Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
These two verses (Genesis 2:5-6) were the springboard of some very weird speculations in the charismatic circles I frequented for several years in DFW, Texas. In particular, I remember television personalities saying (with straight faces) that these verses indicated the method through which God brought all of the floodwaters upon the Earth (see Genesis 6-8)--essentially breaking the firmament of the heavens so that instead of dew, full rain showers would fall upon trees, hills, animals, and human beings. I think that one luminary even connected these verses with Genesis 1:2, suggesting that Creation was the first great struggle between God and Satan for control of the Earth (i.e. that the Earth was formless because Satan had laid it waste).
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when your spirituality is derived from television.
Not to offend anyone who believes these ideas (and others like them), but Genesis 2:5-6 clearly states that the "mist" fell before human beings were created--ergo, when the first man and woman appeared, rain fell on the ground. Anyone with even passing knowledge of the Earth's weather systems understands that rain is part of Earth's biosystem, not an aberration of it. Worse, this area of speculation fosters exactly the kind of mis-reading of the Bible that has become so endemic in our age--taking 1 or 2 verses out of their original context, and using them to generate a wide array of bold new doctrines.
The point of these verses in the original text is simply to provide the background for the more important event which follows:
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life--and man became a living being.
Today, we know that human beings are, essentially, made up of molecules similar to those that exist in the ground . . . I am, of course, referring to organic molecules. What human beings, animals, plants, and the soil all have in common is that our molecules all contain one specific element on the periodic table: carbon. The presence of carbon (or lack thereof) is what distinguishes an organic molecule from an inorganic molecule, and thus, given the existence of this element in us and in the soils of the ground, the link between human beings and the dust of the earth is not inconceivable, even if it is somewhat difficult for minds steeped in postmodern secularist ideologies to imagine.
As for the breath of life, the metaphor we normally imagine in terms of this verse (mouth-to-mouth resuscitation) does not capture the essence of what the writer(s) were attempting to convey. The whole point here is that human beings were given "the breath of life"--that quality, that attribute, that soul which distinguishes us as thinking, breathing entities with minds, personalities, and hearts--not how it was given to them. Anyone with a passing knowledge of human civilizations knows that there is an essential core quality in our species that allows us to exist as more than mere intelligent animals. Our ability to make buildings, communities, love, and war is not in any way similar to the capabilities and inclinations of animals to mate, to build nests, and to defend their territory.
I wish I could say that this statement is necessarily a compliment to our species--in fact, I think it has borne out to be our greatest source of shame. After all, the destruction caused by animals is generally random, with no concern for anything except for instinctual goals. The destruction caused by human beings, however, is far more self-conscious, purposeful, and overtly evil.
The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden--and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
This verse was the springboard for even more weird speculations within the charismatic circles I once frequented. They would use this verse and the following verses from chapter 2 to engage in a flurry of wild theories about where we can "now" find the Garden of Eden:
Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon--it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good--the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon--it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris--it flows east of Assyria--And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
Of course, the failure to consider that time, tide, and erosion might have been used by God to destroy and/or hide the Garden of Eden from prying human eyes, not to mention (assuming that one takes these stories, on faith, as having actually occurred) the rising of floodwaters over the surface of the Earth, undermines these theories to the point of absurdity.
I'd like to mention, at this point, that the following verses
The name of the first is Pishon--it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good--the bdellium and the onyx stone are there.
are personally significant for me.
My first moment of departure from the nonsense I was accepting from charismatic circles (in particular, television and radio programs) occurred when I was listening to my stereo one day to a talk by a well-known African prosperity preacher. His text was Genesis 2:11-12, and as he read these verses, I could hear him intone the word "gold" with emphasis. The entire atmosphere and spirit of the talk--in which he essentially propounded the notion that aligning oneself with God will result in unimaginable monetary and financial bliss--were so overtly demonic that I actually got up and turned the radio off 20 minutes into the show.
Again, ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when you base your spirituality on the products of radio or television.
Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Yes, I skipped Genesis 2:9 earlier. ;)
This verse establishes what becomes the crux of the Genesis 2-3 narrative: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The following question, of course, arises from contemporary interpretations of the text: "Were these actual trees?" For the purposes of the story . . . yes, they were actual trees. Remember that stories orally passed down from generation to generation generally have a very "concrete" feel--real items, real things that human beings see every day, became resources in the telling of the story.
As for whether or not they were real trees, I think such conversations miss the point. After all, mankind's fall from utopia (and its condition over the past 6000 years) derive not from "little" things, like eating the wrong apple from the wrong tree, but from an overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness that justifies (in our minds) actions that are destructive. This, ultimately, is what upset the balance in humanity's relationship to its Creator--not the biting of an orange or banana but the idea that our God-given stewardship of the Earth gives us the right to be gods ourselves.
Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely--but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
Again, this has essentially been the result of humanity's unwillingness to be contented with the subject position of stewarding the Earth under the authority of God. It is neither the Bible nor Christ but our own self-righteousness that has been responsible for more wars, more atrocities, and more spiritual, emotional, and physical abuse than anything else in our benighted 6000 years of history. Our pathetic notions of superiority--particularly moral superiority--have bred genocide after genocide, horror after horror, across the face of a world whose soil has been covered in human blood.
Yes, we have surely died, over and over, as our world reels from the devastation of human wars, depredations, and greed.
No comments:
Post a Comment