In my last blog, I wrote about God blessing Adam and Eve with the responsibility of being fruitful and multiplying. This is what I would like to emphasize: Procreation is a blessing from God which he gives to human beings.
When Jesus was asked by Sadducees about marriage in heaven, he clearly stated that there was no marriage in heaven because we will be like the angels (Matthew 22:28-33 - found in Mark and Luke as well). Even though this makes little sense to us today, Jesus was using the logic found in the Book of Enoch which was probably known to Jesus (his brother Jude quotes from it in Jude 1:14-15). The argument in 1 Enoch 15:5-7 simply goes as follows:
1. All angels live forever.
2. All humans die.
3. Humans must procreate in order to continue their species.
4. Angels do not need to procreate in order to continue their kind, because they never die.
5. God did not give angels the ability to procreate because they live forever.
6. When we die, we will live forever, so there is no longer the need to procreate.
7. Because there is no more sex, there is no marriage in heaven.
Even though there will be no procreation in heaven, there is here on earth for the reasons mentioned. For those reasons, God blessed us with the responsibility of procreation.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth... (Genesis 1:28)."
Furthermore, God not only blessed the act of sexual intercourse, he blessed the desire that we have toward members of the opposite sex in that it leads us into procreation. Desire is celebrated in the book called Song of Songs or Song of Solomon. If it were not a blessing; if it were not holy, then Song of Songs would not have been part of the canon of scripture, and it would not be blessed on the sixth day of creation.
PERVERSIONS
Now for those who have to say, "Yes, but...," I will definitely admit there are perversions to desire and there are perversions to the act of sexual intercourse. Genesis mentions some as does the rest of the Bible.
In Genesis alone there is date rape (Dinah and Sechem), homosexual rape (Sodom), sexual intercourse between "sons of God" and "daughters of men," attempted adultery (Potipher's wife and Joseph), and shaming the father by having sex with the step-mother (Reuben and Bilhah). There are also other possible perversions such as prostitution (Judah's affair with Tamar - although Tamar did right, Judah thought he was having sex with a prostitute). I say this is possible only because it is not commented on at all in Genesis, and the context does not suggest that what Judah was doing was wrong.
Now this could be a very interesting moral issue. If prostitution was deemed a sin in Genesis, then Tamar, who posed as a prostitute in order to deceive Judah into doing what was right, caused Judah to sin, but in doing so got him to do what was right. Sounds like a good discussion for Ethics class.
CONCLUSION
Back to the point - God blessed sexual intercourse and He blessed the desire that leads to proper sexual union. Some focus too much on the perversions and not enough on the blessings of intercourse. In fact, some focus so much on the perversions, that it seems like sex is no longer good. It's no longer holy or a blessing that God intended it to be. Rather than celebrating the awesome union between a man and a woman, their own personal struggles or the perversions of others dictate their disgust and hatred of God's gift to humanity.
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted (Titus 1:15).
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Human Responsibilities
In the book of Genesis, God divvies out responsibilities and He divvies out blessings that look like responsibilities.
BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY
On the surface, "be fruitful and multiply" looks like a command, but upon closer look one can see that it is a blessing in the form of a command. God said these words not only to Adam and Eve, but he said the same thing to Noah as he exited the ark.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth...(Genesis 1:28)."
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth (Genesis 9:1).
There are two reason why I believe these are blessing:
1. Both passages clearly begin with the words "God blessed...."
2. Shortly before God blessed Adam and Eve with these words, on the fourth day, he said the same thing to the creatures that filled the sky and that filled the oceans. God would not give a command to a fish or a bird that they could possibly choose to act upon. Rather, as when God commanded that there be light, creation obeyed without free choice. So it is with the birds and creatures of the seas.
God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth (Genesis 1:22)."
Now here's where it gets a bit sticky. God blessed Adam and Eve, but the blessing was more than a blessing of increasing in number. God told Adam and Eve to take control of creation. He did not tell the birds and fish to take control of creation, because they could not fulfill that command; so this part of the verse seems more like a command than a blessing, but it is still a part of the blessing.
DOMINATE CREATION
...fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground (Genesis 1:28)."
The choice of word "subdue" (in Hebrew "kabash") is very interesting. It is a strong word implying the taking control of something, bringing into bondage, dominating and even violating something.
Many of the early settlers of the U.S. used this verse along with several other scripture to justify taking land from the American Indians, but this was not what was intended in Genesis. When Genesis was written, the earth was so much bigger and forgiving than it is today. There just weren't so many people, so the earth could give back so much more than people could take. That is not so true today.
It may be very possible that this verse helped to define the Western worldview on the use of earth's resources, in that, in the West we see the planet as something to control and dominate. In many other world views, the earth is something of which we are an intimate part - something that needs to be cared for.
TAKE CARE OF THE EARTH
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it (Genesis 2:15).
In a past blog, I already mentioned that there are two stories of creation and that chapter 2 is the second story. In the first story, Adam and Eve were told to subdue the world. In the second chapter, Adam is told to take care of the garden. In the first story, God blessed Adam and Eve with responsibility; in the second, Adam is given the job of protecting creation.
