Genesis 11

The key concept for understanding the Tower of Babel story of Genesis 11:1-9 appears in the verse about the purpose of those who wanted to build the tower (11:4), in God’s reaction (11:8), and in the conclusion of the story (11:9).  That is the concept scatter (the Hebrew word “pus”).  The purpose of building the tower was “to not be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (11:4).  God’s reaction was to “scatter them from there to all over the earth” (11:8) which is also the conclusion of the story when “the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth” (11:9).  The background for interpreting the Tower of Babel story through the key concept of scatter is not only the blessing, sanctioning and will of God in the last verse of the previous chapter, namely that all nations be “spread out over the earth after the flood” (10:32), but also God’s original plan and mandate for creation, namely to “fill the earth” (1:28).

In this context it is clear that, contrary to many popular interpretations, “scattering” is not negative and also not an issue of punishment.  Those who wanted to build the Tower of Babel resisted God’s purpose for creation to Fill the earth” because they feared to be scattered all over the earth.  They wanted to stay in the safe mode of unity, because they thought that would enable them to do the impossible (11:6).  What God prevented was exactly their unity for the sake of replacing themselves with God, and what God empowered was to scatter them all over the earth for the sake of His purposes for creation.

This may sound strange to those who always thought that unity is the ideal and that scattering is bad.  Walter Brueggemann explains it well with this paragraph:  “The subtle point suggests that there are two kinds of unity.  On the one hand, God wills a unity which permits and encourages scattering.  The unity willed by God is that all of humankind shall be in covenant with him (9:8-11) and with him only, responding to his purposes, relying on his life-giving power.  The scattering God wills is that life should be peopled everywhere by his regents, who are attentive to all parts of creation, working in his image to enhance the whole creation, to bring “each in its kind” to full fruition and productivity.  This unity-scattered dialectic does not presume that different families, tongues, lands, and nations are bad or disobedient.  They are a part of his will.  And the reason God allows for that kind of differential is that all parts of humankind look to and respond to God in unity.”

Therefore, unity for the sake of human power in which diversity is a threat rather than a gift to embrace, is problematic from a theological perspective (because then God is replaced by humankind).  But unity for the sake of God’s purposes in which diversity will distract from obeying God’s call is equally problematic from a theological perspective (because then humankind misses their calling from God).

Genesis 10

Genesis 10 is generally seen as a “map” of the world that shows us the territorial and political realities of the time it refers to.  But it goes back to the last part of the previous chapter (9:18-29), namely the strange story of Noah’s three sons and Noah’s genealogy.  The real concern of the story of Noah’s three sons is the contrast between the brothers.  Shem clearly represents the Semites and anticipates Israel, while Japheth is Shem’s/Israel’s ally against Canaan (often thought to be Philistine).  These two function as the ones who honor the father in this story, while the youngest brother, Ham, represents the one who dishonor the father.  The interest in the contrast between Ham and the other two is a political concern to take issue with Canaan.  The emphasis is on the blessing of Shem-Japheth (Israel) and the curse of Ham (Canaan).  But even more important than anticipating the political divide between Israel and Canaan, it also reflects a deeper theological contrast between the two.  Walter Brueggemann explains:  “Beyond providing political foundations, the larger intent of our text is to sharpen the theological contrast between Israel and Canaan.  Israel understands that life is premised on grace and not on the manipulation of the powers of life and well-being…  Canaan is not to be understood as an ethnic grouping but as a characterization of all those who practice alternatives to obeying the sovereignty and trusting the graciousness of God.  The indictment of Canaan in our text is a rejection of a whole way of life which presumes the mystery of life can be taken into human hands and managed.”  Ham/Canaan represents the dehumanizing aspect of humankind’s inability to care for creation (which is how Ham dishonored his father), while the other two (Israel) represents the attempt to care and protect (which is how the older brothers honored the father in his dilemma).

