realmealministries.org

Let us return to our study of Genesis 2-4. So far, we have focused on the conversation between the serpent and Eve (Adam?). Read against the idyllic portrait of God’s creation in Genesis 2 of intimacy between God and humanity, humanity and creation, and men and women, Genesis 3 is a tragic tale in which God’s creational intentions are subverted in favor of an assertion of human autonomy. In his sublime song “Jokerman”, Bob Dylans concludes the initial verse with this commentary on the promotion of human freedom apart from God:

Freedom, just around the corner for you; But with truth so far off, what good will in do?

More frightening remains the reality that the themes of Genesis 3 continue to be played out in the lives of women and men to this day.

What is the temptation of paradise lost? It is quite simple. It is the temptation to substitute our own desires and wants for God’s. Why would anyone want to do this? How does a person end up on this road?

The conversation between the serpent and Eve offers a road map. As we have seen, it begins with a simple question: Did God really say…? In other words, the temptation is to trade a moment-by-moment walk with the Living God for a stale conversation about God. It is reducing God to an object in our lives rather than exalting him as the ultimate subject of our lives. When we take this road, we end up with either a naive faith which involves a mere caricature of God or we become ideologues who promote ideologies and causes rather than the Risen Jesus Christ.

Once God is reduced to an object, the conversation between the serpent and Eve turns to the issue of trust. Can we really trust God? Do we truly believe that the God whom we follow holds our best interests at heart? The serpent in Genesis 3:4-5 blatantly declares that Even cannot trust God, that God is intentionally withholding good things from Adam and Eve.

What is left when we know longer trust God? This is precisely the time at which we assert our own will, our own rights and our own prerogatives. We let our own experiences determine the road upon which we will travel.

Look at Genesis 3:6. What happens? Eve sees that the fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and able to produce in her wisdom. So what does she do? She eats it, and so does her husband.

When trust in God diminishes, we are reduced to acting on impulse. We simply do what seems right. The problem is apart from a vital relationship with God, we lack the ability to discern good and bad, right and wrong. Don’t ever think for a minute that Eve knew the end results of her actions. In the moment, she believed that she was taking the correct course.

Gordon Lightfoot’s “Sundown” rings true:

Some times I think it’s a sin when I feel like I’m winning but I’m losing again

Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way that seems right to a person, but whose way ends in death.”

Tragedy of all of this: God had indeed provided bountiful food for his creation. Sometimes we think that the temptation was based on the appearance of the fruit. Look back at 2:9: this verse tells us that all of the food was “pleasant to the eye and good for food.” The key then was that it was “desirous to make one wise.” In a context when one’s relationship with God has deteriorated – when we no longer know God and worse yet when we know longer trust that God truly has our best interests at heart – we resort to self-trust, self-reliance, as Paul would say, we live by the flesh. Substitution of self-reliance and self-will for a relationship with God.

What is the end result of this for Christian leaders? Paradise lost… God help us and God help those who look to us for spiritual direction during such times.

Reflection:
How do we avoid the cycle of Genesis 3 in our own lives?
Where in your life are you most susceptible to the subtle temptation to honor self above God?
What if following Jesus Christ were the way to move beyond the tragedy of our post-Genesis 3 world and its power over our own lives?

© 2006 Brian D. Russell

This continues our reflection on the poignant narrative of Genesis 2-4

In response to the serpent’s question, “Did God really say…?”, Eve answers insipidly by parroting God’s instructions from 2:16-17. Tellingly, she adds the clause “and you must not touch it.” This may seem like a minor change or perhaps even a helpful addition, but it indicates already that Eve (and perhaps Adam) has already traded in a relationship of trust with the living God for a stale legalism in which God burdens people with petty rules and regulations that seem out of touch with culture and the times.

The game is now on and the serpent takes the next step. The move is from “Did God really say?” to a denial of God’s truthfulness. Look at 3:4-5 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” What a profound move! From doubt about what God has said to doubt about God’s character and God’s motives. If it is tough to lead and live apart from a vital relationship with God rooted in God’s revelation in Scripture, try to serve in ministry under a cloud of doubt about God’s intentions and actions.

Is this a reasonable jump? I think so. The problem with God-talk is that it offers a substitute for the Real Thing. God-talk soon turns to a denial of God’s trustworthiness and faithfulness.

You Can’t Trust God
The serpent now flatly denies God’s claims in Genesis 2 that eating of the fruit will cause death. Moreover, the serpent implies that God in fact does not have Eve’s best interests at heart. In sum, God cannot be trusted.