There are two words of interest here:
1. To work ('abad) means to serve or to work. It is the word Genesis used to define the purpose and the responsibility of Adam and Eve both in and out of the garden (when Adam and Eve left the garden, God gave them the responsibility to work ('abad) the earth. 'Abad is also used in the Bible to describe what happens when one nation rules over another. The one that is ruled is the one who "serves" the other. It is also used in our relationship with God when we "serve" Him. Through Adam and Eve, we are given the responsibility to serve the earth.
2. To take care of (shamar) means to watch, keep, or observe. It is commonly used in the Bible to define what we should do with God's covenant, the Bible, the Sabbath, or God's commandments. It is also used to describe that God watches over us, and when a shepherd watches over his sheep. This word implies protection and keeping out of danger, such as a watchman (or security guard) protecting the troops or a city.
Out of 468 times shamar is used in the Bible, it refers to land only one other time: They surround her like men guarding a field, because she has rebelled against me,' " declares the LORD (Jeremiah 4:17).
CONCLUSION
In the first story of creation, God blessed humanity (through Adam and Eve) with leadership over the world. We were told to take the land and own it, control it, and give it order. In the second story of creation, however, we were told to serve it and to protect it. This is the one commission that God gives to all of humanity.
The first few chapters of Genesis talk a lot about the earth (dirt and ground), and what comes from the ground (plants, animals and human beings). According to Genesis, it is our purpose in life to bear children and to dominate as well as take care of the earth; watching over it and protecting it.
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth (Genesis 9:1).
There are two reason why I believe these are blessing:
1. Both passages clearly begin with the words "God blessed...."
2. Shortly before God blessed Adam and Eve with these words, on the fourth day, he said the same thing to the creatures that filled the sky and that filled the oceans. God would not give a command to a fish or a bird that they could possibly choose to act upon. Rather, as when God commanded that there be light, creation obeyed without free choice. So it is with the birds and creatures of the seas.
God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth (Genesis 1:22)."
Now here's where it gets a bit sticky. God blessed Adam and Eve, but the blessing was more than a blessing of increasing in number. God told Adam and Eve to take control of creation. He did not tell the birds and fish to take control of creation, because they could not fulfill that command; so this part of the verse seems more like a command than a blessing, but it is still a part of the blessing.
DOMINATE CREATION
...fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground (Genesis 1:28)."
The choice of word "subdue" (in Hebrew "kabash") is very interesting. It is a strong word implying the taking control of something, bringing into bondage, dominating and even violating something.
Many of the early settlers of the U.S. used this verse along with several other scripture to justify taking land from the American Indians, but this was not what was intended in Genesis. When Genesis was written, the earth was so much bigger and forgiving than it is today. There just weren't so many people, so the earth could give back so much more than people could take. That is not so true today.
It may be very possible that this verse helped to define the Western worldview on the use of earth's resources, in that, in the West we see the planet as something to control and dominate. In many other world views, the earth is something of which we are an intimate part - something that needs to be cared for.
TAKE CARE OF THE EARTH
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it (Genesis 2:15).
In a past blog, I already mentioned that there are two stories of creation and that chapter 2 is the second story. In the first story, Adam and Eve were told to subdue the world. In the second chapter, Adam is told to take care of the garden. In the first story, God blessed Adam and Eve with responsibility; in the second, Adam is given the job of protecting creation.
There are two words of interest here:
1. To work ('abad) means to serve or to work. It is the word Genesis used to define the purpose and the responsibility of Adam and Eve both in and out of the garden (when Adam and Eve left the garden, God gave them the responsibility to work ('abad) the earth. 'Abad is also used in the Bible to describe what happens when one nation rules over another. The one that is ruled is the one who "serves" the other. It is also used in our relationship with God when we "serve" Him. Through Adam and Eve, we are given the responsibility to serve the earth.
2. To take care of (shamar) means to watch, keep, or observe. It is commonly used in the Bible to define what we should do with God's covenant, the Bible, the Sabbath, or God's commandments. It is also used to describe that God watches over us, and when a shepherd watches over his sheep. This word implies protection and keeping out of danger, such as a watchman (or security guard) protecting the troops or a city.
Out of 468 times shamar is used in the Bible, it refers to land only one other time: They surround her like men guarding a field, because she has rebelled against me,' " declares the LORD (Jeremiah 4:17).
CONCLUSION
In the first story of creation, God blessed humanity (through Adam and Eve) with leadership over the world. We were told to take the land and own it, control it, and give it order. In the second story of creation, however, we were told to serve it and to protect it. This is the one commission that God gives to all of humanity.
The first few chapters of Genesis talk a lot about the earth (dirt and ground), and what comes from the ground (plants, animals and human beings). According to Genesis, it is our purpose in life to bear children and to dominate as well as take care of the earth; watching over it and protecting it.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Two Creation Stories in Genesis
I remember one day as I read the second chapter of Genesis, I realized creation was starting all over again. In chapter one, God created all of the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh. And then without warning beginning in Genesis 2:4, a whole new version of the creation was unfolded before me.
