Single lens approaches to themes can be helpful but also limiting. The classic is that of the ‘atonement’ with a particular theory being made the explanation of what took place – and this includes the popular ‘scapegoat’ approach – popular among progressives. I write the previous words to acknowledge that I am about to write about a single lens approach to creation, fall and redemption; I am also going to push the boat out, maybe away from the shore too much for some, as this blog is entitled ‘perspectives’ – though I am getting close to being ready to put my weight on the concept I will present and I think it will not give way! The next post will be the one where the exploration is expressed.
The single lens is that of alienation and reconciliation. (Single lens – not that of guilt and forgiveness / justification as per the Reformation.) I do not read Genesis as perfection and fall but as humanity created for relationship with God and created where that relationship can grow (all is good, not perfect as in the sense of mature), so not a hard fall but a departure from the path that leads ever closer to God, but a fall that is a historic statement on humanity so that ‘all have sinned (missed the purpose of what it is to be humanity) and thus have fallen short of (not attained) the glory of God (as would have been revealed if humanity had grown – as revealed by the one who came and having suffered grew into true humanity)’…. (Hope Paul is happy with my parenthesis!)
The result of not taking the path of eating from the tree of life but from the tree of (independent) knowledge of good and evil, of taking the independent path of becoming like God is relational alienation. Shame enters the world of humanity and there comes an inability to see God. The hiding from God is somewhat ironic for what it meant was not that humanity was able to hide but that the result was that they could not see God – it was if God became the hidden God! The ‘devil’ works off the back of this to blind the eyes so that sight becomes impossible.
The relation with each other – the one who is both like us ‘bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh’ and also different ‘male and female s/he made them’ is distorted with the other in the wrong (hence ‘scapegoating’ is not an irrelevant aspect) thus the inter-human-relationships are deeply affected, spilling over as we read beyond the Genesis 3 ‘fall’ of familial murder and then into wider warfare, written about both implicitly and explicitly in the expanding narrative concerning nations and city building.
We also have the rather strange passage about the outside-of-appointed-boundaries sexual relations between ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of women’. Myth but truly representing the distortion of rightly-ordered respectful relationships – affecting not simply our habitat but the entire cosmic order.
And we add to this the tension on the physical world around us – ‘cursed because of you’.
So my summarised single lens is that of ‘alienation’ that outworks in at least four ways:
- Alienation in the relationship to God – not on God’s side, but the invisible God becomes the hidden God
- Alienation from the other
- Alienation from creation
- Alienation from oneself
If we then jump beyond Genesis 1-11 we come to the opening lines about God appearing to Abraham in the land of Mesopotamia and called him to walk a (literal and spiritual) different path we begin on the redemptive narrative. A relational path away from the centre. The laws that then follow are given to a redeemed people so that in turn they can be part of the redemptive activity of God. The laws concern the alienation ‘problems’ – addressing at the centre the first two areas, with a focus on (as Jesus said) what the entire law and the prophets are based: love for God and for the neighbour. I wrote in The LifeLine (yes go and order it!) that the cross is essentially to do with cleansing so that there can be a meeting point for anyone to meet with the holy God, or in Paul’s words that ‘God was in Christ (Messiah, representative Israel / humanity) reconciling the world (all humanity) to him/herself’. Once Jesus dies there can be no sanctuary per se; the temple curtain must divide not only as a sign but to reveal that when the full truth is revealed what is hidden can be shown not to be present. Emmanuel, God with us, is not in a sanctuary, but ‘with us’ to the end of whatever age we choose to measure things by.
Reconciliation. And reconciliation in four directions:
- Reconciled to God
- Reconciled to the other
- Reconciled to creation
- Reconciled to one self
The issues have always been relational – the solution has to be relational. The centre is not legal to be settled in a cosmic lawcourt before a Judge, but the familial setting is central – we call no one ‘father’ but the God whose eyes have always seen us (read the Hagar story) resulting in a re-establishing of familial relationships, as described by Jesus:
Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matt. 12:49-50)
My single lens – alienation and reconciliation. In the next post I will seek to explore the four areas of reconciliation.
Hi Martin, thanks for this. It’s always so good to hear from you. I wonder whether you have heard Michael Heiser on the sons of Gid passages you allude to, and if so how you react?
Also, what do you feel caused the shame That came into humanity in the garden?
Always thankful for your ministry among us, Andy.
Andy…good to hear from you and likewise good memories for all the interactions with you and the wider body… passion, clarity, focus and a bigness of heart – enriching every time I have been with you.
Michael Heiser – first a scholar so has to be taken seriously and although sadly passed away I guess he could carry my brain around in his back pocket! Secondly I am aware of his work, mainly through talks he has given, but I have not read his books, so any comment might indeed reveal my lack of understanding.
When I use the term ‘myth’ for those early chapters of Genesis I am not using in the sense of ‘definitely not historical / literal’ but am suspending whether the texts are historical in the sense of if I had a video recorder present what would be seen would be exactly what is recorded in the text. I think the genre of literature pushes me that way, and there was a divergence of views among Jewish rabbis on the text. For example, Isaac Abrabanel (15th Century) considered that Genesis 6 was not to be taken literally and that the ‘sons of God’ were the older generations who were closer to physical perfection, as Adam and Eve were perfect. Each generation diminished in stature so that the longevity was limited to 120 years. The earlier generations produced giants. One view among many.
I suspect that the ancient Jewish mind can handle a lot more ambiguity than we can… so for example in the NT Jesus tells the disciples to heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead… I doubt if they asked for clarification as to how many dead to be raised. The instruction was there but the relationship to God and the anointing at the time would determine how they responded.
So back to Michael Heiser and Gen 6 and his take on the divine counsel. I think we have an earlier view that gets developed. Satan is part of the divine counsel if we look at Job, but by NT times / Revelation does not seem to be. God inspires David to count the tribes but the later book (Chronicles) says it was Satan – I do think we have a refinement of theology (and by that I do mean theo-logy: who God is). The Jews had God as the supreme God, but he is the God of Israel – NT there is only ONE God for the world. Paul accepts ‘other gods’ but does not seem to have them as part of the divine counsel (1 Cor. 8). I cannot demythologise to the level of Walter Wink but am not sure I can go as literal as Heiser (and that is a comment from not having read his material).
Peter and Jude grapple with the Genesis 6 passage and give it high creedance – also drawing from the book of Enoch (NOT written by Enoch!!!) that later church authorities did not accept as cannonical.
Where does this take me?
I am more interested in practice. At one level I am even slightly agnostic about the existence of the devil as a ‘person’ but I am very interested in resisting the devil. I want to be in line with what is ‘practised’ in the Scriptures, and not simply state ‘this is the situation because I have the text in my favour’. I have encountered many demonic spirits and also ones over whole territories and nations – experiences that go way beyond my imagination. My experiences would certainly push me to a ‘personal devil’ and ‘territorial spirits’. I don’t know how to totally theologise on that but I have been very focused on how I respond… my response has always been ‘this is personal’ not something abstract.
In my post… as you will read when I next post I am seeking to ultimately leave judgement to God – not my place – while allowing for a wideness in the heart of God and to hold to the centrality of the Jesus of history as being the Christ who revealed God to us and through whom we come to the One we know as ‘Father’.
Perspectives!!!!!
Thanks Martin. This is exciting. The theology of the fall and scapegoating (funny how so often it was women who bore the brunt of that) has been terribly alienating for many people. I appreciate all of the deep thinking that has gone into this. Just waiting to see where that boat goes once it is pushed out and away. New adventures for sure.