A lack of trust in God will take the wind right out of the sails of any person seeking to follow after the way of Jesus. Trust is absolutely crucial. God calls Christian leaders to dream big dreams and to lead others into life changing, paradigm-shifting, and world altering ministries. To engage God’s will fully and courageously, we need to know and trust that God has our best interests at heart.

Think of some of the areas and times in which trust in God is vital:
–a call to give sacrificially to some project when you are struggling financially
–a decision to move one’s family in order to follow the call of God
–you make a commitment to follow God and things aren’t going particularly well
–the courage to speak truth in love to individuals or a congregation
–the need to stand up to oppressive and abusive persons when you know that no one will have your back

The bottom-line is this: How do we follow a God who says, “Deny yourself and take up your cross” if we don’t truly trust that this God ultimately has our and all creation’s best interests at heart?

What is left when trust of God diminishes? This is precisely the time at which we assert our own will, our own rights. We let our own experiences determine the road upon which we will travel. If we seek to lead apart from a trusting relationship with God, we are in grave danger and we put those around us in grave danger, who trust us as Christian leaders. We risk reliving the experiences of Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis 3. We risk paradise lost…

Reflection:
1) Do you trust that God has your best interests at heart?
2) What are some areas in which you are struggling to trust God at the present time?

© 2006 Brian D. Russell

I want to continue with additional thoughts on the initial remark of the serpent: “Did God really say…?”

As noted in the last post, Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his Creation and Fall calls this the “first conversation about God.” In other words, the temptation of Eve begins with a relational shift in which God-talk is substituted for a living relationship with God.

This remains a danger in our lives as well, doesn’t it? We are skilled practitioners of God-talk in our seminaries and in our churches, aren’t we? We substitute conversation about God for conversation with God. We can talk about biblical authority without submitting ourselves to the message of the Bible. We trade in a relationship with God for religious talk or practice. We can easily trade in course work or ministry work for time spent in Scripture reading, prayer, fasting, and listening to God.

The loss of a vital living relationship with God manifests itself, I think, primarily in two ways. But ultimately the result is the same: paradise lost.

First, there is the danger of naivety. Many of us face the danger of paradise lost because we trade in a dynamic relationship with the sovereign Lord, creator, and redeemer of the universe for a relationship with a caricature. We learn to desire a relationship with a God whom we can control through pious sounding formulations of belief. Listen to some of the things that we say among ourselves:

God is good all of the time. This is certainly a true proposition about God, but how many of us would admit that sometimes life certainly doesn’t seem to witness to this reality. One of the reasons that I love the Book of Psalms is because of its poignant laments. “How long O Lord?” “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” “I am surrounded by enemies on all sides.” Yet, it is within these very contexts of disappointment, hurt, and true longing for God that a confession such as “God is good all of the time” is appropriate. Robust biblical prayer permits us to have a deep two way conversation with God in which God offers us the chance to say much more than pious sound bytes. Our living God invites us to live by faith even in times of ambiguity.

It’s all good. No, it isn’t. The Scriptures teach us that God can redeem even the ugliest and most sinful actions, but don’t ever think that this somehow makes the atrocities that human beings commit against themselves and against others something more than they are.

The safest place to be is in the center of God’s will. Need I say more… Check out Erwin Raphael McManus’ The Barbarian Way for a thorough refutation of this or simply read Paul’s account of his ministry in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33.

The flesh loves sound bite, but our beings longs for a real meal. That’s the danger of naivety. A naïve faith offers a sound bite theology that begs the real questions and tends to suppress true human longings and feelings. A vital moment by moment relationship with God offers so much more.

Second, there is the danger of ideology. This is the opposite of naivety but it is just as dangerous.

We learn all about what God cannot do, and we trade in the all powerful, all knowing, Creator and Redeeming God of Scripture for a little god that we construct out of our own image and out of our own ideology.

This can be an ideology of the right or of the left. We reduce the Gospel to special interest theologies, or to competing human solutions to ethical dilemmas or social justice issues, or taxation, or, God help us, we reduce the Gospel to making sure one political party or the other controls the branches of government.

God does not desire for us to serve as a naïve preachers nor as proponents of human ideology.

God wants us to serve out of a moment by moment relationship with a Loving and Just, Heavenly Father who has sent His Son into the world to make atonement for sin, injustice, heartbreak, and pain on the Cross.

But do we know that this is true? Do we really know what God has spoken?

