think I have ever looked at Atonement Theories as much as I have in the last little while.  All the while I have happily attend this or that evangelical or charismatic denomination blissfully unaware of all the different theories of atonement - mostly.  Is there one correct theory? Do we really know which one it is?  Can we know for sure?  I don't know totally.  I feel a kinship more strongly with some than others indeed, I reject others.  If we are to know Jesus (as Christ-followers) we should know who he is, through or by faith? through or by the Holy Spirit? through or by Grace alone?  Now it gets a little less clear historically.  Depending on which Christian denomination from which time all of the atonement theories have been promoted.  What about all theories being sort of correct (a compromise theory ;)?

This is the part of the blog where I say "thankfully I am NOT a theologian"

others may say... "when we get to heaven we will find out"

But.... that may actually cause us to not get to heaven!  I think about it this way:.  If we are to know Jesus, we need to know why we need to put our faith in him, as opposed to ourselves (modern concept) or our society (post-modern concept) and rely on an unseen being.  Just a thought from a blog.

"Oh easy" says the evangelical "Jesus died for my sins?"

So, if you hadn't sinned he wouldn't have died?

"Well...he knew we would sin, so he came and died."

Okay.  So you sin, he dies in your place (he takes your punishment)?

"yep"

"so that was the purpose of the Atonement?"

"yep"

Many feel that wasn't the early church's teachings on the Atonement.

"Well, they are wrong, this is what it is."

Okay, so...I think you are explaining to me a form of Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory - or Christ/God took your punishment on himself.

"?????" *sigh* "look, this is the basic truth, if you can't get it, you aren't saved/born again/a true Christian (or whatever said evangelical's church calls their members)"

Did you know that isn't the only way of looking at Christ's accomplishments on the Cross?

"Do you believe he saved us from punishment for our sins?"

Of course.

"so what other Atonement theory could possibly be out there, that fits with Evangelical Christianity?"

Well, Christus Victor, Ransom Theory, Moral Influence, Recapitulation Theory...

"does Jesus die for our sins?"

Yes (Christus Victor, Ransom Theory, Recapitulation theory...), and so much more or No,(Moral Influence...) depending on which theory you are talking about.

"What more could Christ do on the cross, he died to save us from Hell nothing is greater than that?"

Indeed, what more could he do...

This is where I am at.

1. If the early church held to the Ransom theory, the Eastern Orthodox Church never altered it, should we at least know this theory?  Why the silence?
2.  If Christ came just to die for our sins (be a scapegoat, or satisfy a need to punish sin) what is the point of the Kingdom on earth?  or for that matter the rest of our lives once we have accepted his payment for our sins?
3.  It is good to consider the sacrifice God made, but when people say: "that was our punishment" then what did God forgive?  Why pay for someone else's sin?  It gives a warped sense of forgiveness.  I forgive you but will beat myself instead????  Imagine a parent saying this to a child.  Dramatic, yes, but certainly not teaching forgiveness - since the parent is still meting out the punishment (just on him/herself, not the child).
4. We definitely need faith to be with God and have God with us.  Faith saves, but only faith in who Christ is.
5. Failure to figure out who he is means we don't get to be with him.
Does our understanding of the Atonement affect our position with God?  For example, could Calvinist's be wrong, Eastern Orthodox Churches right and no one else gets to heaven, or vice versa?

I hide in the smug satisfaction I am not a teacher - they will be judged more harshly (Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. James 3:1)


Maybe, though, it is not enough to avoid taeching.  Maybe I need to know this, for wisdom, guidance, etc. Maybe there is something we have lost since the book of Acts was written, maybe it is rooted in the Atonement theory...

On Eden, God's Plan and authority in: Heaven and Earth (Intro)

I started this blog because there is (whether Christians can handle this or not) very strong, well supported evidence that we humans 1) evolved over many, many generations and 2) that, since populations mostly evolve as a species, humans were never down to one breeding pair (no common mom and dad for humanity).  This led me to question Genesis - mind you, not God, but Genesis.  Not so much the Bible - for it is what it is - but our views on the Bible.  In the time I began this blog the debate over Adam and Eve versus Science has heated up in Creationist and Intelligent Design circles, but they often mistakenly call this branch of population genetics "evolution" - supposedly to lump it into the same dubious category and stir up doubt in Christians before the evidence is presented.

I maintain that the Adam and Eve story (Gen. 2 - 11) is in the Bible for a reason, it is not a tack-on, or a way to explain science to a lesser scientifically developed culture or people to satiate their curiosity about our origins.  But... in order to get to the point I am at now, I had to be exposed, on many different levels to our Christian history.  It didn't form in a neat package, it formed from something else entirely, then revealed  where we have gone so astray from the true meaning of Genesis.

What I began to notice, apart from the creationist debate was how far our church and other christians were going to the far right of conservatism on women's issues.  I grew up in one province, went to University in another, and got a job in a third, so I had been to many churches and evangelical denominations all over.  There were many conservative views held by people about women, but most of it was about parenting, or mothering, rather than wives roles.  Most of my married friend solved arguments by working things out before they went to sleep.  No one I knew who was my age followed the wives submit to your husbands rule - at least not as a principle (other than mutually).  Then I went to more charismatic churches (where women preached and prophesied.  I returned again to an Evangelical church.  Our pastor mostly quoted John Piper in his sermons.  I really didn't know him, nothing stood out about his quoted comments and life was merry.  One day, however, I stumbled across a YouTube clip of Piper slamming CS Lewis!  Piper, acting as if he was better, or more correct than CS Lewis?!?  The first warning bell was: what kind of a Pastor slams another directly (not mentioning he doesn't agree with a particular theology in general, but calls out a Christian with whose theory he disagrees with specifically)?.  I know people do this all the time, but pastors with large followings who get quoted in Sunday morning services usually aren't in the business of putting other popular Christians down to promote their hypothesis.  The second red flag was: Does this guy really think he is so much wiser than CS Lewis that he would have the ability to shape the Christian world's views the way Lewis did?! and thirdly, what was his problem with CS Lewis anyways? Piper decided Lewis was not an evangelical?  What? Who is deciding this?  Does he think Christians who don't agree with him are not as christian or anointed to teach as himself?

I began, apart from my musings on Genesis, to look into John Piper, others of the Gospel Coalition and then Calvinism in general.  What I found was a group of pastors and their followers who hold to an atonement theory that puts the fall of Adam and Eve in a highly fundamental position to a Christian's faith.  So, I either do endless mental gymnastics trying to make Adam and Eve become literal - prehistoric farmers in a mythical land who somehow manage to survive by farming for at least three generations, build cities near or around Ancient Mesopotamia then all of humanity reverts to a hunter-gatherer population in Africa for the next 150,000 years - Ow! my head just exploded.
* OR*
I decide if this is even the correct understanding of Genesis.