John Wesley on Genesis

John Wesley

1703-1791

"Let everyone therefore who has either any desire to please God, or any love of his own soul, obey God and consult the good of his own soul by communicating every time he can; like the first Christians, with whom the Christian sacrifice was a constant part of the Lord’s day’s service. ...Accordingly those that joined in the prayers of the faithful never failed to partake of the blessed Sacrament." - Sermon 101 (1787)

Alice C. Linsley


At JUST GENESIS I have reviewed numerous commentaries on Genesis. Each commentator takes away from the text something that suits them in their situation in life. Martin Luther’s sermons on Genesis employ the text polemically in support of justification by faith. John Calvin’s sermons on Genesis extract support for Reformed doctrine. John Wesley’s Notes Upon the Old Testament (1765) are refreshing by virtue of the man’s humility and non-polemical tone.

In the Preface, he states that his intention “is not to write sermons, essays or set discourses upon any part of Scripture. It is not to draw inferences from the text, or to shew what doctrines may be proved thereby. It is this: To give the direct, literal meaning, of every verse, of every sentence, and as far as I am able, of every word in the oracles of God. I design only like the hand of a dial, to point every man to This: not to take up his mind with some thing else, how excellent soever: but to keep his eye fixt upon the naked Bible, that he may read and hear it with understanding. I say again, (and desire it may be well observed, that none may expect what they will not find) It is not my design to write a book which a man may read separate from the Bible: but barely to assist those who fear God, in hearing and reading the bible itself, by shewing the natural sense of every part, in as few and plain words as I can.”

Wesley’s approach to Genesis is closer to that of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great. He reads the text through the lens of Jesus Christ, finding His form and hearing His voice in the creation narratives and in the lives of the Patriarchs. In reference to Genesis 3:15, he writes, “Christ as the deliverer of fallen man from the power of Satan.”

William M. Arnett (Asbury Theological Seminary) encourages his students to read Wesley’s Notes “for he loved God with a holy passion; he bowed in adoring wonder before a Redeeming Saviour who died for him and who had strangely warmed his heart; and he loved the souls and bodies of all men, and especially the common man to whom his lifework was given. I can well imagine that some present day scholars who are preoccupied with critical problems would be impatient with Wesley's efforts on the Old Testament. But if there are such who hear or read these lines and are tempted to undue impatience, I beg you to remember the purpose for which Wesley wrote and the people for whom he wrote. Really, I stand in awe before the monumental labors of this man, and particularly his Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament when I recall the abundance of his travel and preaching in the months in which he produced it. It is amazing grace and an amazing achievement!”

Wesley’s remarkably fresh commentary was undertaken with a great deal of reluctance, which he explains in the Preface:

“About ten years ago I was prevailed upon to publish Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. When that work was begun, and indeed when it was finished, I had no design to attempt any thing farther of the kind. Nay I had a full determination, Not to do it, being throughly [sic.] fatigued with the immense labour. . . of writing twice over a Quarto book containing seven or eight hundred pages.

But this was scarce published before I was importuned to write Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament. This importunity I have withstood for many years. Over and above the deep conviction I had of my insufficiency for such a work, of my want of learning, of understanding, of spiritual experiences, for an undertaking more difficult by many degrees, than even writing on the New Testament, I objected, that there were many passages in the Old, which I did not understand myself, and consequently could not explain to others, either to their satisfaction, or my own. Above all, I objected the want of time: not only as I have a thousand other employments, but as my day is near spent, as I am declined into the vale of years. And to this day it appears to me as a dream, a thing almost incredible, that I should be entering upon a work of this kind, when I am entering into the sixty third year of my age.”

One should remember that Wesley was preparing his notes on the Old Testament while he was itinerating as an Anglican priest and by his estimate preaching “eight hundred sermons a year.”

Because Wesley holds the Bible in such high regard and does not attempt to use it polemically, his Notes on Genesis seem almost “scientific” in the quality of observation. For example, regarding the Flood, he remarks that “The six hundredth year of Noah's life was 1656 years from the creation.” Yet, he recognizes that there is a problem with young earth dating because he observes: “The mountains were covered - Therefore there were mountains before the flood.” He knows that mountains are the result of volcanic activity and geologic forces that require thousands, indeed, millions of years.


From Wesley’s Notes on Genesis

On the Location of Eden

The situation of this garden was extremely sweet; it was in Eden, which signifies delight and pleasure. The place is here particularly pointed out by such marks and bounds as were sufficient when Moses wrote, to specify the place to those who knew that country; but now it seems the curious cannot satisfy themselves concerning it. Let it be our care to make sure a place in the heavenly paradise, and then we need not perplex ourselves with a search after the place of the earthly paradise.

On the Authorship of Genesis

Wesley accepted the Jewish tradition that Moses was the author of Genesis. He wrote, “A description of the garden of Eden, which was intended for the palace of this prince. The inspired penman in this history writing for the Jews first, and calculating his narratives from the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by farther discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them. Therefore he doth not so much insist upon the happiness of Adam's mind, as upon that of his outward estate. The Mosaic history, as well as the Mosaic law, has rather the patterns of heavenly things, than the heavenly things themselves. (Heb 9:23).

Wesley regards Moses as a divinely inspired writer. However, he refers several times in his Notes on Genesis to the Holy Spirit as the author of the narratives.

On the Serpent

Whether it was only the appearance of a serpent, or a real serpent, acted and possessed by the devil, is not certain. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, because it is a subtle creature. It is not improbable, that reason and speech were then the known properties of the serpent. And therefore Eve was not surprised at his reasoning and speaking, which otherwise she must have been.

That which the devil aimed at, was to persuade Eve to eat forbidden fruit; and to do this, he took the same method that he doth still. 1. He questions whether it were a sin or no, (Gen 3:1,2). He denies that there was any danger in it, (Gen 3:4). 3. He suggests much advantage by it, (Gen 3:5). And these are his common topics.

And this is part of the serpent's curse: A perpetual reproach is fastened upon him. Under the cover of the serpent he is here sentenced to be, (1.) Degraded and accursed of God. It is supposed, pride was the sin that turned angels into devils, which is here justly punished by a great variety of mortifications couched under the mean circumstances of a serpent, crawling on his belly, and licking the dust. (2.) Detested and abhorred of all mankind: even those that are really seduced into his interest, yet profess a hatred of him. (3.) Destroyed and ruined at last by the great Redeemer, signified by the bruising of his head; his subtle politics shall be all baffled, his usurped power entirely crushed.

A perpetual quarrel is here commenced between the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of the devil among men; war proclaimed between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent, (Re 12:7). It is the fruit of this enmity, (1.) That there is a continual conflict between God's people and him. Heaven and hell can never be reconciled, no more can Satan and a sanctified soul. (2.) That there is likewise a continual struggle between the wicked and the good. And all the malice of persecutors against the people of God is the fruit of this enmity, which will continue while there is a godly man on this side heaven, and a wicked man on this side hell.