I began noticing that the name of God had changed from the first chapter to the second. I noticed a lot was different...and then I remembered what I learned about there being different writers in the book of Genesis, but in my training I had never heard how those different writers fit into the Book of Genesis.
I wasn't convinced that different people wrote Genesis, and I am still not convinced. The reason I am not convinced is because I believe that the creation stories were handed down to the author of Genesis via oral tradition. It was passed down in story form by word of mouth for years and years, from generations to generation.
In the ancient times, writing and reading were not that popular, in fact, very few people could read and write. But ancient societies were filled with spoken stories, proverbs and laws. Israel may have had more people reading than other societies, but not by much. They still depended mostly upon speech for their stories of the beginnings of things.
Even in Jesus' day, there were laws and commentaries on the laws that were never written down, but passed down verbally from generation to generation. Many people believed that these laws originated from Moses himself, and were every bit as authoritative as the written Law of Moses.
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
I did discover that there was pretty much agreement among scholars (Conservative and Liberal) that there were two accounts of creation. However, the interpretations among different people differ.
1. The Conservative side states that God created everything in chapter one, but goes over the same event in chapter two in finer detail, focusing more on Adam and Eve, and the animals.
2. A second view says that whoever wrote the book of Genesis (not necessarily Moses), wrote two completely different stories that were popular in his day. Neither one had connection with the other.
I am sure that there are other views out there, but these two explanations are good enough for now.
I began noticing that the name of God had changed from the first chapter to the second. I noticed a lot was different...and then I remembered what I learned about there being different writers in the book of Genesis, but in my training I had never heard how those different writers fit into the Book of Genesis.
I wasn't convinced that different people wrote Genesis, and I am still not convinced. The reason I am not convinced is because I believe that the creation stories were handed down to the author of Genesis via oral tradition. It was passed down in story form by word of mouth for years and years, from generations to generation.
In the ancient times, writing and reading were not that popular, in fact, very few people could read and write. But ancient societies were filled with spoken stories, proverbs and laws. Israel may have had more people reading than other societies, but not by much. They still depended mostly upon speech for their stories of the beginnings of things.
Even in Jesus' day, there were laws and commentaries on the laws that were never written down, but passed down verbally from generation to generation. Many people believed that these laws originated from Moses himself, and were every bit as authoritative as the written Law of Moses.
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
I did discover that there was pretty much agreement among scholars (Conservative and Liberal) that there were two accounts of creation. However, the interpretations among different people differ.
1. The Conservative side states that God created everything in chapter one, but goes over the same event in chapter two in finer detail, focusing more on Adam and Eve, and the animals.
2. A second view says that whoever wrote the book of Genesis (not necessarily Moses), wrote two completely different stories that were popular in his day. Neither one had connection with the other.
I am sure that there are other views out there, but these two explanations are good enough for now.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Why Did God Kill Onan?
Judah had 3 sons. The first two were Er and Onan. For easier reading I will say Er1 and Onan2, because that is the order in which they were born.
Er1 married Tamar and then died before they had children. After his death, Er1's brother, Onan2, was left with several responsibilities that were a part of the custom of their day; customs that helped serve the interests of the dead brother and his widow.
1. Onan2 was to take care of the widow Tamar - widows were extremely vulnerable in the old world.
2. Onan2 was to have sex with Tamar so that she could bear a son.
a. Who would help take care of her (especially in her old age).
b. Who would carry on the name and lineage of the dead husband, which was very important in their culture.
3. Onan2 was suppose to take care of the land and possessions that belonged to Er1 and eventually give it to Tamar's son (which was biolologically his, but belonged to his dead brother).
4. Tamar's son that came as a result of Onan2 having sex with her would be considered Er1's son and carry on Er1's name, even though Onan2 would be the biological father.
5. There may be other responsibilities that are not mentioned or implied in Genesis or elsewhere in the Bible.
When it came time to perform his sexual duty, Onan2 refused to impregnate his sister-in-law, so he practiced primitive birth control...he pulled out his penis before it was time to ejaculate. The Bible does not tell us much about why Onan did not want a child:
But Onan was not willing to have a child who would not be his own heir. So whenever he had intercourse with his brother's wife, he spilled the semen on the ground. This prevented her from having a child who would belong to his brother (Genesis 38:9).
As a result of this action, God killed Onan2, because He considered his action evil.
WHY DID HE SPILL HIS SEED?
As a young Christian I heard a preacher say that God killed Onan because he was masturbating. No kidding. But this is not the case. In reality, this story was designed to be a lesson for people to fulfill cultural obligations for the benifit of the deceased and of the widows.
Honor and carrying on one's name was huge in ancient Israel. Keeping one's name alive after one's death was extremely important. But if a man died before his wife became pregnant with a son, his name and his lineage was in danger of perishing. And so, it became custom for the closest relative to impregnate the widow so that the name of the deceased would continue through the son's name.
However, if a brother2 had a son in the name of the deceased1, it carried certain risks for the living brother2, the biologogical father. In another story (the book of Ruth), Ruth's nearest relative did not want to marry the widow (Ruth) because her nearest relative was afraid that the son born to them would jeapordize his own son's inheritance.
