The Bible Project Day 1

This Blog is a chronological project. 

If this is your first time reading please click here to start at the beginning

I liked this video a lot. I think a lot of people, myself included, tend to have a world view that the whole purpose of life is for people to adhere to an impossibly high standard, forsaking anything pleasurable or fun, just to keep God happy, and that the bible is a huge book of rules to follow to accomplish that goal. If you mess up (aka participate in a sinful act) then God is disappointed, or angry, or maybe even hates you depending on how big your mess up is.

I do not like the idea of that kind of life or God. None of us asks to be born. We just show up and have to deal with the consequence of being alive. This world view just makes me feel like a pawn in a game I never asked to play, and that I can't possibly win. Thankfully, this world view is wrong, and this video does a great job explaining why.

The point of life is to harness all the wonderful potential of the world and help it to flourish. We were meant to discover all the wonders of the universe and cultivate the world on God's behalf. However, when given the chance, humans chose to seek autonomy, or as the video says, to define good and evil for ourselves. This makes everything spiral out of control. Thankfully, God is determined to rescue the world and restore all relationships - our relationships with each other and our relationships with God. The Bible is not the list of rules we have to follow to get back in his good graces. Rather, it serves to tell the story of how God is restoring the world and humanity to what it was meant to be.

This is a God I want to know more about, and watching this video makes me glad I decided to start this project.

---

Today's scripture (Genesis 1-3) covers two main topics: The creation story and what is commonly known as "the fall of man".

The Creation Story

In Genesis 1:1-27 God made the heavens and the earth over the course of 6 days

Day 1: Light, day and night (1:3-5)
Day 2: Sky (1:6-8)
Day 3: Dry land and vegetation (1:9-13)
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars (1:14-18)
Day 5: Fish, other water life, and birds (1:19-23)
Day 6: Animals (1:24-25) and humans (1:26-27)

Humans were made in the image of God and were supposed to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and govern it, and eat only seed bearing plants and tree fruit (1:26-31). This is interesting to me - when did eating animal meat become an OK thing to do?

In Chapter 2 God rests and blesses the 7th day and declares it to be holy (2:1-4). Then Chapter 2 gives more detail about the creation story:

1. There was no vegetation on the earth and there was no rain only underground springs (2:5-6)
2. God formed a man out of the dust (2:7)
3. God plants a garden and puts the man in it (2:8-17)
4. God lets the man name all the animals and he calls himself Adam (2:18-20)
5. God makes a helper out of Adam's rib and Adam names her Woman (2:21-23)

So at first glance, it looks like the order of creation is contradictory here, and a quick google search suggests I am not the only person to notice that. Apparently, the Hebrew word used in chapter 1 is used to describe vegetation that grows wild, and the word used in chapter 2 is used for vegetation that is cultivated - so God planting a Garden was something new in addition to the wild vegetation he made previously - so that's not a contradiction. I can get behind that.

The order of animals vs humans is a little harder for me. Apparently, the verb tense you choose when you translate the Hebrew verb that was being used to describe how God made things makes a huge difference. When it is translated in the plurperfect tense it doesn't sound contradictory, but when it is translated in the perfect tense it does sound contradictory. That is a passable enough answer for me, personally. However, I do not like that there is an opportunity for this to be an issue for anyone. Why wasn't it just always translated in the plurperfect tense when the Bible was first translated? I am thinking that its possible language has evolved since then, and that the plurperfect tense just wasn't an option at the time. But I am not a language historian so who knows. Are language historians even a thing? Also, while I am on this thought train: do all languages and dialects even have a plurperfect tense nowadays?

In 2:24-25 the woman helper is now called his wife. Verse 24 seems sort of out of place. It is not a complete non-sequitur because it is related, but it doesn't fit the flow of the rest of the section. This isn't really an issue for me - it is just kind of weird.

Human Rebellion aka "The fall of Man"

Genesis chapter 3 is where everything just goes down hill. The serpent convinces the woman that it is a good idea to eat the fruit (3:1-5). I am not sure why everyone seems to think she ate an apple. It is just called fruit. The woman eats some, and she gives some to Adam who also eats it. They now have the knowledge of good and evil. They realize they are naked; so they make loincloths from leaves and hide from each other (3:6-7).

