Pages

Thursday, April 22, 2004

Making sense of Gen 1-3

On the face of it, Gen 1-3 present the reader with a couple of questions regarding the identity of couple of objects. One concerns the relation between the light on day one and the sun on day four. We are told that the Lord made the sun on day four, yet the light on day one does just what the sun does. So what is the identity of the light on day one, and how is it related to the sunlight on day four?

The other question is the identity of the Temper. He is called a snake, but he's clearly no ordinary snake. Rather, he's a talking snake with a devious mind. In later canonical tradition he's identified with the Devil (Rom 16:20; Rev 12:9; 20:2), Ezk 28:11-19 forms a bridge between Gen 3 and the NT, but the question remains, how did we get from Gen 3 to the NT? Can the NT interpretation be secured any closer to home?

In my opinion, the key to interpreting the creation account is the flood account, while the key to interpreting the Fall account is the Balaam account. In order to see one thing, we need to see two things at once. So we should treat these pairings as mutually explanatory literary units.

Let's start with the flood and move back. In the flood account we have a triple-decker ark with a window and a roof (6:16; 8:6,13). The animals occupy different decks. During the deluge the ark has water above (rain) and below (floodwaters).

Now, let's compare this to the world. In the creation account, the world has windows (7:11) and a roof (1:6-8; 14-16). It has water above and below (1:2,7). The world has three decks: sky, earth, water (cf. Exod 20:4). Animals occupy different "decks."

So when we ask what God was doing in Gen 1, I think we need to distinguish between direct and indirect action, and between literal and literary levels. When does the action denote a direct creative deed, and when does it depict the work of a carpenter? In the latter case, the account is picturing God as a cosmic carpenter—a godlike Noah. So when does the action apply directly to the creature, and when does it apply directly to the architectural metaphor, and indirectly—via the metaphor—to the creature? The answer would depend on the implicit presence or absence of architectural imagery.

Even a literary metaphor has a literal referent. But we must ask when the creative act is direct or indirect: does it fasten onto the literal referent or the figurative feature that represents the literal referent? Which level is in view?

Suppose we ask why there was light one day one, indeed, why there was a day one with a diurnal cycle before the sunlight on day four? The literary answer would be that a carpenter cannot install skylights until he has put a roof on the house. But there was sunlight before there were skylights.

If we ask what stands behind the metaphor, perhaps the imagery has reference to the divine dispersion of the rain clouds (e.g., Job 38:8-9), which would further link it to the flood account (Gen 1:14,20; 8:6-12; 9:12-17).

In addition, there are pervasive parallels between the creation of the world and the construction of the tabernacle. Cf. G. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission (IVP 2004).

Let us now compare the Fall with the record of Balaam (Num 21-24). The name of the Tempter is a pun: the word for "snake" (Heb.=nahas) in Gen 3:1 is from the same root word used by Balaam to put a hex (Heb.=nahas) on Israel (Num 23:23; 24:1). The angel who opposes Balaam is named "Satan" (22:22). The same sword-drawn angel (22:23) recalls the cherubim who guard the Garden (Gen 3:24). The brazen snake (Num 21:9), as well as the "fiery serpents" (21:6,8) or "seraph-serpents" (another double entendre), recalls the Temper (Gen 3:1) and the fiery cherubim (3:24). The talking donkey recalls the talking snake (3:1ff.). And an imprecatory theme is common to both accounts.

(In terms of other intertextual relations, the fiery angelology connects Gen 3:24 with the Angel of the Lord [Exod 3:2; 14:19], while the angelic sentinel connects Gen 3:24 with the tabernacle [Exod 25:18-20; 26:1,31; 36:8,35; 37:6-7]. And Ezk 28 picks up on all these motifs, viz., Eden, apostasy, guardian angel, stones of fire.

To the modern western reader, the whole business of the talking snake may be the most unbelievable element of an unbelievable story. And this is because, as children of the scientific age, we think of a snake as a natural animal, nothing more and nothing less. And so, when we read about a snake in Gen 3, and what is attributed to this particular snake, we think of the snake as a natural animal, which intrudes an instant incongruity into the account. And that is because we’re judging the account by our own frame of reference.

But, of course, it was never meant to be understood in such terms. And one problem with reading the account this way is that it fails to explain how Bible writers could go so quickly from a serpentine figure to a satanic figure.

What we need to keep in mind is that, in the ancient world, and in many parts of the world in our own day, a snake is more than a natural animal. A snake is supernatural emblem and occult object. It is an object of idolatry. It is used in witchcraft and divination.

You can see this connection in Exod 4 & 7, where a snake is a supernatural sign—a sign of spiritual warfare. This is why it is a short step in Scripture from the serpentine to the satantic. Genesis and Exodus share the same audience.

When the modern reader runs into the snake for the first time in Gen 3, he has no frame of reference except for modern science. The appearance of the snake, with its paranormal powers, comes out of the blue.

But for an ancient Israelite audience, the snake needed no introduction. Both culture and canon prepared them for his appearance.

This raises the question of whether the Serpent in the garden is a real snake. The grammatical construction of Gen 3:1 could either be partitive or comparative. If the latter, he's classified with the beasts of the field; if the former, he's in a class apart. If the comparative sense were intended, we'd expect him to be classified with the creepy crawlers (e.g., reptiles) rather than the beasts of the field (cf. 1:24).

The curse is sometimes taken to entail a literal metamorphosis (Gen 3:14), and that cannot be discounted (e.g., Exod 7:8-12). However, this may only be a figure of speech (e.g. Ps 44:25; 72:9; Isa 25:12; Mic 7:17). And, indeed, 3:15 clearly trades on the figurative imagery.

Since Satan is a consummate shape-shifter and master of illusion (2 Cor 11:14), the ambiguity may be deliberate.

Why such similarities? To draw attention to the historical correspondence between the apostasy of Adam and Eve in the Garden, and the apostasy of Israel in the wilderness. Israel recapitulates the Fall.

Given the common authorship of the Pentateuch, it is not surprising that Moses has woven a number of literal and literary analogies into one theological tapestry. Underlying both interpretations is the principle of typology, in which one historical event foreshadows another, or even a number—like a row of dominoes—until the final domino falls flat. So the NT isn't reading anything into Gen 3.

No comments:

Post a Comment