Chapter 10 is organized around the three son’s mentioned in the story above.  Which means that the basic organizing principle for the world of that time is not racial, ethnic, linguistic, or even territorial, but political.  It reflects the political networks of relationships of that time.  Again (as in the latter part of chapter 9), the main attention goes to Ham/Canaan (10:6-20).  In terms of Israel’s friends and enemies, Palestine was regarded as being in the Egyptian network of influence, and therefore it is not an ethnic rejection but a political rejection based on the political realities of that time.  The attention given to Shem’s history will come back later in chapter 11, because this is the point in the unfolding of this drama that the connection is already made toward Abraham as the “father” of Israel’s history.  From a theological perspective, this means that all nations derive their existence from the life-giving power of God (blessing), and that a refusal to be faithfully responsive to Him will have consequences (curse).  This divide plays out in the political realities of Israel in relationship with her friends and enemies represented by the contrast between Noah’s two older sons and his younger son.

Genesis 9

The flood story comes to its conclusion in Genesis 9.  This conclusion reiterates what we said right at the beginning about a key theme of the entire book of Genesis, namely that there is a constant interplay between promise and call (see 101 introduction video).  The promise of God’s “never again” (see yesterday’s post) is emphasized again in 9:8-17.  God’s irreversible commitment comes in the form of a covenant with God’s entire creation (Noah, his descendants, and every living creature).  To again highlight the core message of how this covenant comes about throughout chapter 8 and 9 (in the words of Walter Brueggemann), “What has changed is not anything about humankind or creation or waters or floods.  What has changed is God.  God has made a decision about the grief and trouble of his own heart.”  That is the basis of God’s covenant with us.  The evil that we find in the world is not rooted in God’s anger or rejection.  God does not engage us in some scheme of retribution.  Instead, the grieving heart of God leads to God’s unqualified grace of forever committing himself to His creation regardless the existence of evil and sin.  The rainbow of chapter 9 is a physical sign of nature to remind us about this fact that becomes our only security and hope in this life.

However, as soon as the promise of God appears, the call of God is not far away.  We find that in the first 7 verses of chapter 9.  God’s promise of “never again” is accompanied by God’s call of “be fruitful” (9:1, 7).  These first 7 verses is a reminder that despite creation’s inability to respond to God’s commitment (which was the reason for the flood in the first place), the mandate and responsibility to be faithful to God’s commandment has not changed throughout the flood or because of God’s promise of “never again”.  Rooted in the fact that God created us in the image of God (9:6), post-flood humanity still has the vocation of being responsible for God’s creation.  Entrusted yet again with this responsibility, chapter 9 emphasizes the nature of this responsibility to bring the other creatures to fullness.  “I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man” (9:5).  When God makes His promise, which is the good news to us, He simultaneously calls us back into action to take care of His creation (fellow human beings, fellow creatures, and the rest of creation).

Genesis 8

Genesis 8 represents the good news of God’s change of heart on the destiny of his creation.  The grieving heart of God (6:6-7) turns into a passionate heart of God that promises to never again destroy his creation.  Brueggemann writes about this good news:  “When we turn to the end of the story (8:20 – 9:17), it is not hard to see that the grief of God and the new creature (Noah) have overridden the force of the law-suit.  The flood ends.  Life begins again.  The resolve to destroy has been mitigated.  The issue of the narrative’s beginning is resolved, but not in terms of destruction as we might have expected.  The resolution is not by God’s indulgence of this anger.  Nor is it by indulgence of the hostile creation or by some change in creation.  Rather, the resolution comes by the resolve of God’s heart to fashion a newness.”

The key in chapter 8 is when God speaks “in his heart” – in the same place where God struggled with grief and pain in 6:6.  God comes to two conclusions in 8:20-22.  First, humankind is hopeless.  “Every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood” (8:21).  God has accepted that creation has not changed.  Not even the terror of the flood waters made any difference to that.  Therefore, hope for the future cannot be dependent on human possibility.  Hope depends on a move from God.  Which leads to God’s second conclusion.  God resolves the issue with a promise that he will stay with, endure, and sustain his world, notwithstanding the sorry state of humankind.  “Never again will I curse the ground because of man… and never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done” (8:21).  Ultimate, the good news is that God will not allow humankind to destroy His dream for creation.