In the Book of Ruth, the nearest relative knew that the son born to Ruth would not he his, but his relative's, so he refused to do his duty and impregnate Ruth. He disassociated himself entirely from any son that could have been born to the widow, even though it would be his own biological son.
So there could be several reasons an older brother (or nearest relative) would not want to give the deceased a son:
1. Anger issues - there are family issues that run deep in many families, and it could be that a brother would not want to give his dead brother a child and a name the continues. "Let him die, and let his name die with him!" Genesis has several examples of brothers who dislike, hate, or murder their brothers.
2. Protecting his own son - In Ruth's case, the nearest relative did not want to jeapordize his own son's inheritance. This is a bit mysterious, but it could be that if his first son died, then the inheritance and the land would go to the son that belonged to his brother's wife. If this is the case, then his land would pass on to his brother's name. Anybody else have suggestions?
WHY DID GOD KILL ONAN?
There were several episodes in the Bible where God killed somebody because they did something extremely evil. Onan refused to take care of his brother, children laughed at a bald prophet and were malled by a bear, and Ananias and Saphira lied to the apostles in order to gain clout among the Christian community. All of these people were killed by God, and their stories continued through generations in order to warn people in their times as well as in future generations.
In the case of Onan, the lesson is simply this: "Fulfil your family obligations, because God takes them very seriously."
Er1 married Tamar and then died before they had children. After his death, Er1's brother, Onan2, was left with several responsibilities that were a part of the custom of their day; customs that helped serve the interests of the dead brother and his widow.
1. Onan2 was to take care of the widow Tamar - widows were extremely vulnerable in the old world.
2. Onan2 was to have sex with Tamar so that she could bear a son.
a. Who would help take care of her (especially in her old age).
b. Who would carry on the name and lineage of the dead husband, which was very important in their culture.
3. Onan2 was suppose to take care of the land and possessions that belonged to Er1 and eventually give it to Tamar's son (which was biolologically his, but belonged to his dead brother).
4. Tamar's son that came as a result of Onan2 having sex with her would be considered Er1's son and carry on Er1's name, even though Onan2 would be the biological father.
5. There may be other responsibilities that are not mentioned or implied in Genesis or elsewhere in the Bible.
When it came time to perform his sexual duty, Onan2 refused to impregnate his sister-in-law, so he practiced primitive birth control...he pulled out his penis before it was time to ejaculate. The Bible does not tell us much about why Onan did not want a child:
But Onan was not willing to have a child who would not be his own heir. So whenever he had intercourse with his brother's wife, he spilled the semen on the ground. This prevented her from having a child who would belong to his brother (Genesis 38:9).
As a result of this action, God killed Onan2, because He considered his action evil.
WHY DID HE SPILL HIS SEED?
As a young Christian I heard a preacher say that God killed Onan because he was masturbating. No kidding. But this is not the case. In reality, this story was designed to be a lesson for people to fulfill cultural obligations for the benifit of the deceased and of the widows.
Honor and carrying on one's name was huge in ancient Israel. Keeping one's name alive after one's death was extremely important. But if a man died before his wife became pregnant with a son, his name and his lineage was in danger of perishing. And so, it became custom for the closest relative to impregnate the widow so that the name of the deceased would continue through the son's name.
However, if a brother2 had a son in the name of the deceased1, it carried certain risks for the living brother2, the biologogical father. In another story (the book of Ruth), Ruth's nearest relative did not want to marry the widow (Ruth) because her nearest relative was afraid that the son born to them would jeapordize his own son's inheritance.
In the Book of Ruth, the nearest relative knew that the son born to Ruth would not he his, but his relative's, so he refused to do his duty and impregnate Ruth. He disassociated himself entirely from any son that could have been born to the widow, even though it would be his own biological son.
So there could be several reasons an older brother (or nearest relative) would not want to give the deceased a son:
1. Anger issues - there are family issues that run deep in many families, and it could be that a brother would not want to give his dead brother a child and a name the continues. "Let him die, and let his name die with him!" Genesis has several examples of brothers who dislike, hate, or murder their brothers.
2. Protecting his own son - In Ruth's case, the nearest relative did not want to jeapordize his own son's inheritance. This is a bit mysterious, but it could be that if his first son died, then the inheritance and the land would go to the son that belonged to his brother's wife. If this is the case, then his land would pass on to his brother's name. Anybody else have suggestions?
WHY DID GOD KILL ONAN?
There were several episodes in the Bible where God killed somebody because they did something extremely evil. Onan refused to take care of his brother, children laughed at a bald prophet and were malled by a bear, and Ananias and Saphira lied to the apostles in order to gain clout among the Christian community. All of these people were killed by God, and their stories continued through generations in order to warn people in their times as well as in future generations.
In the case of Onan, the lesson is simply this: "Fulfil your family obligations, because God takes them very seriously."
Sunday, November 13, 2011
From Vegetarians to Killing and Eating Animals
Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything (Genesis 9:3).
Here is another first. Since the time of Adam and Eve, people only ate vegetables and fruit.
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so (Genesis 1:29-30).
