02-13-24 #9 The Fall Gen 2-3 answers
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Mount St. Mary's University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
220
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
12
Uploaded by dyanacastro03
Week 5
Topic
Reading
Assignment
Feb 28
The Fall: Gen 2-3
Gen 2:4-3:24; Birge, “Genesis,” 12-27; Lohfink, 15-21
WS #9
Worksheet #9
The Fall: Gen 2-3
We learned a great deal about the creation story in Genesis 1 and how it was connected to the Babylonian exile and the Babylonian creation story, the Enuma Elish
. Now we are shifting to the
creation story in Genesis 2-3. As you discovered and noted in your charts, this story includes a story of “the Fall” or of “original sin” (although we never read this phrase in the story). As we learned, Genesis 1 comes from the Priestly Source (about 500 BC), but Genesis 2-3 comes from the Yahwist Source that was written about 450 years BEFORE the Priestly Source (950 BC). That is a big-time gap…think about how differently we think in 2024 than people did in 1574 (2024 – 450 years = 1574)!
You might wonder why this story appears second if it was written first (wow that is
confusing
!). You might remember reading in Birge that the Priestly Writers were also the final editors of
the first five books of the Bible, arranging the stories and inserting their writings in different places. As editors, they put their creation story first! While this might strike us as a bit self-
serving, this was a great choice! What a great way to open the Bible! (Someone at this point, might be thinking, this sounds like a lot of human “making up” etc.! But remember God is the author, but used human beings in their own ways and traditions to transmit God’s word
…for many this is TOO SCANDALOUS!!!!! Why didn’t God just drop the Bible from heaven…but God’s ways are not our ways…God always wants a companion!)
The Fall: Birge Reading
One of the distinctive marks of the creation story in Genesis 2-3 is the inclusion of the story of humanity’s turning away from God’s plan to embrace its own plan. Etiology is used in this story.
The word “etiology” appears in Birge’s reading. Etiology is an explanation for how something came about or, in other words, “the cause of something.” Sometimes the explanation we are given is not necessarily the scientifically correct one and can be folk tale like. For instance, when
I was young, I was afraid of thunder, and I asked my mother what that terrible noise was. She responded, “Don’t worry. It is only the angels bowling in heaven!” This is an example of etiology. My mother explained the cause of the noise, even though it was not a “true” or “scientific” explanation. We see examples of etiology in Gen 3:14-19. Why does the serpent crawl on its belly? Why does a woman experience so much pain in childbirth? Why do humans have to work by the sweat of their brow? These are questions that seek an explanation. The story will provide an etiological explanation—punishment for the serpent and consequences of disobedience for Adam and Eve—but also a theological explanation. The latter is important and can be found in Birge, pp. 24-25.
1
1)
What task did the royal scribes under King David set out to do? (12-15)
King David established a school of scribes, modelled on schools established in other Ancient Near Eastern nations such as Assyria and Egypt. These scribes were charged with writing a history of the king and his royal household. The chief source were the oral traditions inherited from their wandering Israelite forebears. The scribes would also have drawn from stories and literary forms in neighboring, non-Israelite cultures. These would have to be translated into Hebrew and then adapted and interwoven into their own ancestral stories. The stories would lionize the king and his royal family, while admonishing people for their failings. The stories would address questions of identity, meaning and purpose in Israelite society. The creation story (Gen 2:4-3:24) has two parts: 1) God’s creation of the garden and humankind and 2) a story of human frailty in the face of temptation and God’s compassion and fidelity in response. 2)
According to Birge, what does the Tree of Life and of Knowledge of Good and Evil represent? (17)
The tree represents the wisdom that is the sole province of God, which humans may not grasp. (Look at Job 15:7-9, Job 40 and Proverbs 30:1-4). The
couples’ choice to eat of the forbidden fruit and God’s response exemplifies a key aspect of the narrator’s understanding of a human being: a human being is not God!
Human beings must not eat of the fruit of this tree. Important: neither God nor the narrator of the story gives a reason or justifies this command: it simply is. It represents the experience that human beings don’t know everything and must trust in God (and, more specifically, that God’s intentions for human beings are good).
3)
According to Birge, what does the nakedness of Adam and Eve represent? (19-20)
This will provide a bridge between the Yahwist’s story of creation and the subsequent alienation (the fall) from God and from one another. It signals that there was a time when man and woman were not ashamed but soon would be. The lack of shame in their nakedness is a symbol of the state of their
relationship with God and with one another—open, unself-conscious, 2
intimate. After the fall the embarrassment of their nakedness is a symbol of their alienation from God and from one another. The etiology here: why are human beings embarrassed by their nakedness…
they disobeyed God and are now experiencing alienation from God and one another. The theology here: sin is alienation from each other and from God.