Here, for the first time, we find a new dimension in the relationship between God and world.  Brueggemann writes about this:  “For the first time, it is marked by the grief, the hurt of betrayal.  It is now clear that such a commitment on God’s part is costly.  The God-world relation is not simply that of strong God and needy world.  Now it is a tortured relation between a grieved God and a resistant world.  And of the two, the real changes are in God.”  This is indeed a characteristic of God that comes back to us throughout the Bible, and especially in the New Testament where God’s commitment regardless the sin of the world cost God his only begotten Son.

Genesis 7

Genesis 7 tells the story of the flood in dramatic details.  The grieving God of Genesis 6 (see yesterday’s blog posting) becomes the brutal executioner.  James McKeown, in his commentary on Genesis, writes, “The shocking effect of this detailed emphasis on the totality and ruthlessness of the destruction caused by the flood is to show that the God who lovingly breathed into Adam the breath of life is now the executioner who pronounces the death sentence.  Such a God must be feared and obeyed, since the failure to do so will be catastrophic.  This chilling message harmonizes with the prophetic warnings to Israel to repent and avert disaster (e.g., Amos 1:2; Zeph 1:2-4).”

Those inside the ark had no control over their destination and could only wait and hope.  Considering that the first readers of Genesis was probably Jews in exile, this would have been profound reading.  Exiled Jews probably saw themselves in a similar situation to those in the ark.  They would have shared with those in the ark the sense of uncertainty combined with an inability to control their own destiny.  In the midst of the dire consequences of disobedience, mankind can only rely on God to be in ultimate control of the future.  Will God change his mind?  That is the good news of chapters 8 and 9 (see tomorrow and Monday’s postings).

Genesis 6

The flood narrative stretches from chapter 6 to chapter 9.  Contrary to popular interpretations, this story is less about the flood itself and more about the change that took place in the heart of God which makes possible a new beginning for creation.  From the first two chapters, we know that God has called the world into being to be His faithful partner.  God created for the purpose of unity, harmony, and goodness.  But creation seems to be incapable of responding faithfully to God’s goodness.  From chapter 3 and 4 it became clear that there is resistance to God’s purposes of creation.  This problem between Creator and creation is the core of the flood story.

Chapter 6 uses various terms to describe creation’s resistance:  wickedness (verse 5), evil (verse 5), corrupt (verses 11 and 12), filled with violence (verses 11 and 13).  They all refer to how creation refuse to honor God as God.  God’s reaction is uncompromising:  “I will wipe out” (verse 7); “I am going to destroy” (verse 13 and 17).  Brueggemann comments:  “The text does not concern itself with amounts of water or pairs of animals or rainbows, but with the way God deals with his creation.  The narrative begins by bringing us face to face with the God of Israel.  This God takes with uncompromising seriousness his own purposes for creation.  And he is impatient when those purposes are resisted.  God holds an expectation for his world.  He will not abandon it.”

The important aspect in chapter 6 is what happened in the heart of God when God is resisted by his creation.  It is worthwhile quoting verses 5 and 6:  “The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.  The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.”  What we find is not an angry tyrant, but a grieving parent who is troubled by the alienation between Him and his creation.  What happened in the heart of God, namely that creation’s disobedience to God’s purposes caused Him grieve and pain, sets up the story of the flood.  The next two days we will look at how God’s heart changed throughout the telling of the story in chapters 7 and 8.

Genesis 5

Walter Brueggemann, in his commentary on the Book of Genesis, writes the following about Genesis 5:  “5:1-32 presents the first of two extended genealogies in the pre-Israelite material of Gen. 1-11, the other one being 11:10-29.  The two are symmetrical, this one tracing humankind from creation to flood, the second from flood to Abraham.  Genealogies are notoriously difficult to interpret.  We can never be sure of the intent of the tradition.  It is likely that this genealogy of ten generations is primarily for purposes of continuity, to show the linkage of humankind from its wholesome beginning to its shameful arrival at the flood.  The fact of ten generations is a way the tradition suggests completion.  That is, this eon of human life has run its full course…  this chapter provides links between the hopes of creation and the reality of human sin.  Noah holds promise of a new beginning in which the hopes of creation are not qualified by the realities of human choice.  The words of Lamech are good news, daring to hope for a break in the sequence.  That break comes, by the power of God, in human form.”  (As we now enter the history of Noah and the flood).