A gracious promise is here made of Christ as the deliverer of fallen man from the power of Satan. By faith in this promise, our first parents, and the patriarchs before the flood, were justified and saved; and to this promise, and the benefit of it, instantly serving God day and night they hoped to come. Notice is here given them of three things concerning Christ. (1.) His incarnation, that he should be the seed of the woman. (2.) His sufferings and death, pointed at in Satan's bruising his heel, that is, his human nature. (3.) His victory over Satan thereby. Satan had now trampled upon the woman, and insulted over her; but the seed of the woman should be raised up in the fulness of time to avenge her quarrel, and to trample upon him, to spoil him, to lead him captive, and to triumph over him (Col 2:15).

On Cain and Abel

Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, (Gen 5:4). But Cain and Abel seem to have been the two eldest. Cain signifies possession; for Eve when she bare him said with joy and thankfulness, and great expectation, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Abel signifies vanity.

…at some set time Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord; for which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam.

…Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God's wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator. But the great difference was, Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. Abel offered with an eye to God's will as his rule, and in dependence upon the promise of a Redeemer. But Cain did not offer in faith, and so it turned into sin to him.

On Cain’s Wandering

And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt on the east of Eden - Somewhere distant from the place where Adam and his religious family resided: distinguishing himself and his accursed generation from the holy seed; in the land of Nod - That is, of shaking or trembling, because of the continual restlessness of his spirit.

On Lamech

We know not whom he slew, or on what occasion: neither what ground he had to be so confident of the Divine protection.

On Lamech’s Daughter, Naamah

Why Naamah is particularly named, we know not: probably they did, who lived when Moses wrote.

NOTE: Today we know the significance of Naamah, the daughter of Lamech the Elder. She married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah and named their first-born son Lamech after her father. This is an example of the cousin bride's naming prerogative, a distinctive feature of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the biblical Hebrew.  

On the Location of Noah’s Ark

And the ark rested - upon the mountains of Ararat - Or, Armenia, whether it was directed, not by Noah's prudence, but the wise providence of God.

On Noah’s Drunkenness

And he drank of the wine and was drunk - 'Tis highly probable, he did not know the effect of it before. And he was uncovered in his tent - Made naked to his shame.

On Peleg

The reason of the name of Peleg, (Gen 10:25), because, in his days, (that is, about the time of his birth) was the earth divided among the children of men that were to inhabit it; either when Noah divided it, by an orderly distribution of it, as Joshua divided the land of Canaan by lot, or when, upon their refusal to comply with that division, God, in justice, divided them by the confusion of tongues.

Wesley recognizes that this likely refers to the division of Eber's territory between his two sons, Peleg and Joktan.

Related reading: About Commentaries on Genesis; Hermann Gunkel on Genesis; John Calvin on Genesis; Martin Luther on Genesis; Giovanni Pico della Mirandola on Genesis; Jacob Böehme on Genesis; Herman Gunkel on Genesis, Leon Kass on Genesis; Patrick Reardon on Genesis

Rainer Maria Rilke on Genesis

Rainer Maria Rilke was an Austrian humanist poet of great sensitivity (1875-1926). He died of leukemia. Given all he suffered in his life and the turmoil of his time, he inspires through his steadfast regard for beauty and hope. His writings are full of classical pagan and biblical allusions.

Renate Hannaford has written:

Rilke proclaimed the poet's saintly need to accept reality in all its aspects, meanwhile welcoming only those parts of the world for which he could compose and ennobling description. He was venomous about organized religion, yet there are more Virgin Marys, Saints and Angels in his work than in many cathedrals. And he hid inside The Poet he eventually became, both secure there and scared, empty and fulfilled; the inspired author of the Duino Elegies, sensitive, insightful, gifted nearly beyond compare; a man with many devoted and distant friends, many extraordinary though frequently fatuous enthusiasms, but still a lonely unloving homeless boy as well, with fears words couldn't wave away, a self-pity there were rarely buckets enough to contain; yet a persistence in the pursuit of his goals, a courage, that overcame weakness and worry and made them into poems...no...into lyrics that love, however pure or passionate or sacrificial, could never have achieved by itself…lines only frailty, terror, emotional duplicity even, could accomplish--an honesty bitter about weakness from which it took its strength.

Writing for the New York Sun, Eric Ormsby notes:

In the Garden of Eden Adam's first task was to give everything a name. Whenever God created a new animal or plant, he showed it to Adam and, according to the Book of Genesis, "whatever he called each living creature, that was its name." In the variant version of the Koran, God "taught Adam all the names." The biblical Adam is the original poet, capturing the essence of a thing in words. His Koranic counterpart is more of a decipherer, discerning the secret nature of things through the word hidden inside them. In both instances, the conferral of names is a human prerogative; a thing remains unknowable until a human voice sounds out its distinctive moniker. Even God needs Adam to give names the breath of life.

Until recently that Edenic innocence still existed between things and their names. In the ninth "Duino Elegy," Rainer Maria Rilke could ask:

Are we, perhaps, here just for saying: House,Bridge, Fountain, Gate, Jug, Fruit tree, Window—possibly: Pillar, Tower?

Of course for Rilke this isn't just mouthing names but involves "such saying as never the things themselves / hoped so intensely to be.” In his view, things, when invoked, if not conjured, become more fully themselves. This is a magical notion, and a deeply appealing one, but can anyone still believe in it?

This observation about Rilke suggests something of his complex nature, since he was a great realist. He wrote, “How good life is. How fair, how incorruptible, how impossible to deceive: not even by strength, not even by willpower, and not even by courage. How everything remains what it is and has only this choice: to come true, or to exaggerate and push too far.”

His realist approach to life and his artistic temperament contributed to his non-conventional approach to the Bible.

Benjamin Ivry notes this in Rilke’s interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son:

In his semi-autobiographical “Notebook of Malte Laurids Brigge” (1910) writer Rainer Maria Rilke, (1875–1926) argues that the story of the prodigal son is about a young man "who did not want to be loved," and who therefore rejects suffocating family affection in order to express his own personality: "Shall he stay and pretend to live the sort of life they ascribe to him, and grow to resemble them in his whole appearance?” By fleeing family smothering, Rilke's prodigal son obtains special powers: "I believe that the strength of his transformation consisted in his no longer being the son of anyone in particular. This, in the end, is the strength of all young people who have gone away."

Rilke wasn’t a practitioner of Christianity, (he preferred Islam) yet much of his work deals with religion. He wrote: "Religion is something infinitely simple, ingenuous. It is not knowledge, not content of feeling (for all content is admitted from the start, where a man comes to terms with life), it is not duty and not renunciation, it is not restriction: but in the infinite extent of the universe it is a direction of the heart.” (Selected Letters of Rainer Maria Rilke)

The following poems (translated by Albert Ernest Flemming) reveal Rilke’s artistic interpretation of Genesis themes.

In the Beginning

Ever since those wondrous days of Creation
our Lord God sleeps: we are His sleep.
And He accepted this in His indulgence,
resigned to rest among the distant stars.