4)
What are some insights that Birge includes about the serpent? (20-21)
The serpent is pivotal for moving the story’s plot forward. a)
In the Ancient Near Eastern cultures/religions, the serpent was ascribed to be wise and cunning (see Mt 10:16). b)
Since snakes can shed their skin, they also had become a symbol of immortality (see Ez 29:3). Symbol of life (fertility): we still see evidence of this in the medical profession where you see this symbol: Snakes shed their skin, which is a sign of new life. They also are phallic symbols which are symbol of the generation of new life. Among many foreign people whom Israel encountered, temples used naked women handling serpents as a rite of fertility to generate crops and herds. (Remember Gen 1 said that all fertility comes from God—through the natural generation that God has placed in creation—rather than through the mating of some divine couple represented in the temple cults involving snakes.) Over time, the snake comes to represent the “strange gods” that God warns Israel to avoid as it encounters other people. (See Birge, p. 20-
21)
c)
In the Ancient Near Eastern mythology, the most fearsome creature was the large, snake-like monster (see Is 27:1 and Jb 26:13) that inhabited the depths of the sea. As a desert people, Israel was most afraid of The Great Sea (The Mediterranean Sea) which represented chaos and the unknown. In the depths of this chaos lived (what they thought) was the great sea 3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
creature. The Yahwist removes the monster from the great seas and rivers,
shrinks its size, and brings the fearful creature into the light of day. Shrinking its size in the story makes it more ordinary and destroys its “power” as a local deity. (See Birge, p. 21)
d)
The snake is a “creature”: the serpent is one of God’s creatures…isn’t that interesting?????? It is not a god. (See Birge, p. 21)
5)
Use Birge to provide some details of the conversation between the serpent and the woman and then between the man and God. (22)
-the snake calls “Lord God” “God”
-the snake changes “Command” to “say”
4
-the snake exaggerates what God “said” to engage the woman (You should not
eat of any of the trees…)
-Woman uses “God” and “said” and distorts command…not even touch it…
-the snake says that you “will not die”…yes and no! (They will not physically die, but their innocent relationship with each other, the earth, and God will die…they are now alienated from each relationship, replacing the peace and harmony that they had enjoyed previously.)
6)
According to Birge, what is the source of human sin? (23-24)
-the snake says, “You will be like gods” …the great temptation of all creatures. We want to be the “Lord of our lives.” To be a creature means that we must do something that is very difficult…we must TRUST that God is good and means well for us. The great temptation is to try to take things into our own hands and to doubt that God’s plan for us is good and in our best interests. (See especially Birge, bottom p. 23.)
-and then the man…oh my…what does he say to God about what he has done? “The woman you gave me!!!!” So, whose fault is all of this? The man suggests that it is God’s fault! If you had not given me the woman, this would never have happened! -think of how often we do this! Someone gets arrested for drunk driving and they say, “If that bartender stopped serving me, this would never have happened!” Or we do poorly on a test and say, “If that teacher were clearer I would have done much better!” (Of course, this one could be true!
) -there is a profound insight in this story about how difficult it is for us to take responsibility for the great gift God had given us: to choose freely! Sometimes
we use this gift poorly, and then it is all too easy to blame someone or something else for my choice!
7)
What are the “consequences” or “punishments” for the serpent, the woman, and the man?
You should note the etiological explanation for each and theological explanation for each. (24-25)
Punishment—or, better, consequences! (See Birge, pp. 24-25)
This is interesting: If you think that God is “in charge” giving out commands and punishing people for their disobedience, you might use the word “punishments.” 5
If you think that people have free will and make choices that have consequences, you might use the word “consequences.”
Etiology: this is a kind of “folktale” explanation to why things are the way they are. For instance, when you were young, you heard thunder and you might have been afraid. But your mother said, “Don’t worry! It is the angels bowling!” Or you are young, and you see some brown cows and some white cows in the field and you ask your dad why they are different colors. And he says, “When they were born, the brown cows were given chocolate milk to drink, and the white cows were given regular milk to drink.” Both examples are “explanations” of why things are the way that they are, but they are not “real scientific” explanations but more like “folk tale” explanations. In the case of these texts, we see the etiological answers about why things are the way
they are: Why does a serpent crawl on its belly? (Many artists have depicted the snake as standing before “the fall.” I have included a picture of one painting below…most people find it a bit “creepy!”) 6
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Why does a woman give birth in pain and seem to be “inferior” to her husband? Why does a man (humans) have to work by the sweat of their brow? The etiological answer is that these are the consequences for disobeying
God.
