Introduction: Scriptural Reasoning and the Garden of Eden
by Laura Eve Engel
Knowing
where to begin the process of scriptural reasoning did not come easy for our
group when we initially sat down to discuss Genesis 2 - 3. Though we each had a basic concept of what
was at stake—that we had come together, members of Jewish and Christian
backgrounds, to discuss a specific text with a nod to but not solely in light
of our respective traditions—the knowledge that we would each be expected to
generate a paper topic from this session made the road to pure scriptural
reasoning a bumpy one. Several of us had
done our homework, and came prepared with preconceptions and partially
researched theses about the text in question, ready to discuss and defend our
assertions at length. It was an
essential, humbling moment in our scriptural reasoning process when, after
delving immediately into outside sources concerning our half-formed ideas about
the text, we realized that we had neglected to examine the text closely
together. Leaving behind the complex
thoughts we had prepared at home, we began anew with Genesis 2:4, reading
slowly together, and pausing to reflect as a group as gap after gap emerged in
the text.
We
hit our first snag immediately in Genesis 2:4 - 2:7. We were troubled by the lack of temporal
linearity in these verses, specifically concerning where the creation of man
fell along the presented timeline. The
verses read:
When the LORD God made earth and heaven—when no
shrub of the field had yet sprouted, because the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no
man to till the soil, but a flow would well up from the ground and water the
whole surface of the earth—the LORD
God formed man from the dust of the earth. [1]
Those of us from Jewish and
Christian backgrounds were equally perplexed by the ambiguity of the timeline
in these verses. Reading the verses
together, we sifted slowly through the plain sense of Genesis 2:4 2:7, and
accepted this as a premise upon which we could all agree: that these verses
imply that man was created after God created the waters but before God created
the vegetation. Conversely, however,
verses in Genesis 1 assert that man was created on the sixth day, while the
earth sprouts vegetation[2]
and the gathering of waters[3]
occur on the third day. Our desire for
the chapters to be consistent with one another led us to posit that man was
created on the third day, but that man was not made in Gods image until
the sixth day, as the description of the creation during the sixth day reads: And
God created man in His image, in the image of God he created him; male and
female He created them. [4]Having reached this point together, we were
still puzzled by what now appeared to be a troubling gap in the description of
the third day. We spent a great deal of
time attempting to sort through the plain sense details in Genesis 1 and 2,
piecing together a rough outline that merged the two creation stories. We did not arrive at any one conclusion, but
the process of picking the verses apart using notions of linear, temporal logic
upon which we could all agree left us feeling vulnerable concerning the text,
and curious to return to our traditions to discover what outside Jewish or
Christian sources had to offer with regards to these issues. Throughout the course of our discussion, we
happened upon a number of issues that were troubling, complex, or which simply
required more probing. As we widened
these gaps as a group, possibilities for individual interpretation emerged, and
by the end of our intensive reading of the two chapters, each of us had
prioritized a theme to further explore on our own.
This journal issue
consists of four highly individual perspectives on Genesis 2 3, inspired by
intensive group reading and reasoning, but influenced appropriately by the
personal nature of choosing what, for each individual, was the most compelling
or problematic gap in the text. For Leah
Sievers, the gaps themselves were what fascinated her: during our discussion,
her comments tended towards pointing out the motion within the text of
Genesis 2 3, specifically the momentum of emptying and filling that seems to
dominate these chapters. In her article,
Leah juxtaposes creation with sin, the filling of the earth with life and
the momentary emptying of the earth of goodness[5] to
emphasize this process, as well as concludes that it is this process of filling
and emptying that creates the potential for healing the world. Her article draws on moments in the text that
we discussed as a groupthe flow welling up from the earth, the removal of
Adams rib to create Eveand elaborates upon them in a way that both references
our group work and adds a fresh perspective. Due to our intensive study and discussion of the text together, we may
appreciate her argument that much more fully because we understand the origin
of its premises. We were present as the
ideas that were to become her article were born, so to speak, and as a result
feel that much more intimately connected to it.