And the LORD God commanded Adam, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden (Genesis 2:16).
After the flood, God gave humans permission to kill and eat animals, but in the same passage that God gave animals to be eaten, God told Noah that he was not allowed to kill other human beings.
TWO CONCLUSIONS
1. God gave permission to kill and eat animals after the flood, in which God destroyed all of humanity because there was so much violence in the world. The implications are this - God did not allow the killing of animals before the flood.
2. There are 2 facts that suggest that God did not like killing animals for food.
a. God had not permitted the eating of animals before the flood.
b. When God told Himself that it was not worth destroying humanity, because they wouldn't change - they would always be evil; he gave humans permission to kill animals. It's like God this: God realized that He couldn't win this battle with humanity - they will sin, and they will continue to be violent - so God put a boundry on human violence. "You can be violent, but only so far, you can kill animals and eat them, but you cannot kill other humans."
Here is another first. Since the time of Adam and Eve, people only ate vegetables and fruit.
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so (Genesis 1:29-30).
And the LORD God commanded Adam, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden (Genesis 2:16).
After the flood, God gave humans permission to kill and eat animals, but in the same passage that God gave animals to be eaten, God told Noah that he was not allowed to kill other human beings.
TWO CONCLUSIONS
1. God gave permission to kill and eat animals after the flood, in which God destroyed all of humanity because there was so much violence in the world. The implications are this - God did not allow the killing of animals before the flood.
2. There are 2 facts that suggest that God did not like killing animals for food.
a. God had not permitted the eating of animals before the flood.
b. When God told Himself that it was not worth destroying humanity, because they wouldn't change - they would always be evil; he gave humans permission to kill animals. It's like God this: God realized that He couldn't win this battle with humanity - they will sin, and they will continue to be violent - so God put a boundry on human violence. "You can be violent, but only so far, you can kill animals and eat them, but you cannot kill other humans."
Were Animals Afraid of People Before the Flood?
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands (Genesis 9:2).
This is the first time ever that the Bible mentions that animals feared humans.
This is the first time ever that the Bible mentions that animals feared humans.
How Many Animals Were on the Ark
Tradition states that the animals went into the ark 2 by 2. Tradition says that there were only 2 animals of every species that went on to the ark. Tradition is not all that accurate.
In reality, although the animals went on to the ark 2 by 2, some species only had 2 of each, while others had 7 of each kind. If an animal was unclean (religiously speaking), the species was limited to 2, but if the animal was clean, there were 7 of each kind, meaning that the clean animals went 2 by 2 by 2 by 1.
In reality, although the animals went on to the ark 2 by 2, some species only had 2 of each, while others had 7 of each kind. If an animal was unclean (religiously speaking), the species was limited to 2, but if the animal was clean, there were 7 of each kind, meaning that the clean animals went 2 by 2 by 2 by 1.
Why Did God Destroy the World in Genesis?
WHY GOD DESTROYED CITIES AND NATIONS: MODERN EXPLANATIONS
Throughout history, cities and nations come and go. They rise and they fall. A city might be destroyed by volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, war, or by internal strife. In ancient times, when people witnessed disasters, they automatically concluded that the gods were angry with them. In other words, they had done something or neglected something spiritual that resulted in ultimate destruction.
Socially and Psychologically speaking, this explanation was easier to handle than the modern explanation that things happen by chance, or by natural acts of war from aggressive nations or nations "protecting" themselves.
Because disasters were the result of human behavior toward the gods (or God) in the ancient world, they believed they had control over those disasters - they could do the necessary actions needed to keep the gods (or God) happy. In our world, because we believe things happen by chance, we have no control over many of the horrors that can happen from time to time - getting cancer, car accidents, natural disasters, and so on, because these things have nothing to do with a spiritual existence in our way of thinking.
However, that being said, there are many believers today that hold on to the ancient ways. They believe that natural disasters are God's ways to punish people. When Haiti was rocked by earthquakes, there were preachers and lay people who said it was God's punishment on Haiti for rejecting the Gospel, and for practicing voodoo, homosexuality, or any other list of sins. Some even go so far as to say that school killings are more than one man's sickness, but rather are brought on by the openness of the U.S. in accepting homosexuality.
Others believe that the earthquakes and tsunamis of this past few years are God's signs that the end is near. To put it simply, they believe that God uses, creates, or allows disasters in nature, diseases, and human horror such as war and murder.
I would venture to say that most Christians today are in the middle somewhere, believing that some problems are from God and others from nature.
OLD TESTAMENT SINS THAT LED TO DESTRUCTION
Throughout the Old Testament, God destroyed nations - including his own people, Israel - because of different sins - the worst of which were violence, idolatry and economic injustice. Contrary to popular opinion, when prophets warned cities and nations about future destruction because of sin, homosexuality was not listed in the many sins that led to destruction, and neither was abortion. Instead, violence was emphasized, as was pride, neglecting the Sabbath, bad treatment of the poor, worshiping other gods, witchcraft, adultery, breaking covenants, and a list of other sins.
This could mean any of the following:
1. Homosexuality was driven underground to the point that it was not popular or known about during the prophetic eras of the OT, so there was no need for the prophets to mention it. Nevertheless, it was considered to be a huge transgression against God.