Our actions stopped Him from reacting,
for His fist-tight hand is numbed by sleep,
and the times brought in the age of heroes
during which our dark hearts plundered Him.

Sometimes He appears as if tormented,
and His body jerks as if plagued by pain;
but these spells are always outweighed by the
number of His countless other worlds.


Adam

High above he stands, beside the many
saintly figures fronting the cathedral's
gothic tympanum, close by the window
called the rose, and looks astonished at his

own deification which placed him there.
Erect and proud he smiles, and quite enjoys
this feat of his survival, willed by choice.

As labourer in the fields he made his start
and through his efforts brought to full fruition
the garden God named Eden. But where was
the hidden path that led to the New Earth?

God would not listen to his endless pleas.
Instead, He threatened him that he shall die.
Yet Adam stood his ground: Eve shall give birth.


Eve

Look how she stands, high on the steep facade
of the cathedral, near the window-rose,
simply, holding in her hand the apple,
judged for all time as the guiltless-guilty

for the growing fruit her body held
which she gave birth to after parting from
the circle of eternities. She left
to face the strange New Earth, so young in years.

Oh, how she would have loved to stay a little
longer in that enchanted garden, where
the peaceful gentle beasts grazed side by side.

But Adam was resolved to leave, to go
out into this New Earth, and facing death
she followed him. God she had hardly known.

Other Rilke poems may be found here.

John Calvin on Genesis

On Man’s Blindness to the Creator

And, certainly, if Paul justly condemns the perverse stupidity of men, because with closed eyes they pass by the splendid mirror of God's glory which is constantly presented to them in the fabric of the world, and thus unrighteously suppress the light of truth; not less base and disgraceful has been that ignorance of the origin and creation of the human race which has prevailed almost in every age. It is indeed probable, that shortly after the building of Babel, the memory of those things, which ought to have been discussed and celebrated by being made the subjects of continual discourse, was obliterated. For seeing that to profane men their dispersion would be a kind of emancipation from the pure worship of God, they took no care to carry along with them, to whatever regions of the earth they might visit, what they had heard from their fathers concerning the Creation of the World, or its subsequent restoration. Hence it has happened, that no nation, the posterity of Abraham alone excepted, knew for more than two thousand successive years, either from what fountain itself had sprung, or when the universal race of man began to exist. For Ptolemy, in providing at length that the Books of Moses should be translated into Greek, did a work which was rather laudable than useful, (at least for that period,) since the light which he had attempted to bring out of darkness was nevertheless stifled and hidden through the negligence of men. Whence it may easily be gathered, that they who ought to have stretched every nerve of their mind to attain a knowledge of The Creator of the world, have rather, by a malignant impiety, involved themselves in voluntary blindness. In the meantime the liberal sciences flourished, men of exalted genius arose, treatises of all kinds were published; but concerning the History of the Creation of the World there was a profound silence.

Now, whether all nations which formerly existed, purposely drew a veil over themselves, or whether their own indolence was the sole obstacle to their knowledge, the [First] Book of Moses deserves to be regarded as an incomparable treasure, since it at least gives an indisputable assurance respecting The Creation of the World, without which we should be unworthy of a place on earth… This one consideration stamps an inestimable value on the Book, that it alone reveals those things which are of primary necessity to be known; namely, in what manner God, after the destructive fall of man, adopted to himself a Church; what constituted the true worship of himself, and in what offices of piety the holy fathers exercised themselves; in which way pure religion, having for a time declined through the indolence of men, was restored as it were, to its integrity; we also learn, when God deposited with a special people his gratuitous covenant of eternal salvation; in what manner a small progeny gradually proceeding from one man, who was both barren and withering, almost half-dead, and (as Isaiah calls him) solitary, yet suddenly grew to an immense multitude; by what unexpected means God both exalted and defended a family chosen by himself, at though poor, destitute of protection, exposed to every storm, and surrounded on all sides by innumerable hosts of enemies. Let every one, from his own use and experience, form his judgment respecting the necessity of the knowledge of these things. We see how vehemently the Papists alarm the simple by their false claim of the title of The Church. Moses so delineates the genuine features of the Church as to take away this absurd fear, by dissipating these illusions. It is by an ostentatious display of splendour and of pomp that they (the Papists) carry away the less informed to a foolish admiration of themselves, and even render them stupid and infatuated. But if we turn our eyes to those marks by which Moses designates the Church, these vain phantoms will have no more power to deceive…while we see in this history of Moses, the building of the Church out of ruins, and the gathering of it out of broken fragments, and out of desolation itself, such an instance of the grace of God ought to raise us to firm confidence. But since the propensity, not to say the wanton disposition, of the human mind to frame false systems of worship is so great, nothing can be more useful to us than to seek our rule for the pure and sincere worshipping of God, from those holy Patriarchs, whose piety Moses points out to us chiefly by this mark, that they depended on the Word of God alone. (This and all subsequent excerpts are taken from Calvin's Commentary on Genesis.)


On the Location of Eden

Moreover it is to be observed, that when he describes paradise as in the east, he speaks in reference to the Jews, for he directs his discourse to his own people. Hence we infer, in the first place, that there was a certain region assigned by God to the first man, in which he might have his home… that this garden was situated on the earth, not as some dream in the air; for unless it had been a region of our world, it would not have been placed opposite to Judea, towards the east… It may be, indeed, that some, impelled by a supposed necessity, have resorted to an allegorical sense, because they never found in the world such a place as is described by Moses: but we see that the greater part, through a foolish affectation of subtleties, have been too much addicted to allegories. As it concerns the present passage, they speculate in vain, and to no purpose, by departing from the literal sense… But although we have said, that the situation of Paradise lay between the rising of the sun and Judea, yet something more definite may be required respecting that region. They who contend that it was in the vicinity of Mesopotamia, rely on reasons not to be despised; because it is probable that the sons of Eden were contiguous to the river Tigris. But as the description of it by Moses will immediately follow, it is better to defer the consideration of it to that place.


On the Serpent

And the Lord God said unto the serpent." He does not interrogate the serpent as he had done the man and the woman; because, in the animal itself there was no sense of sin, and because, to the devil he would hold out no hope of pardon…to eat dust is the sign of a vile and sordid nature. This (in my opinion) is the simple meaning of the passage, which the testimony of Isaiah also confirms, (chap. 65: 25;) for while he promises under the reign of Christ, the complete restoration of a sound and well-constituted nature, he records, among other things, that dust shall be to the serpent for bread… Moses, indeed, says that the serpent was a skilful and cunning animal; yet it is certain, that, when Satan was devising the destruction of man, the serpent was guiltless of his fraud and wickedness. Wherefore, many explain this whole passage allegorically, and plausible are the subtleties which they adduce for this purpose. But when all things are more accurately weighed, readers endued with sound judgment will easily perceive that the language is of a mixed character; for God so addresses the serpent that the last clause belongs to the devil. If it seem to any one absurd, that the punishment of another's fraud should be exacted from a brute animal, the solution is at hand; that, since it had been created for the benefit of man, there was nothing improper in its being accursed from the moment that it was employed for his destruction…But if God so severely avenged the destruction of man upon a brute animal, much less did he spare Satan, the author of the whole evil…Meanwhile, we see that the Lord acts mercifully in chastising man, whom he does not suffer Satan to touch except in the heel; while he subjects the head of the serpent to be wounded by him. For in the terms head and heel there is a distinction between the superior and the inferior.