In 3:8-13 they have to tell God what happened. A question I had as I was reading this the first time was why didn't Adam and the woman die as soon as God walked into their presence the way God told Moses he would die if he saw God's face on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 33:20). An answer I found online was that this was God "the pre-incarnate son" rather than God "the father". They suggest this because in John 1:18 Jesus says no one other than him has seen the father at any time. But, on the second time reading through it I noticed that Adam and the woman did hide from God's presence, so this could also explain it. Moses was able to see the back of God and not die, so I guess its only an issue if you look at him straight on.

In 3:14-19 God explains the consequences for the serpent, the woman, and Adam. I have read these scriptures before, but I never really thought anything past, man that sucks and I hate that. But this time, since I have experienced a religious thought-induced mental breakdown, have been married for nearly 9 years and have given birth I have significantly more thoughts.

 The Serpent (Genesis 2:14-15)

First of all - if I hadn't watched the video I would not have gotten the "wounded victor" concept from the scripture. A bruised head doesn't sound like a fatal blow to me. That said, I did really like the way the video explained it.

Second of all - If God is determined to redeem his creation as they said in the video, then why could the serpent not be redeemed too? Why did it have to be destroyed? The best answer I could come up with is this: The video makes the case that rebellion against God paved the way for evil to enter the world. We now have a natural inclination to define good and evil in a way that benefits us over others. Adam and Eve were led into rebellion by that serpent, but no one led the serpent into rebellion. This leads me to consider the serpent to be a "root" of rebellion. You can redeem individual people and reconcile them to God, but as long as that root is there, it will continue to corrupt new people. This is like bailing water out of a boat without fixing the hole. So, that's the difference between people and the serpent. The root has to be destroyed to keep it from leading new people into rebellion. I realize this is a very flimsy answer, but its the best I have, and its enough for me right now.

The Woman (Genesis 2:16)

A. "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children"

Before watching the video, this has always seemed so weird and unfair to me. At surface level the scripture comes across as though the pain is a punishment made out of anger. It would be easy to read it and think that God is saying, "you disobeyed me, so now your punishment is terrible physical pain". But that doesn't seem right to me. Now, after watching the video, I think that this pain serves a deeper purpose.

First, I do not think this only applies to the physical pain of childbirth, but also to the emotional pain that comes with raising children. Childbirth was absolutely the most excruciating physical pain I have ever felt. Trying to become a mother and having two miscarriages, and being a mother who struggles with anxiety for my child's wellbeing has caused me a lot of emotional pain too. I think that the pain, physical or emotional, could serve as a tangible reminder of the pain that God feels from being separated from his children. I do not think that it is a revengeful "tit for tat" or "you hurt me so I will hurt you" punishment. Rather, I think that the deeper purpose is that this pain can be used to draw us back to God. 

Let's not overlook the obvious. The physical pain comes at the time when we are physically separated from the child we have shared existence with for nine long months. Emotional pain comes from multiple places: anxiety over possible harm than can come while temporarily separated from our children, the horrific possibility of being separated by death, and the depression that results from a fractured relationship that keeps our children distant or altogether absent.

My view of sin is that it all boils down to two lies: God doesn't really love us and therefore we should trust ourselves more than we trust God. God's deepest desire is that we would come to realize those lies for what they are and for our relationship to be restored to what it was meant to be. If I am right, that this pain is a clue to how God feels at being separated from his children, then how deep is his love for us to feel that pain and still want to fix our relationship when it was our choice to break it? I want to know a God that loves me like that. Don't get me wrong - childbirth pain still sucks. Emotional pain? That still sucks too. But the idea of a God who just doles out pain for no reason other than for vengeful punishment sucks more.  

B. "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." 

ooooooooh boy. Here is a red hot issue: Gender Equality. Lord, have mercy. I can feel people picking up their pitchforks, and I haven't even said anything yet.

In the context of the story, I can understand why this would happen. The woman was the one who ate the fruit, so it would make sense that she is the one who would be put under the rule of the husband. I honestly believe that if it had been Adam who ate the fruit first then it would be the other way around. HOWEVER, I do know that this scripture is grossly abused.