Genesis 4

God created a good world and irreversibly committed himself to this world (Genesis 1).  However, soon after that human beings found it problematic to live in God’s world on God’s terms (Genesis 2-3).  And as if that is not a big enough problem, to live with God’s other creatures, specifically human creatures (the brother), is even more of a dilemma (Genesis 4).  If chapter 3 ends in a travesty, then chapter 4 represents a scandal.  The first 16 verses of chapter 4 moves from a stable family (verse 1) to unresolved alienation (verse 16).  Ever since, the brother-problem is a top agenda that the world seems to find unable to solve.  The murder in chapter 4 is not the main issue.  The world knows that murder is a scandalous, unaccepted act.  What is more important (because chapter 4 deals quickly with the murder itself) is, as Walter Brueggemann puts it, “the destiny of the murderer that is haunted by a skewed relation with God.  And that relation is skewed because a brother has been violated.”

The story of chapter 4 foreshadows later interactions between Jacob and Esau (chapters 25 and 27) and between Joseph and his brothers (chapter 37).  The first-born does not fare so well in any of these stories.  You would expect the older to dominate, but these stories contain a complete a surprise in this regard.  The older brother, Cain (his name means “to create”), is the one who embodies future possibility and vitality, while the younger brother, Abel (his name means “nothingness”), is dismissed without possibility of life.  But, by the time of the New Testament (Heb. 11:4 and 1 John 3:12), Abel is characterized as a man of faith while Cain becomes a symbol of evil.  At the beginning of the story (verses 3-5), there is nothing to indicate that God has reason to prefer the one brother to the other.  There is no hint of rivalry or hostility between them.  Actually, the problem does not start with Cain.  It starts with God.  The first thing we hear is that, for apparent no reason, God discriminate between them (verses 4-5).  Brueggemann writes about this text, “Inexplicably, God chooses – accepts and rejects…  Essential to the plot is the capricious freedom of God.  Like the narrator, we must resist every effort to explain it.  There is nothing here of God preferring cowboys to farmers.  There is nothing here to disqualify Cain…  Life is unfair.  God is free…  Life is not a garden party but a harsh fellowship among watchful siblings, made harsher by the heavy ways of God…  All through the Genesis narratives, God is there to disrupt, to create tensions, and to evoke the shadowy side of reality.”

The fact that life is not fair, and that it is filled with disruptions, tensions, and shadows, causes our face to fall (verse 5).  The bottom line of the Genesis 4 story is also our story of how we respond to this fact of reality.  We respond either with the urge to kill or go into deep depression.  Depression and/or violence (of which Cain is the example) are the unfortunate outcomes of our inability to deal with the reality of not being able to control life in the midst of its unexpected disruptions and tensions.  Verse 8 is the culmination of how we succumb to the temptation of allowing ourselves to be overcome by depression and violence.  However, in the lawsuit that follows (verses 9-16), the killer now fears to be killed (verses 13-14).  He has to cast himself entirely upon the mercy of the life-giver.  And this brings the ultimate surprise into the story.  Even Cain is safe in God’s protection (verse 15).  Brueggemann concludes, “In such a simple way, the narrative articulates the two-sidedness of human life, in jeopardy for disobedience and yet kept safe.  The acknowledgement of guilt and the reality of grace come together in this presentation… Cain had a choice of embracing a brother preferred over him.  But he yielded to the waiting rage.  He picked his destiny for time to come.  He is protected, but far from home and without prospect of homecoming.”  Even the guilty ones are met with surprising grace!

Genesis 3

Yesterday, we suggested with Walter Brueggemann to read chapters 2 and 3 as a whole, and we started to describe these two chapters as a “drama in four scenes.”  Genesis 2 represents the first two scenes in this drama (see yesterday’s post).  Genesis 3 represents scenes 3 and 4.