On the Line of Cain (Gen. 4)

This, however, is without controversy, that many persons, as well males as females, are omitted in this narrative; it being the design of Moses only to follow one line of his progeny, until he should come to Lamech. The house of Cain, therefore, was more populous than Moses states; but because of the memorable history of Lamech, which he is about to subjoin, he only adverts to one line of descendants, and passes over the rest in silence.


On the Mark of Cain

God had intended that Cain should be a horrible example to warn others against the commission of murder; and for this end had marked him with a shameful stigma.


On Lamech as the First Polygamist Identified in the Bible

And Lamech took unto him two wives." We have here the origin of polygamy in a perverse and degenerate race; and the first author of it, a cruel man, destitute of all humanity. Whether he had been impelled by an immoderate desire of augmenting his own family, as proud and ambitious men are wont to be, or by mere lust, it is of little consequence to determine; because, in either way he violated the sacred law of marriage, which had been delivered by God. For God had determined, that "they two should be one flesh," and that is the perpetual order of nature. Lamech, with brutal contempt of God, corrupts nature's laws. The Lord, therefore, willed that the corruption of lawful marriage should proceed from the house of Cain, and from the person of Lamech, in order that polygamists might be ashamed of the example.


On the Historicity and Choseness of Seth's Line (though the lines of Cain and Seth intermarried)

In this chapter [Gen. 5] Moses briefly recites the length of time which had intervened between the creation of the world and the deluge; and also slightly touches on some portion of the history of that period. And although we do not comprehend the design of the Spirit, in leaving unrecorded great and memorable events, it is, nevertheless, our business to reflect on many things which are passed over in silence. I entirely disapprove of those speculations which every one frames for himself from light conjectures; nor will I furnish readers with the occasion of indulging themselves in this respect; yet it may, in some degree, be gathered from a naked and apparently dry narration, what was the state of those times, as we shall see in the proper places. "The book," according to the Hebrew phrase, is taken for a catalogue. "The generations" signify a continuous succession of a race, or a continuous progeny.


On the Extent of the Flood

"The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up." Moses recalls the period of the first creation to our memory; for the earth was originally covered with water; and by the singular kindness of God, they were made to recede, that some space should be left clear for living creatures. And this, philosophers are compelled to acknowledge, that it is contrary to the course of nature for the waters to subside, so that some portion of the earth might rise above them. And Scripture records this among the miracles of God, that he restrains the force of the sea, as with barriers, lest it should overwhelm that part of the earth which is granted for a habitation to men. Moses also says, in the first chapter, that some waters were suspended above in the heaven; and David, in like manner, declares, that they are held enclosed as in a bottle. Lastly, God raised for men a theatre in the habitable region of the earth; and caused, by his secret power, that the subterraneous waters should not break forth to overwhelm us, and the celestial waters should not conspire with them for that purpose. Now, however, Moses states, that when God resolved to destroy the earth by a deluge, those barriers were torn up. And here we must consider the wonderful counsel of God; for he might have deposited, in certain channels or veins of the earth, as much water as would have sufficed for all the purposes of human life; but he has designedly placed us between two graves, lest, in fancied security, we should despise that kindness on which our life depends. For the element of water, it is restrained by the hand of God. In saying that the fountains were broken up, and the cataracts opened, his language is metaphorical, and means, that neither did the waters flow in their accustomed manner, nor did the rain distil from heaven; but that the distinctions which we see had been established by God, being now removed, there were no longer any bars to restrain the violent irruption... And the flood was forty days..." Moses copiously insists upon this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the waters. Moreover, it is to be regarded as the special design of this narration that we should not ascribe to fortune, the flood by which the world perished; how ever customary it may be for men to cast some veil over the works of God, which may obscure either his goodness or his judgments manifested in them. But seeing it is plainly declared, that whatever was flourishing on the earth was destroyed, we hence infer, that it was an indisputable and signal judgment of God.


On the Holy Patriarchs and the Church

Now, whether all nations which formerly existed, purposely drew a veil over themselves, or whether their own indolence was the sole obstacle to their knowledge, the [First] Book of Moses deserves to be regarded as an incomparable treasure, since it at least gives an indisputable assurance respecting The Creation of the World, without which we should be unworthy of a place on earth... We see how vehemently the Papists alarm the simple by their false claim of the title of The Church. Moses so delineates the genuine features of the Church as to take away this absurd fear, by dissipating these illusions. It is by an ostentatious display of splendour and of pomp that they (the Papists) carry away the less informed to a foolish admiration of themselves, and even render them stupid and infatuated. But if we turn our eyes to those marks by which Moses designates the Church... On the contrary, while we see in this history of Moses, the building of the Church out of ruins, and the gathering of it out of broken fragments, and out of desolation itself, such an instance of the grace of God ought to raise us to firm confidence. But since the propensity, not to say the wanton disposition, of the human mind to frame false systems of worship is so great, nothing can be more useful to us than to seek our rule for the pure and sincere worshipping of God, from those holy Patriarchs, whose piety Moses points out to us chiefly by this mark, that they depended on the Word of God alone.


On the Necessity of Holy Scripture

Now, in describing the world as a mirror in which we ought to behold God, I would not be understood to assert, either that our eyes are sufficiently clear-sighted to discern what the fabric of heaven and earth represents, or that the knowledge to be hence attained is sufficient for salvation. And whereas the Lord invites us to himself by the means of created things, with no other effect than that of thereby rendering us inexcusable, he has added (as was necessary) a new remedy, or at least by a new aid, he has assisted the ignorance of our mind. For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, he not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles. On this point, (as we have already observed,) Moses insists. For if the mute instruction of the heaven and the earth were sufficient, the teaching of Moses would have been superfluous.

_______________________

I have refrained from critique of Calvin's interpretation of Genesis in order to allow his words to stand alone. For those who wish to explore the significant problems with Calvinism, I recommend reading this and this.

Two Passovers and Two Drunken Fathers

Alice C. Linsley


Blood and wine are associated in Christianity as sacramental signs that point to salvation through Jesus Christ. We also find these associated in 2 sets of Old Testament stories, suggesting that the sacramental association pre-dates Christianity. For some Protestant readers the meaning of sacrament may be unclear, so before we turn to the stories, we must define “sacrament.”

A sacrament is an action that God performs for humans that we can’t do for ourselves. In the sacrament of Baptism, God unites us to Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection and makes us heirs of the Kingdom. The sign of the sacrament is water. In the sacrament of Holy Communion, God nourishes us with spiritual food and communes with us as if we were present in Paradise. The sign of Holy Communion is wine and water mixed with bread.