I think I will start with what I think this scripture does NOT mean. First of all, this scripture only applies in the context of a marriage. No random man, non-husband significant other (boyfriend, fiancee, etc), male relative, or male dominated entity, organization or government has the authority to tell anyone to do or to not do anything just because she is a woman. I am not a bible scholar, but I would bet my left foot and right butt cheek that I am right about that. Secondly, even within a marriage this scripture does not mean that a husband gets to lord over and micromanage his wife's life. Finally, this scripture certainly does not mean a husband can abuse his wife in any way, shape, or form.

This is what I think this scripture does mean: when a husband and wife need to make a decision that will affect the family as a whole, the husband has the authority to make the final decision, even if it is contrary to the wife's desire. This scripture does not mean that the wife is a doormat who doesn't get to voice her opinions. This scripture does not mean the husband and wife will never agree on anything. This scripture does not mean that the husband has the authority to choose things that only benefit him or to purposefully anger his wife. To borrow a phrase, with great power comes great responsibility. The husband's responsibility is to make decisions that will promote peace and justice for the family, and to help the members of the family have a healthy relationship with each other and with God.

Now, husbands are sinful people. They are going to make mistakes; some on accident and some on purpose. Does this scripture mean that a wife just has to sit by and let her husband abuse this scripture? Nope! Life is not meant to be lived in a vacuum. Life is lived in community. The wife absolutely has the right to reach out to others in her community when she feels the husband is not living up to his responsibility. The first key is for the wife to be wise in who she reaches out to for help. The second key would be to reach out in humility, not in anger or for the purpose of embarrassing her husband out of revenge.

Adam (Genesis 2:17-19)

To be honest, I don't really have much to say about this scripture. There isn't anything particularly upsetting to me about it. However, I will say that if anyone tries to pretend that epidurals for childbirth are sinful, they better also take issue with automatic farm equipment and the 40 hour work week. ;-)

What happens next strikes me as a little funny. In Genesis 2:23, Adam chose to call the helper "woman" because he wanted it known that she came from him. Now in chapter 3:20 Adam changes her name to Eve or "the mother of all who live". It seems as though because sin has entered the world, and he blames her for it (Genesis 3:12) he doesn't want to be so closely associated with her. And, by renaming her Eve any blame for people can be on her shoulders instead of his own. 

The rest of the chapter is just full of undeserved kindness. Adam and Eve rebelled because they thought they could do life better with their own ideas. When they were embarrassed of being naked, the best they could do was cover up their genitals with leaves, but God made them full outfits out of skins (3:21) If God was really just about punishing people for breaking rules then he wouldn't have given them an upgrade. He would have snatched leaves away and told them to create their own vegetation from scratch.

When I had read Genesis 3:22-24 previously, I read it as though Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden as a punishment because the garden was only for people who behave themselves. More importantly, I read it as though God kicked them out because He was afraid that if they ate from the tree of life then they really would be like God (all knowing and eternal); and that's not allowed because God wants to be special. I don't get that sense anymore. I see this as another undeserved kindness. God knew that people would be miserable, and he didn't want them to live forever being miserable. 

OK. So to wrap things up: Today's material has changed my view of God and sin. Yes, there are sinful actions: stealing, lying, cheating etc. But, now I think that I understand sin to be an inward human condition that compels us to engage in sinful actions. To me, sin can be boiled down to the human tendency to care about yourself over others. It comes from the idea that God doesn't really love us, and therefore we have to take care of ourselves rather than to trust God. And people will do anything to secure their prosperity.

I have always imaged that God hates sin the way a parent hates when a child breaks a rule. I don't think that's right anymore either. When a child breaks a rule like "don't eat cookies before dinner" they haven't irreparably broken their relationship with their parents. Sin is more serious than that. Sin (the human condition) keeps God's children away from him because they believe something about him that isn't even true so they run in the opposite direction. If something kept my child from me, I would hate that thing too.

Now, don't let what I just said paint a picture that I suddenly have all my issues figured out. Wouldn't that be nice? Oh, no I still have plenty of unanswered questions. Why did God create the serpent to begin with? Why didn't God destroy the serpent before it could lead people into rebellion? Why did God take thousands of years to enact his plan to redeem the world and repair our relationships? If his plan was successful then why is pain and suffering still a thing? Why does God let anyone go to Hell still? Oh, the questions could go on forever, But, for now I am choosing to be thankful for what I have learned from today's material, and I am hoping to learn more as I continue in my project.