The reason that the question Did God really say? is so burning is precisely because of the sorts of things that God has said in Scripture:

God told the first people:
You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

Listen to some of the things that God has spoken subsequently in the Bible:

Be holy because I am holy

Did God really say these sorts of things? If He did, what shall we do?

How are we doing today? How is your devotional life? Are you taking time to listen to God? Are you reading Scripture? Are you praying?

Why does this matter?
If we are not confident of God’s plans and prerogatives for our lives, we will meander in our commitments, we will lack courage because we lack conviction, and we will retreat back to those safe places of our own creation. Yet the ultimate issue is missiological.

Erwin McManus (from his talk at Willow Creek’s Communicating in Today’s Reality Conference– Oct 2004) says, “If we don’t believe that they are worshipping the wrong gods, we will never pay the price to reach them.” If we are not clear of our mandate and mission, we will never accomplish the tasks to which God has called us.

A temptation for Christian leaders is to trade in a vital relationship with the living God for its pale substitute: God-talk. When we do this, we choose a naïve faith or become mere ideologues. In either case, we have chosen the way of Adam and Eve, the way of Paradise Lost…

What do you think?

© 2006 Brian D. Russell

My birthday occurs in late April. As an adult, this means little, but during my teen years, I found it to be a drag. I was always one of the younger guys in my class. While all of my friends were turning 16 and getting their driver’s licenses, I was waiting for my birthday to arrive. This meant that I was dependent upon friends for rides. This led to one of the more exciting moments in my life…

On a Saturday night back in 1985, Mark Jones one of my older friends picked me and a couple of other guys up so that we could go riding around the streets of Akron, Ohio. Mark drove a rusty 1970’s green Chevy Monte Carlo. It was a large, all-steel auto with a supped-up V-8. Unlike the unimpressive four-cylinders that many of us drive today, Mark’s car could flat-out haul. The powerful engine responded to the slightest push on the gas pedal. This night we would find out just how fast his car could go. Akron had built a divided expressway that linked some of its suburbs with its urban core. Many people used this highway to commute to and from work, but at night and on the weekends, it was empty. Thus, it was a great place to see how well a car would perform. Mark always bragged to us that he was capable of high-performance driving – this was his night to prove it! We got on the deserted highway and Mark immediately mashed the gas to the floor. His car roared and accelerated well above the legal 55 mph speed limit. As the car reached 100 mph it began to shake. Sitting in the front seat, I remember frantically strapping on my seat belt. I don’t know how fast we went that night. I lost track at about 100 mph…Mark claims 140 mph, but only heaven knows. Regardless, it was the fastest that I have ever gone in an automobile, and we were all 17 and under. But the fun was only beginning…

On the way back home, Mark announced that he had one more high performance stunt up his sleeve. At the end of our interstate exit ramp was a four way stop. Just beyond this intersection was a series of tight S – curves. Mark declared that he wanted to see if he could take these curves as 80 mph. Unfortunately, this meant that as we roared off the interstate Mark would not be stopping at the intersection with the four way stop. I remember my heart pounding in my chest as I gripped the dashboard. Thank God, there were no cars at the intersection as Mark blew through it without blinking. The next thing I remember we were through the S curves and Mark pulled over grinning ear to ear. I screamed at him and opened up the passenger door in order to escape. I walked home that night and I remember thinking: That Mark Jones…he is flat-out dangerous.

You may be thinking the same thing as you read these words. But as I have thought about this frightening experience, I have concluded something that may surprise you. I still think that Mark was acting dangerously that night, but I don’t think that he was dangerous merely because he took a risk. I think that he was dangerous because he took a stupid risk. Let me say this again: taking risks does not make a person dangerous – but only taking risks outside of God’s will does.

As Christians, we are called upon by God to be risk takers. God has not called us to live lackluster “safe” lives for God. Rather God has called us to be fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ, the one who risked everything so that we might truly live. God wants to unleash each of us into the world so that we may serve in the name of Jesus and reach the lost of the world with the Gospel. This may involve a great deal of risk, but if God is behind it, we must exercise courageous faith and take the plunge.

How does this relate to our study of Genesis 2-4? It is simple. When the stakes are high, the temptations rise as well. Who will we trust? Will we trust solely our own instincts, talents, intuition, or abilities? Or will we depend on God’s leading to fulfill the task? Will we trust God’s leadership or will we assert our own?

Serpent begins his conversation with Eve with a subtle and deceptively simply question: “Did God really say…?” The temptation of a leader begins with this question.