2. Homosexuality was considered a sin, but not a big sin during the time of the prophets. Economic injustice and idolatry were considered far more nasty.
3. The prophets didn't think homosexuality was a sin.
I believe that all of the following are true:
1. Israel's prophets did consider homosexuality a sin, but not the mother of all sins, the queen of every transgression.
2. Homosexuals may have stayed in the closet during the times of the prophets, and so homosexuality (as we know it) was not a big issue with the prophets - that is to say, it was not the issue of their day. No doubt the early prophets came across temple prostitution which took on homosexual forms as well heterosexual. But in these cases the prophets were more offended by the idolatry than they were by homosexuality.
3. Whether or not homosexuality was openly practiced during the time of the prophets, the prophets focused, most of all, on other sins that openly prevailed in their own day, emphasizing the worse ones, such as economic injustice, pride and idolatry. Thus, homosexuality was pretty much ignored.
On the side, I am convinced that homosexuality existed in Israel during every age; furthermore, it never disappears from any culture or any time. It simply goes underground when it must.
CONTEXT: THE SINS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH
Because context is so important, I bring up the other story of destruction from the book of Genesis - that of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I have dealt with this in another blog, so will only summarize as follows:
1. Two angels went into Sodom because the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah had reached critical level.
2. The sins that called down the angels of God, were committed before the angels came, and were not defined in any way until the prophet Ezekiel.
3. When the angels visited Sodom, men from the city wanted to rape them. Rape is a violent act. Although this event sealed the cities' doom, the angels came because the cities were steeped in other sins that may or may not have been related.
4. It may be that the people knew the 2 men were messengers of God and wanted to try out "strange flesh."
5. Whenever the sins Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in the Bible, the sins are left undefined, except in Ezekiel and Jude.
6. Ezekiel clearly states that their sins were related to neglecting the needs of the poor.
7. Jude says that the cities in that area were given over to fornication (a term that loosely describes a wide range of sexual promiscuity).
8. In other verses in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah were used as examples more for the wrath of God than for any specific sin related to the cities.
9. Other Bible writers viewed worse sins than those of Sodom and Gomorrah. The prophets claimed that breaking God's covenant and worshiping idols were worse. And Jesus claimed that rejecting him or his messengers was far worse.
10. Looking closely to Sodom and Gomorrah, these are the possible sins that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:
a. Violent Gang Rape that was homosexual in nature
b. Intermingling of the species (men with angels)
c. Poor treatment of visiting travelers
Now lets see if any of those line up with Noah's day.
The earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways (Genesis 6:12)."
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil (Genesis 6:5 ).
Both of these verses leave a lot to the imagination; neither one clearly defines any sin. Corruption and wickedness can be a lot of different things, and so we read into the verse whatever types of sins are preached against the most in our day.
Throughout history, cities and nations come and go. They rise and they fall. A city might be destroyed by volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, war, or by internal strife. In ancient times, when people witnessed disasters, they automatically concluded that the gods were angry with them. In other words, they had done something or neglected something spiritual that resulted in ultimate destruction.
Socially and Psychologically speaking, this explanation was easier to handle than the modern explanation that things happen by chance, or by natural acts of war from aggressive nations or nations "protecting" themselves.
Because disasters were the result of human behavior toward the gods (or God) in the ancient world, they believed they had control over those disasters - they could do the necessary actions needed to keep the gods (or God) happy. In our world, because we believe things happen by chance, we have no control over many of the horrors that can happen from time to time - getting cancer, car accidents, natural disasters, and so on, because these things have nothing to do with a spiritual existence in our way of thinking.
However, that being said, there are many believers today that hold on to the ancient ways. They believe that natural disasters are God's ways to punish people. When Haiti was rocked by earthquakes, there were preachers and lay people who said it was God's punishment on Haiti for rejecting the Gospel, and for practicing voodoo, homosexuality, or any other list of sins. Some even go so far as to say that school killings are more than one man's sickness, but rather are brought on by the openness of the U.S. in accepting homosexuality.
Others believe that the earthquakes and tsunamis of this past few years are God's signs that the end is near. To put it simply, they believe that God uses, creates, or allows disasters in nature, diseases, and human horror such as war and murder.
I would venture to say that most Christians today are in the middle somewhere, believing that some problems are from God and others from nature.
OLD TESTAMENT SINS THAT LED TO DESTRUCTION
Throughout the Old Testament, God destroyed nations - including his own people, Israel - because of different sins - the worst of which were violence, idolatry and economic injustice. Contrary to popular opinion, when prophets warned cities and nations about future destruction because of sin, homosexuality was not listed in the many sins that led to destruction, and neither was abortion. Instead, violence was emphasized, as was pride, neglecting the Sabbath, bad treatment of the poor, worshiping other gods, witchcraft, adultery, breaking covenants, and a list of other sins.
This could mean any of the following:
1. Homosexuality was driven underground to the point that it was not popular or known about during the prophetic eras of the OT, so there was no need for the prophets to mention it. Nevertheless, it was considered to be a huge transgression against God.