Remembering that a sacrament is something only God can do for humanity, we turn to the Old Testament story sets of 2 Passovers and 2 Drunken Fathers.

The first story set involves the Passover in Egypt and the Passover in Jericho. In Egypt, the door posts were marked with blood from the sacrificed Lamb and seeing the blood, the angel of death passed over, and the people of Israel were led out to a new life. This is the Passover of the tribes who were in Egypt.

Another Passover takes place in Jericho. The scarlet cord was hung from the window of Rahab’s house and when the Israelites swept through that city, Rahab and her whole household were spared and led out to a new life, God redeeming their lives from destruction. Rahab became an ancestress of King David and Messiah. This is the Passover of David's ancestors who never were in Egypt.

A study of the scarlet cord in Scripture reveals that it symbolizes blood, so the sacramental sign in both stories is blood and Christians understand this to be the Blood of Jesus.

In the second set of stories, we find 2 fathers who became drunk with wine. The first is Noah and the second is Lot. In Noah’s case, his 3 sons decide what to do while their father sleeps in a drunken stupor. In Lot’s case, his 2 daughters decide what to do while their father sleeps. In both stories, the results are not good. One of Noah’s sons comes under a curse, and Abraham’s descendents find their lives troubled by Lot’s Ammonite and Moabite descendents. Wine in these stories is not sacramental. These stories are about what mankind does and stand in contrast to the first set of stories. Yet we find a note of redemption even in these stories.

The descendents of Ham will help the Israelites make their escape from Egypt. Jethro, the Priest of Midian (a descendent of Ham through Keturah’s line) will act as an advisor to Moses, his son-in-law. A daughter of Moab will trust God to care for her and her mother-in-law in Bethlehem. There she will marry Boaz and become the great grandmother of King David and ancestress of Messiah. (Notice the symmetry of a father-in-law and a mother-in-law.) Even when we sinners take matters into our own hands, God shows us mercy that we might move to newness of life.

The symmetry of these story sets is remarkable. In the Egyptian Passover, Moses is the central figure, but in the Jericho Passover, it is the woman Rahab. Clearly God uses both males and females to bring about salvation and deliverance. 

In the story of Noah’s drunkenness, 3 sons take action, but in the story of Lot’s drunkenness, 2 daughters take action to procreate and from them comes (as with 2 wives), two separate, but related peoples: the Moabites and the Ammonites.  

The reference to Noah's drunken behavior seems out of character with the earlier description of Noah as the only man righteous enough to be saved from the flood. It is possible that this narrative derives from a linguistic connection. In ancient Egyptian, Noah is Nnu which is related to the ancient Egyptian word nuh (nwh) which means to be drunk or to intoxicate.

Let us return to the sacramental signs of blood and wine. The association of blood and wine is made in the prophecies concerning Judah, who will be elevated above his brothers and from whom “the scepter shall not depart… nor a lawgiver until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the expectations of the nations…who will “wash his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes” (Gen. 49:10-11).

We notice concerning Judah that 4 promises are given.
Judah shall be elevated above the other tribes.
Judah shall rule and give the law until Christ appears.
Christ shall be the hope and expectation of the nations.
He shall wash his clothes in blood.

This parallels the Passover Seder which involves 4 promises given to Israel, symbolized by the 4 cups of wine. These speak of God’s 4 promises to Israel in Exodus 6:6-7: “I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians (1st cup), and I will deliver you from their slavery (2nd cup), and I will redeem you with a outstretched arm, and with great judgments (3rd cup); And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God (4th cup).”

The promises concerning Judah and the promises concerning Israel can be fulfilled only by God. In that sense the wine used in the Seder is sacramental. It points to the mighty acts of God to deliver and redeem His people and to consummate a love relationship. Jesus told his disciples that he would not drink the fourth cup again until the last promise is fulfilled: “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. I say to you, I will not drink this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matt. 26:28-29)

Related reading: More about Noah; Noah's Homeland in Historical Perspective; On Blood and the Impulse to Immortality; Wine Use in Antiquity

Martin Luther on Genesis

Alice C. Linsley

Having completed a series of lectures on the Psalms, Martin Luther lectured on Genesis beginning in 1535 and until his death in 1545. He moved deeply into the patriarchal narratives and yet he recognized that there was still more to be said, deferring to later commentators: “This is now the dear Genesis… God grant that after me others will do better.” (Martin Luther “Lectures on Genesis,” J. Pelikan, ed. Luther’s Works, Vol. 1., Concordia Publishing, p. 333.) 

Luther’s words are an invitation to subsequent generations and indeed many have taken up the study of this remarkably rich book: E.A. Speiser, Gerhard Von Rad, John Wesley, and Matthew Henry, to name but a few. Luther’s Interpretive Method found Christ prefigured in the Psalms and in other books of the Old Testament, but in his commentary on Genesis he focuses more on traditional Lutheran doctrine. 

His reflections on Genesis were to refine reformed dogma. James Arne Nestingen suggests that one receives this impression because, as Peter Meinhold argued fifty years ago, the lectures were edited by Viet Dietrich and his colleagues to enlist Luther’s authority in support of Melanchthon’s theological revisions in the 1540s. There is little doubt that Luther used Scripture polemically. He, more than any other writer, is responsible for the Protestant doctrine of "the priesthood of the believer", an innovation which logically, make ordination unnecessary.

Given the consistency with which Luther interpreted Scripture, it seems likely that he found Christ throughout the book of Genesis, especially as he read it through the lens of the Pauline epistles. Clearly, Luther regarded Gen 3:15, the “proto-evangelion,” as the first promise concerning Christ. From this promise the history of salvation begins to unfold. “Christ is the Lord of the Scripture,” Luther wrote in a letter to Erasmus, “take Christ out of them and what do you have left?” (De Servo Arbitrio, 1525) 

On the Authorship of Genesis Luther believed that Genesis is attributed to Moses and that “Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively.” Yet, referring to the placement of the sun in a watery mass (Gen. 1:14-16), Luther admits that “I for my part shall confess that I do not understand Moses in this passage.” 

Luther accepts that there are mysteries in the Genesis, such as the Trinity. He wrote, “Of course, he [Moses] does not say in so many words that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the one true God; this was to be reserved for the teaching of the Gospel.” Luther writes repeatedly in his Lectures on Genesis that the plural Elohim can only refer to the Trinity, but he claims that this mystery would have been incomprehensible to those who lived before the appearing of Christ. 