The first 7 verses of chapter 3 form the third scene about the serpent.  Nowhere in the text is the serpent explicitly identified with satan or evil or death, but it functions as an important player in how the drama unfolds.  The serpent plays a role in the temptation to view the prohibition given by God in 2:17 not as a given, but an option.  The serpent succeeded in relativizing the rule of God and tempting the human creatures to avoid the claims of God.  The purpose of God’s gift of the garden was to enhance and embrace life in communion with God and each other.  But the emphasis changes in this third scene.  Now the speech turns away from speaking to God or with God (which would have indicated communion with God), and becomes speech about God.  Brueggemann puts it beautifully, “The new mode of discourse here warns that theological talk which seeks to analyze and objectify matters of faithfulness is dangerous enterprise…  The serpent is the first in the Bible to seem knowing and critical about God and to practice theology in the place of obedience.”  What was meant as an acknowledgment that there is a boundary to life (2:17) now became a threat to human beings.  God is now a barrier to be circumvented in some way.  And as soon as the prohibition of 2:17 is violated, the permission of freedom (2:16) is also perverted and the vocation of 2:15 becomes neglected.

Scene 4 (3:8-24) turns the unfolding of this drama to its logical conclusion.  If knowledge (the ability to distinguish between good and evil) rather than trust (relationship and communion) become the focus point, then there is nowhere to hide.  Shame and guilt is the only outcome possible.  And yet, this last scene is not simply a story of disobedience and its deathly consequences.  Brueggemann writes, “It is rather a story about the struggle God has in responding to the facts of human life.  When the facts warrant death, God insists on life for his creatures.”  Therefore, there is a big surprise in this last scene.  The ones who brought this curse and death over themselves are protected by God (3:21).  God does for the couple (3:21) what they cannot do for themselves (3:7). To be clothed by God means to be given new life in the midst of the shame human beings brought upon themselves.

Genesis 2

Walter Brueggemann, in his commentary on Genesis, suggests that we read chapters 2 and 3 as a whole.  He describes these two chapters as a “drama in four scenes.”  Today, we focus on the first two scenes in chapter 2 (tomorrow we will address the last two scenes in chapter 3).

The first scene (2:4-17) tells the story of God’s formation of a human being from the dust of the ground.  This human being is totally dependent on God.  The story then continues with the planting of a garden as a good place for this human being to live.  And it focuses on the two trees in this garden.  The tree of life refers to fellowship with God, and it represents the enhancement and celebration of life.  The tree of knowledge represents the ability to distinguish between good and evil.  The first scene ends in verses 15-17 with a main focus on the reason for being in the garden at all.  There are three important aspects to this main focus in verses 15-17.  First (verse 15), the ultimate vocation of human beings is to care for God’s creation.  This is the destiny of human beings.  Brueggemann says it so well, “From the beginning of human destiny, God is prepared to entrust the garden to this special creature.  From the beginning, the human creature is called, given a vocation, and expected to share in God’s work.”  Second (verse 16), there is a permit for human beings in God’s world.  In the freedom of human destiny, everything is permitted.  But this everything is related to “eating”; therefore, it is for elemental sustenance.  Third (verse 17), there is also a prohibition.  There is no reason given on why the human being cannot eat for this one tree, or why he would die if he does.  Only the unqualified expectation of obedience.  These three elements belong together to understand the destiny that God has in mind for human beings.  Brueggemann writes, “The primary human task is to find a way to hold the three facets of divine purpose together.  Any two of them without the third is surely to pervert life.  It is telling and ironic that in the popular understanding of this story, little attention is given to the mandate of vocation or the gift of permission.  The divine will for vocation and freedom has been lost.  The God of the garden is chiefly remembered as the one who prohibits.  But the prohibition makes sense only in terms of the other two.”

The second scene (2:18-25) presents a second creation that is related to, but quite distinct from the first.  The first human creature needs a helper, because it is not good to be alone (verse 18), and the other creatures will not do as helpers (verses 19-20).  Relationship and belonging to each other become an essential part of God’s intention for humanity.  Brueggemann sums it up, “The emergence of woman is as stunning and unpredicted as the previous surprising emergence of the man.  The woman is also God’s free creation.  Now the two creatures of surprise belong together.  The place of the garden is for this covenanted human community of solidarity, trust, and well-being.  They are one!  That is, in covenant (2:24).  The garden exists as a context for the human community.”