2. Homosexuality was considered a sin, but not a big sin during the time of the prophets. Economic injustice and idolatry were considered far more nasty.
3. The prophets didn't think homosexuality was a sin.
I believe that all of the following are true:
1. Israel's prophets did consider homosexuality a sin, but not the mother of all sins, the queen of every transgression.
2. Homosexuals may have stayed in the closet during the times of the prophets, and so homosexuality (as we know it) was not a big issue with the prophets - that is to say, it was not the issue of their day. No doubt the early prophets came across temple prostitution which took on homosexual forms as well heterosexual. But in these cases the prophets were more offended by the idolatry than they were by homosexuality.
3. Whether or not homosexuality was openly practiced during the time of the prophets, the prophets focused, most of all, on other sins that openly prevailed in their own day, emphasizing the worse ones, such as economic injustice, pride and idolatry. Thus, homosexuality was pretty much ignored.
On the side, I am convinced that homosexuality existed in Israel during every age; furthermore, it never disappears from any culture or any time. It simply goes underground when it must.
CONTEXT: THE SINS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH
Because context is so important, I bring up the other story of destruction from the book of Genesis - that of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I have dealt with this in another blog, so will only summarize as follows:
1. Two angels went into Sodom because the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah had reached critical level.
2. The sins that called down the angels of God, were committed before the angels came, and were not defined in any way until the prophet Ezekiel.
3. When the angels visited Sodom, men from the city wanted to rape them. Rape is a violent act. Although this event sealed the cities' doom, the angels came because the cities were steeped in other sins that may or may not have been related.
4. It may be that the people knew the 2 men were messengers of God and wanted to try out "strange flesh."
5. Whenever the sins Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in the Bible, the sins are left undefined, except in Ezekiel and Jude.
6. Ezekiel clearly states that their sins were related to neglecting the needs of the poor.
7. Jude says that the cities in that area were given over to fornication (a term that loosely describes a wide range of sexual promiscuity).
8. In other verses in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah were used as examples more for the wrath of God than for any specific sin related to the cities.
9. Other Bible writers viewed worse sins than those of Sodom and Gomorrah. The prophets claimed that breaking God's covenant and worshiping idols were worse. And Jesus claimed that rejecting him or his messengers was far worse.
10. Looking closely to Sodom and Gomorrah, these are the possible sins that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:
a. Violent Gang Rape that was homosexual in nature
b. Intermingling of the species (men with angels)
c. Poor treatment of visiting travelers
Now lets see if any of those line up with Noah's day.
The earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways (Genesis 6:12)."
The LORD observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil (Genesis 6:5 ).
Both of these verses leave a lot to the imagination; neither one clearly defines any sin. Corruption and wickedness can be a lot of different things, and so we read into the verse whatever types of sins are preached against the most in our day.
Looking deeper, however, we find the real reasons why God destroyed the world, and there are two clear reasons that Genesis gives for the destruction of the world.
1. In the first section of the the Ethiopian book of Enoch (written before the first Century B.C. and quoted in the Bible's book of Jude) the sons of God, who were angelic beings, had sex with human women; and from those unions, giants were born and eventually dominated the world, filling it with violence.
Others have suggested that the sons of God were descended from Seth (Adam and Eve's third child) and the sons of men were descendents of Cain.
Whoever these giants were, or however they came about (whether of angels or people), it seems that the writer of Genesis considered their existence a part of the reason that God decided to destroy the world.
Today we cannot relate to this passage of scripture, because we have no giants in the world, although many people fleeing Asian wars in boats (during this past few decades) were told that that there were giants in the U.S. Would the Bible consider tall people, like Europeans and Americans and certain African tribes, giants?
Others have suggested that the sons of God were descended from Seth (Adam and Eve's third child) and the sons of men were descendents of Cain.
Whoever these giants were, or however they came about (whether of angels or people), it seems that the writer of Genesis considered their existence a part of the reason that God decided to destroy the world.
Today we cannot relate to this passage of scripture, because we have no giants in the world, although many people fleeing Asian wars in boats (during this past few decades) were told that that there were giants in the U.S. Would the Bible consider tall people, like Europeans and Americans and certain African tribes, giants?
2. Genesis also tells us that God destroyed the world because there was so much violence in the world.
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence (Genesis 6:11).
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence (Genesis 6:11).
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth (Genesis 6:13)."
Violence is the only evil that is clearly defined, leaving us with a lot of questions and the need for more clarification. What type of violence are we looking at? And who was committing the violence?
WHAT TYPE OF VIOLENCE ARE WE LOOKING AT?
The Book of Enoch tells us that the violence on the earth that prevailed during Noah's day was the violence that the giants created by slaughtering humans; however, by the time the Book of Enoch was written, Noah was ancient history.
So we are left with the overall context of the book of Genesis to give us clues. And in Genesis we find several stories of violence.