On the Fall Luther regarded Satan to be the great enemy of God and Man and he saw fighting the devil through the grace of Christ to be the duty of every Christian. He wrote, “Let this, then, my dear sirs and friends, be the first consideration to influence you, namely, that herein we are fighting against the devil as the most dangerous and subtle enemy of all.” He regards the serpent as the devil embodied, and concerning the devil’s cunning he writes. “He does not immediately try to allure Eve by means of the loveliness of the fruit. He first attacks man’s greatest strength, faith in the word. Therefore the root and source of sin is unbelief and turning away from God.” (LW, Vol. 1, p. 162) 

Luther writes: “the pattern of all the temptations of Satan is the same, namely, that he first puts faith to trial and draws away from the Word. Then follow the sins against the Second Table. From our own experience we perceive that this is his procedure. The events which now follow deal with the description of sin: what its nature is when it is active, and what it is later on when it lies in the past. For while it is active it is not felt; otherwise we would be warned and draw back. But because these lie hidden, we proceed smugly to the deed itself after we have forsaken our uprightness and faith. Eve trespassed similarly in the instance of the fruit after she had been persuaded, contrary to the Word of God, that she would not die.” (LW, Vol.1, p. 163)

On Adam and Eve as Historical Persons “Afterwards, when Eve was with child again, they hoped to have a daughter, that their beloved son, Cain, might have a wife; but Eve bearing again a son, called him Abel—that is, vanity and nothingness; as much as to say, my hope is gone, and I am deceived.” On Locating the Garden of Eden Concerning the rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10-14, Luther says: “…one must not imagine that the source of these rivers is the same today as it was at that time; but the situation is the same today as in the case of the earth, which now exists and brings forth trees, herbs, etc. If you compare these with the uncorrupted creation, they are like wretched remnants of that wealth which the earth had when it was created. Thus these rivers remain like ruins, but, to be sure, not in the same place; much less do they have the same sources.” (LW, Vol. 1., p. 99.)

Related reading: Luther Was Wrong about the Priesthood

Jacob Böehme on Genesis

Alice C. Linsley

Jakob Böehme (1575-1624) was a Christian mystic and German theologian. He was an original thinker, an avid reader of the Bible, and his first book, Aurora, caused a great scandal, mainly because of the criticism it received from the chief pastor of Görlitz, Gregorius Richter, who died in August 1624. The new clergy, who were wary of Böehme's ideas, interrogated him when he wanted to receive the sacrament.

There are as many blasphemies in this shoemaker's book as there are lines; it smells of shoemaker's pitch and filthy blacking. May this insufferable stench be far from us. The Arian poison was not so deadly as this shoemaker's poison.

— Gregorius Richter following the publication of Aurora.

A mystic from his youth, Jacob Böehme developed his idea of the spiritual structure of the world as a great tree which from root to flower and fruit is permeated by a life-giving sap and formed from within according to its own nature. Boehme’s articulation of a vital monism: that all is animated by the divine unity of the living All represents a kind of Catholic Gnosticism which became popular during the Renaissance. To articulate this monism, Boehme often poses the cosmos in dualistic terms. Good and Evil, Heaven and Hell, and Angels and Demons struggle in humanity and in the world.

Boehme regards God as unknowable. He wrote: "I did not climb up into the Godhead, neither can so mean a man as I am do it; but the Godhead climbed up in me, and revealed such to me out of his Love..." God reveals Himself from within creation when the individual submits his will to the will of God “on earth as in heaven.” Boehme called the mind or spirit of the individual the “Primus” (drawing on Paraclesus’ “Archeus”) and he saw the universal remedy for strengthening each spirit to be knowledge of the Self-revealed Creator in Nature.

In Boehme’s cosmology, the world’s evolution is God’s visible self-revelation, emerging out of a desire to reveal Divine Self to Divine Self. He writes: "Creation was an act of the free will of God; God unfolded his eternal nature, and through his active love, or desire, he caused that which heretofore had been in him merely as spirit (as an image contained in a piece of wood before the artist has cut it out), to become substantial, corporeal." He regards the Fall as a necessity in the evolution of Nature as the sphere in which the divine All expresses Self.

Boehme’s writings reveal his interest in alchemy and the Kabbala and these stir his metaphysical imagination, as can be seen in the selection below.

Excerpt from the Author’s Preface to Aurora: The Day-Spring by Jacob Boehme:

GOD commanded Man to do Good, and did forbid him to do Evil; and now daily calls and preaches, and exhorts Man unto Good; whereby we see well enough, that God willeth not Evil, but his Will is, That his Kingdom should come, and his Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven. But now Man is poisoned through Sin, so that the fierce wrathful Quality, as well as the Good, reigns in him, and is now half dead, and in his gross Ignorance can no more know God his Creator, nor Nature and its Operation; Yet has Nature used its best Endeavours from the Beginning till now, to which God hath given his Holy Ghost, so that it hath at all Times generated wise, holy and understanding Men, which learned to know Nature and their Creator, who always in their Writings and Teachings have been a Light to the World, whereby God has raised his Church on Earth, to his eternal Praise. Against which the Devil has raged, and spoiled many a noble Twig, through the wrathful Fierceness in Nature, whose Prince and God he is.

For Nature has many Times prepared and fitted a learned judicious Man with good gifts, and then the Devil has done his utmost to seduce that Man, and bring him into carnal Pleasure, to Pride, to a Desire to be Rich, and to be in Authority and Power. Thereby the Devil hath ruled in him, and the fierce wrathful Quality has overcome the Good; his Understanding, his Knowledge and Wisdom have been turned into Heresy and Error, who hath made a Mock of the Truth, and been the Author of Great Errors on Earth, and a good Leader of the Devil’s Host.

For the bad Quality in Nature has wrestled, and does still wrestle with the Good, ever since the Beginning, and has elevated itself, and spoiled many a noble Fruit even in the Mothers Womb, as it plainly appears, first by Cain and Abel, which came from one Womb. Cain was from his Mothers Womb a Despiser of God, and proud; but Abel, on the contrary, was a humble Man, and one that feared God.

The same is seen also in the three Sons of Noah; as also by Abraham’s Sons Isaac and Ishmael, especially by Isaac’s in Esau and Jacob, which struggled and wrestled even in the Mother’s Womb: therefore said God, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, Gen.25.23., which is nothing else, but that both Qualities in Nature have vehemently wrestled one with another.

For when God at that Time moved in Nature, and would reveal himself unto the World through righteous Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and would raise a Church to himself on Earth for his Glory, then in Nature Malice also moved, and its Prince Lucifer. Seeing there was good and bad in Man, therefore both Qualities could reign in him, and therefore there was born at once, in one Womb, an evil and a good Man.

Also it is clearly seen by the first World, as also by the second, even unto the End of our Time, how the Heavenly and Hellish Kingdom in Nature have always wrestled one with another, and stood in great Travail, even as a Woman in the Birth. This does most clearly appear by Adam and Eve. For there grew up a Tree in Paradise of both Qualities of Good and Bad, wherewith Adam and Eve were to be tempted, to try whether they would hold out in the good Quality in the Angelical Kind and Form. For the Creator did forbid Adam and Eve to eat of the Fruit: but the evil Quality in Nature wrestled with the Good, and brought Adam and Eve into a Lust and Longing to eat of both. Thereupon they presently became of a bestial Form and Nature, and did eat of Good and Bad, and must increase and live in a bestial Manner; and so many a noble Twig begotten or born of them perished.