This is precisely the position that Adam and Eve find themselves in Genesis 3. The Serpent begins speaking with Eve. Note how the first question begins: Did God really say…? Isn’t this an astonishing question? In chapter two, the human couple had unfettered access to God. Yet now in the presence of the serpent, God is reduced to a third person object. Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his Creation and Fall calls this episode the “first conversation about God.”

Reflections:
1) What risks is God calling you to take?
2) How certain are we in our relationship with God?
3) Do we know God or merely talk about him?

Copyright 2006 Brian D. Russell

I am teaching a course on the Pentateuch this Spring at Asbury Seminary. This will include an intensive study of many of the early chapters of Genesis. I will post some of my updated thinking on the key chapters 2 - 4 which describe the entrance of sin into God’s “very good” Creation (Gen 1:31) and its effects on the world in which we live.

Genesis 2:4-25 serves as the backdrop for the tragic stories that occur in Genesis 3-4. It is important that we begin here so that the temptation stories of Adam/Eve and Cain come into full view.

Scholars typically identify Genesis 2:4-25 as the second of two Creation stories in Genesis. The other, of course, is Genesis 1:1-2:3. The author of Genesis links the second story to the first by means of verse 2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth…” In other words, we are invited to read the second story as the sequel to the first. Although there is overlap in these stories, Genesis 2 provides a fuller treatment of the creation of humanity. In fact, Genesis two centers on the role of humanity in the world.

Genesis two paints a picture of an idyllic paradise in which God and humanity interact freely and naturally. Moreover, humanity lives at peace with the environment. The first man spends time naming the other animals in the Garden which God had created. The highpoint of the narrative occurs in the creation of the first woman out of the first man. The woman is created as the man’s perfect helper and partner, not subservient or inferior in any way. The man is so excited by the sight of the woman that he exclaims, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman for out of Man this one was taken.” The story reaches its zenith at this moment. Verses 24-25 describe the first marriage and the narrative, which has been read aloud at countless weddings through the millennia, serves to root the institution of marriage in the perfection of God’s original creative order.

What a beautiful story! Humanity enjoys an unfettered and perfect relationship with God, with the environment, and between the sexes. There is an abundance of food which is “pleasing to the eye and good to eat” (v. 9). Humanity enjoys a blissful existence in a garden where there is only one explicit curb on behavior: the humans are simply not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (v. 17). Even this prohibition is couched in terms of protection and concern. They are to avoid consuming the fruit of this tree because if they do so, they will die. Thus, even the Creator’s rule serves not as an infringement on their freedom as much as it is a safeguard for their own well being.

This story, however, is no stand alone tale of Creation. Within the book of Genesis, it serves as the introduction to the story of the entrance of human disobedience into the world. The juxtaposition of the idyllic harmony of the world in Genesis 2 with the fractured world in Genesis 3 and 4 is striking. Yet, even more striking is the realization that temptation came and won the day in the midst of a perfect world. It did not strike at a moment of weakness or stress. When Genesis 3 opens, it is following the climactic scene in Genesis 2 in which husband and wife enjoy perfect intimacy with one another.

This then stands as a warning to future generations. The Apostle Paul’s caution to the Corinthian church is an apt one for us as well: “So if you think you are standing, watch out, lest you fall” (1 Cor 10:12). As followers of Jesus Christ, we no longer live in paradise. How much more at risk are we?

Reflection:
Where are you in your walk with God today?
What safeguards do you maintain in your life with God?
When do you face your deepest struggles?
Do they occur during the good times or primarily during tough times?
What lessons can we glean from Genesis 2?

© 2006 Brian D. Russell

This is the first of three essays on interpretation.

Reading the Bible is a fundamental and formative practice for Christians. But as soon as a reader picks up a Bible and begins to work through a portion of it, he or she is confronted immediately with a key question: What does this passage mean?

This question “What does this text mean?” is the focus of the discipline of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a fancy word for the “science of interpretation.” Biblical hermeneutics is thus the discipline that studies and develops methods for interpreting the Bible. It is not possible to begin to describe in the context of this short introduction the multitudes of approaches that readers (Christians and non-Christians) have employed over the centuries. Instead, I want to offer a “bird’s eye view” of the issues that go into reading the Bible.

Why the Need for Hermeneutics?
Many may question the need for critical reflection upon our reading of the Bible. Thoughtful Christians often believe that the meaning of the Bible and its appropriation into our life and practice are self-evident. When I was growing up, there was a popular bumper sticker that read:

The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

This slogan epitomizes the belief that the message of Scripture is self-evident. But in honesty, it does not take too many trips to a Sunday school class or conversations with Christ-followers from communities of faith different than our own or with members of other religions who read the Bible differently to realize that there is often little agreement in our interpretations.