1. Cain killed Abel.
2. Lamech killed a man in self defense.
3. Abraham slaughtered an army of pillagers who kidnapped his nephew Lot.
3. Sarah was probably abusive toward Hagar - Sarah abused (va-ta’anneha) Hagar. The Hebrew word suggests physical as well as mental abuse (Gen. Rabbah 45:6). http://www.moshereiss.org/articles/33_hagar.htm
3. Abraham slaughtered an army of pillagers who kidnapped his nephew Lot.
3. Sarah was probably abusive toward Hagar - Sarah abused (va-ta’anneha) Hagar. The Hebrew word suggests physical as well as mental abuse (Gen. Rabbah 45:6). http://www.moshereiss.org/articles/33_hagar.htm
4. The men of Sodom made every effort to rape 2 angels.
5. Out of anger, Reuben had sex with his step mother (this may have been rape) to shame his dad.
6. Simeon and Levi slaughtered the men of an entire village because their leader's son date raped their sister.
Of course the event in Genesis that is most like the destruction of the world is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And looking to Sodom and Gomorrah, we see that violence is the one strand that connects the two.
The writer of Genesis may have considered homosexuality to be a sin, but the fact is this: Violence is emphasized in both of God's wrath and destruction, other sins are not. I would say that the writer of Genesis believed violence was the worse of the sins. Consider also that as early as the time of the first family, Cain killed his brother Abel, which was an act of violence which likewise called down God's wrath on Cain.
After God destroyed the world with a flood, He regretted destroying the world, because people will always be violent - whether in self protection or in aggression. Even if God destroyed the world countless times, people would still resort to violence to solve their issues.
CONCLUSION
I believe that the reason God destroyed the world in Genesis 6 and 7 was due to the violence that dominated the world at that time, a violence that did not go away after the time of Noah, but continued in Sodom and Gomorrah and continues even today in every society.
Of course the event in Genesis that is most like the destruction of the world is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And looking to Sodom and Gomorrah, we see that violence is the one strand that connects the two.
The writer of Genesis may have considered homosexuality to be a sin, but the fact is this: Violence is emphasized in both of God's wrath and destruction, other sins are not. I would say that the writer of Genesis believed violence was the worse of the sins. Consider also that as early as the time of the first family, Cain killed his brother Abel, which was an act of violence which likewise called down God's wrath on Cain.
After God destroyed the world with a flood, He regretted destroying the world, because people will always be violent - whether in self protection or in aggression. Even if God destroyed the world countless times, people would still resort to violence to solve their issues.
CONCLUSION
I believe that the reason God destroyed the world in Genesis 6 and 7 was due to the violence that dominated the world at that time, a violence that did not go away after the time of Noah, but continued in Sodom and Gomorrah and continues even today in every society.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Genesis Illustrated by R. Crumb
So my parents just bought me R. Crumb's "The Book of Genesis Illustrated" and had it shipped to my house. I was very much looking forward to reading it. I lived in the 60s as a teenager and appreciated Crumb's illustration, and when the book arrived I was exited about it.
Here's the scoop: I was expecting the whole book to be Crumb's strange comic book interpretation of Genesis. I expected to be a little surprised by Crumb's strange world of animation and expected a wild approach to the reading of Genesis. What I did not expect to find was that Crumb wrote every literal word and illustrated accordingly from the beginning to the end of Genesis (the translation was by a Comparative Literature scholar and writer - Robert Alter).
Although he was conservative (from a literature point of view), his animation was awesome.
THE TRANSLATION
Overall, what I read so far of Alter's translation is nothing unusual. To be honest there are conservative translations such as the Living Bible that take far more liberties with the Hebrew than Alter does. There was one very small detail which I did notice in Genesis 6, when God saw the "violence" on the earth (as most translations read), Alter interpreted the word to "outrage" instead...so the world was filled with outrage. This may be a legitimate translation, but I prefer violence because it fits more with the rest of Genesis. But this is nothing to sweat about.
THE ILLUSTRATIONS
-There is an amazing amount of detail and an incredible amount of work put into this project. I am blown away.
-Some scenes are very graphic, but then so is the Bible.
-Women are tough looking and muscular.
Not much more to say about it.
Here's the scoop: I was expecting the whole book to be Crumb's strange comic book interpretation of Genesis. I expected to be a little surprised by Crumb's strange world of animation and expected a wild approach to the reading of Genesis. What I did not expect to find was that Crumb wrote every literal word and illustrated accordingly from the beginning to the end of Genesis (the translation was by a Comparative Literature scholar and writer - Robert Alter).
Although he was conservative (from a literature point of view), his animation was awesome.
THE TRANSLATION
Overall, what I read so far of Alter's translation is nothing unusual. To be honest there are conservative translations such as the Living Bible that take far more liberties with the Hebrew than Alter does. There was one very small detail which I did notice in Genesis 6, when God saw the "violence" on the earth (as most translations read), Alter interpreted the word to "outrage" instead...so the world was filled with outrage. This may be a legitimate translation, but I prefer violence because it fits more with the rest of Genesis. But this is nothing to sweat about.
THE ILLUSTRATIONS
-There is an amazing amount of detail and an incredible amount of work put into this project. I am blown away.
-Some scenes are very graphic, but then so is the Bible.
-Women are tough looking and muscular.
Not much more to say about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)