Let’s see what these consequences might mean not etiologically
but theologically
. The overriding concern is that these punishments serve as a warning to Israel about what will happen (consequences) if they fail to trust God and instead put their trust in the strange gods of their neighbors, who often seem better off and more successful—so maybe “their” gods are better!!!! (See Birge, pp. 24-25.)
1) Serpent: perpetual hostility between Israel and the strange gods of neighboring people…this could be particularly directed to Israel’s kings who married foreign women (for military alliances) who brought worship of their gods to Israel…in this context, the command for men to “rule over” their wives is directed to Israel’s kings but all men who might take a Canaanite bride to make sure that they are not tempted to follow their foreign gods instead of the Lord God.
On another note, there is the language about the offspring of the woman and the snake “striking at” the heel and the head. In truth, this is the story of Israel, for it constantly was interacting with these strange gods. Christians believe that this enmity was finally put to an end with the coming of Christ. Hence, we often see statues of Mary with her foot crushing the head of the serpent, putting an end to this enmity…see photos. 7
2) Woman: men will “rule over” them…but this is a reference to how men (and kings) should rule over their foreign wives and not be tempted to desert the Lord God in favor of these strange gods. 3) Man: underscores the first two about depending on Lord God alone. As they learned new agricultural practices from the Canaanites (they had been shepherds and nomads), they might be tempted to adopt the local religious practices of making offering to the divine couples for a good crop. The message is, again, that all fertility, all life comes from God, and it is God whom they should trust…they should not take out an “insurance policy” in case God does not come through! They are to trust completely in the Lord God…which Adam and Eve could not do. 8)
How have the tranquility and harmony been transformed due to sin? (26)
At the end of the story, man “names” the woman that signals a new reality…
there is alienation between them now. They do not “die” but they undergo an emotional death of alienation from the land, each other, and God. This is, what we might call, the effects of the original sin of not trusting God. This is something that all people share…a difficulty, as creatures, WHO ARE NOT GOD, in trusting God’s plan for us. We want to be the LORD OF OUR LIVES and want to take control of things for our own good. We want to grasp
for ourselves in our own way and in our own time what God wants to freely give us…but that means that we must TRUST!
For Jews, the one who can place his trust in God is Abraham. God decides that God can build a people upon the faith of this man. For Christians, the one
who will give an example of what it is to totally TRUST God is Jesus. An ancient hymn to Christ, found in Philippians, chapter 2 reads: “Though he was in the form of God, he did not grasp equality with God…but rather emptied himself…and accepted death on a cross.” This is the story of the supreme trust that Jesus has in God, giving us a model to follow. The Fall: Lohfink Reading
Birge has provided us with some incredible insights into the story of creation and the fall in Gen 2-3. Lohfink has other insights that will complement what we have learned so far. He will begin by reflecting on the “total” view of the Priestly author about creation, noting that the Priestly author does not explain how evil broke into the world. The Yahwist author, however, tells how sin came into the world and began to reproduce itself. 8
At the end of the day, you might think about “original sin.” Maybe people would give the standard answer: “Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate from the fruit of the tree that was forbidden them. This is original sin, and we all have it now.” There is nothing wrong with this answer in some ways. It re-tells the story (except for the part about how “we all have it now”). But, at a deeper level, what is the story trying to tell us about human beings? What is it that we (not just Adam and Eve, but all of us) have such a hard time doing in relation to God? You might even think further about Jesus…what does he do in relation to God that we find so difficult? This story of “the Fall” is a profound understanding of human nature and our struggles in relation to responding to God’s plan for us. See if you can ponder this
a bit to understand this story at a deeper level that makes sense for a 21
st
century person of today.
9)
Lohfink begins by commenting upon the view of the Priestly author about creation. What
is this view and what two statements does he identify that provide this view? (15)
Lohfink (p. 15), reflecting upon the Priestly account of creation (Gen 1), notes that while the author states that “God saw everything that he made, and indeed, it was very good” (Gen 1:31), the Priestly account ALSO states that “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen 6:11). These sentences together suggest that human beings can only experience the glory of creation as something broken. While the Priestly account does not have a story about “the fall,” it sees humanity as reckless, thoughtless, corrupting the earth, ripe for the Flood.
10) According to Lohfink, what does this story tell us about the human condition? (16)
For its part, the Yahwist account in Gen 2-3 tells us how sin entered the world
and reproduces itself in various forms of violence. Lohfink notes that it is not an historical account, but a narrative that through images and symbols tells the story of Israel. He notes that the story with its images and symbols tell us what, in God’s eyes human beings could be and what in fact they have become.