Such a realization may prove troubling for some, but I would suggest that the presence of competing interpretations ought to push us to a deeper study of the text itself and to a more critical reflection on our own reading practices. After all, if we do indeed believe that the Scriptures are authoritative for our lives and beliefs and that they truly constitute revelation from God in the language of human speech, then it is vital for us to work diligently in our reading of Scripture so that we can truly hear the voice of God to the Church and the World in our day.

The Three Worlds of Interpretation
Biblical scholars following Paul Ricoeur describe three different Worlds that are present in the act of interpretation. The three worlds are the World in Front of the Text, the World Behind the Text, and the World of the Text.

The World in Front of the Text is the world of the reader(s). It refers to the context in which any given text is read.

The World Behind the Text is the past historical world in which the text was conceived and written. This is the world in which the text’s author(s) and original audience(s) lived and breathed.

Last, the World of the Test is the world which the words of the text itself creates.

This is a helpful rubric, but I need to stress from the start that all three worlds need to be present in the act of interpretation. All three worlds have a contribution to make. I will stress one world as the most critical: The World of the Text, but we would be foolish to abandon the others.

The World In Front of the Text: Text as Mirror

Key symbol: Mirror

What does a mirror do? It reflects of the images that stand before it. In this interpretive world, the reader’s part in the act of interpretation is emphasized. Put most sharply, in the world in front of the text, the reader creates meaning. Before we object to this, think about how many Bible studies and Sunday School classes are conducted around the world. We sit together with the Bible open, read a passage that many have never heard before, and then ask for volunteers to share what they think that the passage means. Hopefully, the various members of the class discover meanings that are actually present in the text, but in many cases, people will create meanings based on their own personal experiences or such that they read into the passage.

When we think about the text as a mirror, the key questions is this: What do readers bring to the interpretive table that will influence how a biblical passage will be understood?

Each reader brings a unique set of personal experiences to the act of reading. Some of us our optimists; others pessimists. This affects how will read certain passages. Our social location makes a difference. Persons reading the Bible in the suburbs will likely emphasize different aspects of the biblical story than persons living in impoverished or oppressive contexts. Differences between men and women will come out in interpretation. Race. Ethnicity. Religious Background. Theology. Education level. Culture. All of these factors will influence us in terms of how we read a text.

Think about the symbol of a mirror again. Think of different types of mirrors. There are rearview mirrors that we use for driving. There are full length mirrors that we use for dressing in the morning. There are hand held mirrors for looking closely at our own faces. All of these mirrors more or less reflect accurately the reality in front of them. Each is limited in perspective based on its shape and size.

What sort of mirror does the Bible want to be? This may sound like heresy, but I believe that the
Bible wants to function as a carnival mirror. You know one of those mirrors that distorts reality. The Bible doesn’t want merely to show us our reflection. It wants to show us how we should truly look. It wants to reflect back to us the image of the world as God intended. Of course, this reflection comes with an invitation to the reader for true transformation.

Conclusion:
Positive: Fully engaged and invested readers. The World in Front of the Text brings a needed emphasis to the active role that readers actually play in interpreting the Bible.

Danger: Narcissism. Allowing our own agendas, backgrounds, and experiences to silence the text so that when we read the Bible we simply peer into our own reflection.

Let me end with a passage from Steinbeck’s poignant East of Eden. One of its main characters is Liza Hamilton. She is the matriarch of the “good” family in the story. Ostensibly, she is a Christ follower and she speaks out against sin, immorality, and modernity throughout the novel. Yet the narrative offers this sublime assessment of her devotion to Scripture. The context here is one in which she has criticized her husband Samuel for reading books and sharing them with their children.

Her total intellectual association was the Bible, except the talk of Samuel and her children, and to them she did not listen. In that one book she had her history and her poetry, her knowledge of peoples and things, her ethics, her morals, and her salvation. She never studied the Bible or inspected it; she just read it. The many places where it seems to refute itself did not confuse her in the least. And finally she came to a point where she knew it so well that she went right on reading it without listening. (page 43)

Reflection:
1) What presuppositions do I bring to my reading of the text?

2) Am I open to allowing the biblical text to challenge my own beliefs, worldview, and practices, or do I assert my right to read the text in a way that supports the status quo?

3) Am I the ultimate authority or do I allow the Scriptures to act authoritatively over my life and the life of my community?

© 2009 Brian D. Russell