|
Post by Douglas on Mar 11, 2008 8:59:05 GMT -8
I am doing some reading on Genesis, getting ready for a class, and i ran across the passage in Gen 3 where God is walking in the Garden searching for Adam and Eve. I have often struggled with these images of God walking talking and acting human so many generations before Christ. These tend to occur mostly in Genesis.
A thought occurred to me that perhaps there was an understanding among the Jewish people concerning these early stories that they are a little fuzzy. Kind of like a prehistory, a laying of the foundation for the rest of the story. They are part of the story and yet distinct from it. They are vitally important and yet in their own category. And as such are not subject to the same tools of investigation that we apply to some thing like the kingdom of King Solomon or the fall of Jerusalem in 586 b.c.
It seems to me that there was a freedom applied to these stories that allowed for there to be images and happenings that were not actually literal representations of an actual event, such as God walking about the Garden looking for Adam and Eve. I do not see a rigid belief that these events happened just as written if they actually happened at all. Rather there is an openness that allows for creative telling of the story.
For all i know the events may have happed just as they are recorded but i dont think that is the point. The theological foundation that they lay is of much more importance than their historical accuracy. Thus it seems reasonable that stories such as this ought to be understood in such a way that the backdrop to the story, (ie God walking around wondering where everyone went), does not obscure the point: God desperately desired a relationship with Adam and Eve but their sin prevented it.
The idea that these stories might not be exactly literal does not seem to bother many else except modern readers. Perhaps we have some unrealistic expectations that need to be changed if we are to read these passages as they were intended to read by their original audience.
Just some thoughts.
Douglas
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 11, 2008 10:31:59 GMT -8
This is an interesting topic, though I often wondered why the story of God walking in the garden with Adam and later searching for Adam and Eve after they had eaten the forbidden fruit is more difficult to comprehend then other theophanies that we read about in Scripture. For example in Genesis 18 Abraham was visited by three strangers.
Genesis 18:16-20 16 Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to send them on the way. 17 And the Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing, 18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him." 20 And the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave,
Here we see the Lord (God) Physically standing and talking with Abraham, but I have not heard anyone explain this passage away as poetic, with some spiritual meaning. We do know historically that Sodom and Gomorrah were actual cities that were destroyed.
Also in Genesis 32 Jacob wrestles with God.
Genesis 32:24-28 24 Then Jacob was left alone; and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of day. 25 Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob's hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him. 26 And He said, "Let Me go, for the day breaks." But he said, "I will not let You go unless You bless me!" 27 So He said to him, "What is your name?" He said, "Jacob." 28 And He said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed."
Now because God does appear Physically many time in scripture to relate to man, I tend to see the story of God walking in the garden with Adam as a factual event. At least I haven't seen any convincing reason to see it otherwise.
Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 11, 2008 15:39:09 GMT -8
Douglas, your thoughts sound quite similar to C.S. Lewis' view on the earliest parts of the Old Testament. He held the tentative view that as the Old Testament progresses what was originally true myth became myth become fact.
For me personally, as a skeptic and a believer, I find that perspective a good "bottom line". Trying to pin down whether every single event in the Old Testament (especially the first several chapters of Genesis) is hard historical fact, inspired myth, or something inbetween doesn't keep me up at nights like it used to. The evidence for the historical reliability and predictive prophecy of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is enough for me to place my faith in Christ. I'm open to God having used various mediums, genres, and methods of revelation.
Still, I see so much in the Genesis narrative that does hold up well under historical and scientific scrutiny that I remain positive about it's historicity in a stricter sense.
I agree with Robin that later theophanies in Genesis don't make a whole lot of sense without at the very least a historical kernel of truth involving God's physical interactions with man from the very beginning, so, why not this one?
The reference to God "walking" could be seen a couple ways, IMO. It could be seen as God manifesting Himself as the "Angel of the Lord"* as he does later, appearing in the guise of a man. Or it could be more nebulous, as when Moses is said to see God's "backside".
My two cents. I'm curious how others see it.
*I tend to see the Angel of the Lord appearances as appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ, though. Maybe it was Jesus walking in the garden in the cool of the day?
|
|
|
Post by Douglas on Mar 13, 2008 11:52:01 GMT -8
Interestingly enough my issues are not with God walking in the garden or any of his later manifestations but rather his apparent lack of knowledge as to where A & E were at. Of course i have heard 100 times in sermons that "Of course he knew where they were at, He was just doing for Adam and Eves sake." This may be true but it does not seem to me to be the end of the story. Perhaps there is something much deeper thematically going on here. I am not sure but the traditional explanation seems to fall very flat in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by sonlyte on Mar 16, 2008 15:47:52 GMT -8
"very flat"...maybe kind of like God is being a little to patronizing?
I suppose if God WAS in fact wondering, that could be similar to God changing his mind about something which he predetermined.
The eyes of God go through out the whole earth searching for certain kind of hearts ... why would he be searching if he already knew.
God tested them to find out what was inside of them, to see if they were obedient ... seems like onmiscience might already know the answer.
I have recently wondered if this trend of God appearing to not fully know might have something to do with our understanding of free will.
Well, now you have got me thinking again ... thanks.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 17, 2008 7:52:22 GMT -8
It may seem unlikely but, I think that perhaps when God did manifest himself in the OT, perhaps he took upon himself some human limitations much like Christ himself was limited in his humanity. I have heard it explained that when the hem of Jesus' garment was touched (Mark 5:30) and he said "who touched my clothes" he was being partonizing, but I think its unlikely. I think it is possible that pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus, which is what I think this is, may have had the same limitations as were apparent in his ministry. I know this touches on the whole kenosis debate, but thats how I see it.
Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2008 18:01:39 GMT -8
Somewhat related question for you folks:
Do you see all the "theophanies" in the OT as appearances of Jesus ("christophanies"), or as physical appearances of the Father?
I tend to see them all as "christophanies". Likewise, I'd argue that the "Angel of the Lord" is just another way of saying "Jesus", seeing as how in some cases the angel of the Lord speaks as God Himself.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 17, 2008 21:11:57 GMT -8
So, just out of curiosity, what leads you to that conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 18, 2008 16:47:08 GMT -8
Well, first off, let's take the "angel of the Lord".
Notice how this phrase is used interchangeably with "the Lord" in the OT:
Genesis 16: 7-14
7 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. 8 And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?" "I'm running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered. 9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." 10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count." 11 The angel of the LORD also said to her: "You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. 12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." 13 She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me." 14 That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi ; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.
Or in Genesis 22:
15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
Or in Exodus 3:
1 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up." 4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am."
5 "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." 6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
(This begins, of course, a whole section of Moses conversing with the angel of the Lord in the bush, spoken of as God)
There are numerous other passages along these lines, but I think these are some of the most clear.
As to why I think that these and other "theophanies" are appareances of Christ, I'll get to that later.
See if you can find a reference to the angel of the Lord that is definitely not a reference to God himself. I don't recall finding one.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 18, 2008 18:13:00 GMT -8
Yeah, I'm not really questioning the "angel of the Lord" thing (although I think there are definitely instances where it's not talking about God), but I'm wondering why you take the theophanies in the OT as pre-incarnate Christ. I've heard people say that's what they suspect, but I haven't really heard the case for it. It might be right, but I'm not entirely certain how that conclusion is reached.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 18, 2008 21:46:28 GMT -8
I'm curious which passages you're referring to.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 19, 2008 8:47:08 GMT -8
Wait a minute...I thought I was asking the question here. I'm not really wanting to get off on the "angel of the Lord" tangent, but to answer your question, off the top of my head, I believe the birth story of Jesus in the early parts of Matthew and Luke have the phrase, Acts 1, and misc passages throughout the OT I believe (I'd have to do a concordance search to get an exhaustive list). You'd have to examine each one in context to determine whether it's talking about God or just an angel of God. But, I'm more interested in how it is you arive at "Christophanies" as opposed to "Theophanies".
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 19, 2008 9:11:37 GMT -8
Well, I see establishing the angel of the Lord as God Himself (and most particularly as Jesus Himself) as the first link in a tentative chain of reasoning. So, to establish that well would be the first step.
I can't see a passage in the OT that necessitates that God cannot be the Angel of the Lord. The New Testament is a bit trickier.
I haven't done any linguistic study on this, but in the New Testament there is reference to "an angel of the Lord" rather than "THE angel of the Lord", and to me the difference seems signficant.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 19, 2008 9:20:23 GMT -8
Interestingly, the Old King James is the only translation I found that renders it "THE angel of the Lord" in the new testament. All the others render it "AN angel of the Lord" in the New Testament, including the New King James. I'm curious on the signficance of this. Hey, I'm a busy man. Thought I'd make you do some work too. Douglas- sorry to derail this topic so much. I'll split it off later when I have that capability as soon as the new version of the boards is updated.
|
|
|
Post by Douglas on Mar 21, 2008 11:12:50 GMT -8
To worries. Conversations often head in directions we never imagined at the start. That is what makes them fun!
About the "an angel" "the angel" idea you have to be very careful with this one. This is how the Jehovah's Witnesses defend their christology. They imagine that Greek works basically the same as English just with different words. I have no idea how the Hebrew would work in this case but in the Greek it is not nearly as clear as it is in English so be very careful.
Douglas
|
|
|
Post by Douglas on Mar 21, 2008 11:34:52 GMT -8
Rick, sorry to get you thinking again but isnt that what good friends are for.
In regards to God wondering:
One of the development in the early church was the adapting of Greek philosophy to Christian thought. I firmly believe that this searching out of truth within pagan though has served the Church in mighty ways as it strived to preach the Gospel to all men. Similar things have been done in Chinese thought, African, Latin American, and a host of others. I believe this reflects the multifaceted nature of our faith. Christianity is not a Western European religion but the truth of God and it finds reflections in all human though and achievement.
However, this search carries with it the danger of going the other direction and adapting Christian thought to the pagan. In the case of the early church i believe that the adoption of Plato in particular has changed the way in which believers have seen God. Plato held that "the Good" is an unchanging static "unmoved mover". This idea carried over strongly into Christian thought. And much of our theology is build on this base. While in some way this may be true this is not the God that i see revealed in the Bible. I see a God intimately involved in his creation. His desire is for relationship.
On the other side of the coin i believe that process theology or open thiesm as it is called other places, goes to far in the opposite direction tying God so closely to his creation that He ceases to be King and is instead at the mercy of his creation. This is not the God that I see in the bible either.
I think somewhere on this site Josh has a section on paradoxes in the Bible/theology. I think this discussion falls into that topic. God is neither too close nor too far. Rather He is at the same time infinitely eternal and powerful as well as the most intimate lover. Neither can be eliminated without distorting what God has revealed about himself in Scripture.
Robin, I know you started a thread on this somewhere else. Maybe Josh can move this for me if he thinks it appropriate.
Douglas
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 21, 2008 13:02:51 GMT -8
Quite true. But I am very curious why the NIV translators (and every other modern version I read) translated it so decisively different from Old Testament to New. And I am curious about the usage of the term ANGEL OF THE LORD in New Testament times as well as the differences between the ANGEL of the LORD and angels in general.
But, alas, I have very little time for such musings.
|
|