-they could be intimate with the earth
-they could be intimate with the animals
-they could be intimate with each other
-they could be intimate with God (so much so that they can walk in the garden
with God)
9
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
-they could live in trust and confidence with the earth, the animals, each other
and God
-they could use their gift of freedom to build and shape the world
11) What is it that humans do not do? Why? (17)
Humans misuse the freedom that God gives them (p. 17). They can eat of all the trees of the world…unlimited possibilities…except for the one tree. This tree represents the commandment or will of God and must be obeyed. (Interestingly, neither God nor the author of the story gives a reason. The command stands as a reminder that humans are creatures and must trust the creator and that the creator actually has their best interests at heart.) Lohfink
is good here: “They do not trust God. They are afraid that they are missing something. They suspect that something is being withheld from them. They want to be everything, in and of themselves. THEY WANT TO BE LIKE GOD (3:5); that is, they want to be masters of themselves. And precisely that is sin.” In other words, they cannot accept that they are creatures; they want to be God. And they misuse their freedom to follow their own path in which they GRASP what God freely wanted to give them. But, they cannot trust that
God will do this in God’s way and God’s time, so they GRASP it themselves. (Remember I mentioned the Christological hymn in Phil 2 about Jesus: “Although he was in the form of God, he did not GRASP….” Jesus does what
humans do not do: trust in God’s plan.)
12) What are the consequences of humanity’s actions? (17-18)
Sin does not open new possibilities for them, but rather, they have thrown away an infinite opportunity. -the earth that could be so beautiful is cursed
-the animals with whom they could be so intimate remain strange or inimical
-the work that could become co-creation with God is toil
-the relationship between man and woman is now marked by domination and tyranny
-God becomes a horror to them
We see how the man betrays the woman, and indeed, really blames God! “The
woman YOU gave me…” The consequences of sin appear more fully in the 10
story of Cain and Abel, where not only is the relationship with God destroyed,
but also the relationship between human beings…life together becomes rivalry.
Lohfink makes the point that this is not just a story about a single event or a single relationship, but the story of humanity (see Cain and Abel).
13) What “big” questions does Lohfink raise? (18)
Big Questions: a)
Why did God create the world in the first place if human beings mistrusted God from the very beginning and corrupted the earth? If this is what humans are like, would it not be better that there is no such world at all? And if such a world does exist—and it does—would it not be fair to wonder if the God who supposedly created it EXISTS?
b)
Why does God risk a history tainted by sin? 14) How does Lohfink respond to these questions? (18-19)
a)
Lohfink suggests that these questions come from a perspective of mistrust in God and God’s intentions. If, on the other hand, instead of doubting God and God’s plan (why make such a world anyway?), we stood in praise of God and God’s plan, it would mean that we would be TRUSTING that God and God’s plan are good AND that God is not only infinitely greater and therefore can see more than the one who questions.
b)
God values freedom. God gives this gift to human beings. But, human beings have used this gift of freedom poorly. 15) How does Lohfink see freedom in relation to evolution? (19-20)
Lohfink sees this in the pre-human evolution as well, where over three billion years, despite countless failed experiments and side paths, creation (embraced
by the eternal creative Word of God) gives rise to humanity (pp. 19-20) and their gift of freedom. God does this by leaving humanity entirely free, yet calling it to Godself (God is Almighty!).
11
16) What is it that God wants with humanity and what makes this possible? (20)
But human freedom, even if used improperly, is necessary IF GOD IS TO HAVE A PARTNER who can say “no” because God desires a partner who can say “yes!” In other words, if God desires a partner who can say “yes,” this
means that this partner is also capable of saying “no.” Without freedom we would only be puppets or machines. God does not desire to “make” us love God; God desires that we freely “choose” to love God.
17) What are the three Jewish legends that Lohfink recounts and what is the real point of them? (20-21)
Lohfink ends this section with three “stories” about God’s hesitation to create the world…these point to the fact that others have wondered about the big questions we are pondering. The point Lohfink makes is that these stories reveal that there is not only a history of sin in the world, but there is also a history of trust and freedom that is not misused. He points in particular to Abraham (the Father of Faith), who God sees as a rock on which God can save the world. He also points to Israel who accepts the Torah (the Law or the Commandments) because they will stand as a witness to the world of what it is
to be in relationship with God. As we continue in the course, we will look at these two entities: Abraham and Israel, and how they cooperate with God for the salvation of the world.
12
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help