Afterwards it is seen, how God did work in Nature, when the Holy Fathers in the first World were born: as Abel, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methusalah, Lamech, and holy Noah. These made the Name of the Lord known to the World, and preached Repentance: for the Holy Ghost wrought in them.

On the contrary, the Hellish God also wrought against it, in Nature, and begot Mockers and Despisers, first Cain and his Posterity: And it was with the first World as with a young Tree, which grows, is green, blossometh fairly, but brings little good Fruit, by Reason of its wild Kind. So Nature in the first World brought forth but little good Fruit, though it blossometh fair in worldly Knowledge, and Luxury or Wantonness, which could not apprehend the Holy Spirit, who wrought in Nature then, as well as now.

Therefore said God, It repents me, that I have made Man, Gen.6.6., and he stirred up Nature so, that all Flesh died, which lived on dry Land, except the Root and Stock, that remained in Virtue: and so he has hereby dunged the wild Tree, and manured it, that it should bear better Fruit. But when the same sprung up again, it brought forth good and bad Fruit again; Among the Sons of Noah, there were found again Mockers and Despisers of God, and there hardly grew any good Branch on the Tree, which brought forth any holy and good Fruit: The other Branches were bearing also, and brought forth wild Heathens.

But when God saw that Man was thus dead in his Knowledge, He moved Nature again, and shewed unto Man, how there was good and bad therein, that they should avoid Evil, and live unto the Good; and he caused Fire to fall down out of Nature, and fired Sodom and Gomorrah, for a terrible Example to the World. But when the Blindness of Men grew predominant, and refused to be taught by the Spirit of God, he Gave Laws and Precepts unto them, showing how they should behave themselves, and confirmed them with Wonders and Signs, lest the Knowledge of the true God should be quite extinct. But for all this, the Light did not manifest it self, for the Darkness and wrathful Fierceness in Nature struggled against it, and the Prince thereof ruled powerfully.

But when the Tree of Nature came to its middle Age, then it began to bear some mild and sweet Fruit, to show, that it would henceforth bear pleasant Fruit. Then were born, the Holy Prophets, out of the sweet Branch of the Tree, which taught and preached of the Light, which hereafter should overcome the wrathful Fierceness in Nature. And then there arose a Light in Nature among the Heathens, so that they knew Nature, and her Operation, although this was only a Light in the wild Nature, and was not yet the holy Light.

For the wild Nature was not yet overcome, and Light and Darkness wrestled so long one with another, till the Sun arose, and forced this Tree with its Heat, so that it did bear pleasant sweet Fruit: that is, till there came the Prince of Light out of the Heart of God and became Man in Nature, and wrestled in his human Body in the Power of the Divine Light, in the wild Nature. That same Prince and Royal Twig grew up in Nature, and became a Tree in Nature, and spread its Branches abroad from the East to the West, and encompassed the whole Nature, and wrestled and fought with the fierce Wrath which was in Nature, and with the Prince thereof, till he overcame and triumphed as a King in Nature, and took the Prince of Wrath or Fierceness, Captive in his own House, Psalm 68.

Pepinakht-Heqaib: Upholding the Rights of Two Sons

Alice C. Linsley


"Never did I judge two brothers in such a way that a son was deprived of his paternal possession."

This statement is found on the Inscription of Pepinakht-Heqaib who lived during the reign of pharaoh Pepi II, about 2800 BC. Pepinakht was ennobled (saH) and sanctified a living god (nTr anx) 300 years after his death. As a deified human he was regarded as a mediator between people and the gods. Source: http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/pepinakht.htm

The Pepinakht-Heqaib inscription appears on the 2 jambs of the facade of his tomb on Elephantine Island near Aswan (ancient Swenet/Syene). From the inscription we may surmise that this man had to judge cases between 2 brothers and refused to deprive a rightful male heir of his paternal possession. (See The Biblical Theme of Two Sons, here.)

Pepinakht-Heqaib was revered as a wise judge and administrator who cared for the poor. His sanctuary on Elephantine Island was at the border of Egypt and Nubia. He commanded an expedition to Nubia to crush a revolt which hindered Egyptian commerce along the caravan route. He then acted to pacify tribes in Lower Nubia. In his later years he commanded an expedition to the Red Sea coast to investigate the murder of a sea captain and his contingent of tribal supporters. For more on his life, go here.

The extent of Pepinakht's rule is unclear. He was a local ruler on Elephantine Island, but held authority as pharoah's agent in a vaster broader area. He lived before the time of the biblical Joseph, but during his life there was already social and political interaction among Africans and Asians ("Afro-Asiatics").

The Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446 of the 13th dynasty (1783-1643 BC) identifies a domestic staff in Thebes of 79 persons, of which 49 are "Asiatic."

Older 19th century BC inscriptions inside the carving of a ship's sail refer to an Asiatic commander named Bebi as a "General of Asiatics." Likely he commanded Semitic mercenaries and conscripts who provided border protection and maintained water depots. The same inscriptions mention a "Scribe of the Asiatics."

In the Pre-dynastic period (5000-3300 BC) Asiatic Semites lived throughout the Delta and the Egyptians were confined to the Upper Nile (ancient Cush). Pepinakht-Heqaib lived toward the beginning of the First Intermediate Period. During the Second Intermediate Period (17th-15th c. BC), coinciding with the time of the Biblical Joseph, there was an influx of Semitic peoples from Canaan, called "Aamu" by the Egyptians. Some believe that the Aamu may be the Amalekites of Scripture, or possibly the Amorites who were called Amurru. These peoples established settlements in Tanis, Avaris and el Yehudiya. The Egyptians called the chiefs of these settlements "Hyk Khase", the origin of the term "Hyksos."

One measure of Pepinakht-Heqaib's righteousness is his claim that when judging between two brothers (presumably first born sons) he did not deprive a rightful heir of his paternal possession. Since he lived well before the time of Joseph, we may speculate that he was honoring a custom that was well known among his people. This suggests that the practice of chiefs having two wives and the rights of the two first born sons pre-dates the Asiatic Hyksos' domination of Egypt.


Related reading:  E.A. Speiser on Deuteronomy 21:16; Kushite Diversity and Unity

 

Paradise in a Single Moment

Father Stephen Freeman writes, "During Holy Week, one of my favorite hymns in the Church is the Wise Thief (the Exapostelarion of Holy Friday). It recalls the thief, crucified on Christ’s right hand, who repents and finds paradise “in a single moment.” It demonstrates the fullness of God’s love who would take the repentance of a single moment and transform it into life eternal."

The Wise Thief didst Thou make worthy of Paradise,
in a single moment, O Lord.
By the wood of thy Cross illumine me as well, and save me

From here.

What Happened in the Garden?

Alice C. Linsley

What happened in the Garden?