For Matt Semanik,
a different gap in the text needed filling. Matt chose a unique, discussion-inspired approach to this text: he was
compelled by the notion of free will as it relates to Adam and Eves agency in
Genesis 2 3, as well as how free will relates to salvation from a Christian
perspective. In our group reading of the
text, we discussed the nature of Adam and Eve in the garden. We wondered whether they were human beings
with agency, or rather the embodiment of logic or compassion, or perhaps even
vessels for the blueprint of civilization and society. Matts article speaks to the emphasis we put
on this issue, and the gap we widened in our discussion, and his article draws
on New Testament sources to scratch the itch of uncertainty with which our
discussion left him. To do this, he
turns to MatthewYet not as I will, but as you will[6]to
emphasize a relationship between free will and salvation, arguing that Adam and
Eve do not have active agency until they eat of the fruit of knowledge of good
and bad, at which point they are able to act, yes, but must also sacrifice
paradise. When Jesus sacrifices his will
for salvation, Matt argues, this is equivalent to returning to Eden, where humans have no
agency, but is subject instead to Gods will.
For Matt, reading Genesis 2 3 through New Testament scripture was a
crucial part of his scriptural reasoning exercise.
Adding his
interpretation to the mix, A. J. Kornblith focuses on the processes of
cultivation found within Genesis 2 - 3. His article stems from an interest in what it means that God placed Adam
and Eve in the garden to till it and tend it,[7]
and what tilling and tending might involve, both literally and
figuratively. A. J.'s interpretation
draws from our group discussion of a possible parallel between Genesis 1and
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness[8]and
the transformation that occurs when Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge
of good and bad: Now
the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad. [9]From this parallel, A. J. posits that the
garden served as a training ground for Adam and Eve to learn how to
cultivate: the earth, their relationships with one another and with God, and
ultimately, to cultivate society itself. The notion that perhaps God intended for Adam and Eve to eat from
the tree and thus become fully realized in the likeness of God supports the
idea that God was preparing them for a greater task. Similarly, perhaps, our group reading and
discussion was a training ground for interpretation, and it prepared A. J., as
well as the rest of us, to engage in a sustained, intensive reasoning with the
text in our articles.
Of all of us,
Peter Kang seemed to enter our reading of this text with the most specific
direction in mind. Personally affected
by what some considered to be justifiable gender inequality in his family's
church, Peter was inspired by 1st Timothy, which uses the garden story as a
means of justifying the subordination of women. Peter came to our discussion thinking about reading Genesis 2 3 in
relation to the New Testament, specifically as it related to 1st
Timothy, and shared this idea with us. His sensitivity to this issue added a dimension to our reading; as we
examined notions of culpability in the eating of the fruit, we were aware of
their reverberations in the New Testament and in the world today. Peter's article focuses on reading the New
Testament with a critical eye, catching and attempting to resolve
contradictions within scripture, and demanding that the New Testament remain
faithful to the intention of the scripture it cites, such as in the case of 1
Timothy. In this way, he examines and
attempts to heal some of the damage created by gender inequality in his own
church.
A number of
troubling gaps emerged in our discussion of a short but rich section of
text. Throughout the course of our
discussion, it became clear that we were not so much filling these gaps as
widening them, putting pressure on the initial fissure and prying, each from
his respective angle, at the troubling word or verse, until we had created
spaces together. The group task was to
widen these spaces and allow room for further exploration and interpretation;
the individual's task became to fill these collaboratively widened spaces with
unique interpretations, with help from her unique background and
tradition. We hope that these four
perspectives will provide a cohesive and yet refreshingly various look at
Genesis 2 3.
ENDNOTES
[1] JPS Hebrew-English
Tanakh (Philadephia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003) Genesis 2:4
2:7. All subsequent biblical citations
taken from this text.
[2] Genesis 1:12.
[3] Genesis 1:10.
[4] Genesis 1:27.
[5] Sievers, Leah. Genesis 2:2-3: The Filling and Emptying of
Literal and Imaginative Spaces.
[6] Matthew 26:39. (According to Matthew Semaniks Freewill,
Salvation, and the Fall. )
[7] Genesis 2:15.
[8] Genesis 1:26.
[9] Genesis 3:22.
© 2007, Society for Scriptural Reasoning
Return to Title Page
|