Adam and Eve lived in the Garden (egan) of the Lord which was well watered, like “the land of Egypt” (Gen. 13:10). Here a creature more cunning than all the other creatures enabled the man and the woman to "see" that the tree was good to eat, a delight to behold, and desirable to make one wise (Gen. 3:6). The woman admits that "the serpent deceived me and I ate." (Gen. 3:13) Having taken the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve hid from the Lord their God because, for the first time, they feared their Creator. This is exactly what the Serpent wanted. Fear is doubt of God's goodness. The Creator desires to protect the man and the woman from fear, the first obstacle to communion with God, since fear is the opposite of love.

Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise for their own protection and the Lord commanded an angel to guard the gate on the east side of the Garden, barring the way to the Tree of Life, "lest he put out his hand ... and eat, and live forever."

The story of the loss of Paradise speaks of the introduction of the "deliberative will" (θέλημα γνωμικόν) which tends toward self and estrangement from others. This will opposes the "natural will" (θέλημα φυσικόν) which tends toward God and union with the Creator. Adam and Eve chose separation from God when they willed to obey the wisdom of the creature over the goodness of God, upon Whom all humanity is dependent for life. Since humanity is made in the image of God, our salvation entails our restoration to Paradise and unity with God through the renewal of the natural will. This will is renewed the the will of Jesus Christ.

God’s plan to restore Paradise

The belief that humans inherit original sin from Adam and Eve presents a different picture. This tenet, upon which the Latin Church bases its understanding of baptism as a spiritual washing, led people to delay baptism until they were near to death and caused people to fear dying without baptism. This notion of ancestral guilt or “original sin” was articulated by St Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) who interpreted St Paul's writings as a platonist, especially this verse: "...through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin passed upon all men because of Adam, [in whom] all sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

David Bradshaw notes that the East-West bifurcation on the question of what happened in the Garden is in part traced to St Augustine's dislike of Greek. He writes, "The change is illustrated by the career of Augustine, who tells us in the Confessions how much he detested Greek as a boy and how glad he was to put it behind him. His entire theological formation seems to have taken place without reference to the enormous body of Greek theological writing which was at that time the main repository of Christian thought. Although this absence no doubt aided the flowering of Augustine’s originality, it meant that the legacy he bestowed on the western church was remarkably disconnected from the earlier tradition." (From "The Concept of Divine Energies", here.)

The concept that all are born sinful because of Adam's sin is not the unanimous view of the Fathers. St. Maximus holds that the significance of the Garden is that we have a corrupted nature. In a letter to his friend Thalassius, he wrote, "Nothing in theosis is the product of human nature for nature cannot comprehend God. It is only the mercy of God that has the capacity to endow theosis unto the existing... In theosis man (the image of God) becomes likened to God, he rejoices in all the plenitude that does not belong to him by nature, because the grace of the Spirit triumphs within him, and because God acts in him" (Letter 22).

By participating in the life of Christ, whose perfect humanity willed to be one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, we are able to enjoy God without fear. The expulsion from the Garden was not a legal judgment requiring expiation, but rather a sigg of God's continuing mercy: "for while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungoldy" (Rom 5:6).

As Christians partake of the Eucharistic food, freely given by God, we return to dependence on God for our life. We also experience a gradual healing of the relationship between God and humanity. The goal is theosis or divinization, a real union with God and closer likeness to Christ than existed even in the Garden.

The Cosmic Serpent Exposed

Serpent Symbolism, Part II
Alice C. Linsley

(For Serpent Symbolism, Part I go here.)

Background

Shamans of the Amazon drink or inhale the hallucinogenic ayahuasca, the principal ingredient of which is a serpent shaped vine. The effects of the ayahuasca drink appear in thirty to forty minutes and last approximately four hours. While under the influence of ayahuasca, they see serpents who teach them the medicinal and sorcery uses of other plants. The shaman is said to be able to see galaxies and planets, distant relatives, lost objects, the identity of an unfaithful spouse’s lover, the cause of a patient’s sickness and travel through time and space.

Aya and huasca are Quechua words meaning “soul” and “vine”. In Spanish the vine is called “soga de alma” – vine of the soul and also "soga de muerto" - vine of the dead. Ayahuasca is a mixture of 2 or 3 plant ingredients, sometimes more. The hallucinogenic ingredient is tetrahydroharmine (DMT), which when ingested is neutralized by the oxidizing action of peripheral monoamine oxidase-A (MAO-A), an enzyme in the lining of the stomach. Shamans circumvent the MAO inhibitor by inhaling or smoking the plant or by mixing the DMT with an MAO inhibitor that prevents the breakdown of DMT in the digestive tract.

According to the shamans, the cosmic serpent taught their ancestors which plants to mix to overcome the body’s natural protection. Combining ingredients allows the DMT in the ayahuasca to produce its hallucinogenic effect when orally ingested. The vine also contains harmaline which can cause vomiting and diarrhea, but it doesn’t have an effect on shamans who develop a tolerance to its emetic and purgative effects over time. However, they do not develop a tolerance for ayahuasca’s hallucinogenic effects.

In his book The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge (1999), Jeremy Narby tells of his fieldwork with the Ashaninca and Quirishari of the Peruvian Amazon. Through use of the hallucinogen ayahuasca, derived from a serpent shaped vine (shown on left), Narby encountered the metaphysical reality presented in Genesis 3: the beguiling cosmic serpent who "was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say...?"

Narby explains, “I began my investigation with the enigma of ‘plant communication.’ I went on to accept the idea that hallucinations could be the source of verifiable information. And I ended up with a hypothesis suggesting that a human mind can communicate in defocalized consciousness with the global network of DNA-based life. All this contradicts principles of Western knowledge.

Nevertheless, my hypothesis is testable. A test would consist of seeing whether institutionally respected biologists could find biomolecular information in the hallucinatory world of ayahuasqueros… My hypothesis suggests that what scientists call DNA corresponds to the animate essences that shamans say communicate with them and animate all life forms. Modern biology, however, is founded on the notion that nature is not animated by an intelligence and therefore cannot communicate.” (p. 132)

My hypothesis is based on the idea that DNA in particular and nature in general are minded. (p. 145)

According to my hypothesis, shamans take their consciousness down to the molecular level and gain access to bimolecular information. But what actually goes on in the brain/mind of an ayhuasquero when this occurs? What is the nature of a shaman's communication with the animate essences of nature? The clear answer is that more research is needed in consciousness, shamanism, molecular biology, and their interrelatedness. (p. 160)

Narby concludes: “All things considered, wisdom requires not only the investigation of many things, but contemplation of the mystery.”

To me the most interesting part is Chapter 6. Here we read:

I was sitting in the main reading room, surrounded by students, and browsing over Claude Levi-Strauss's latest book, when I jumped. I had just read the following passage: "In Aztec, the word coatl means both 'serpent' and 'twin.' The name Quetzalcoatl can thus be interpreted either as 'Plumed serpent" or "Magnificent twin.'" A twin serpent, of cosmic origin, symbolizing the sacred energy of life among the Aztecs?

It was the middle of the afternoon. I needed to do some thinking. I left the library and started driving home. On the road back, I could not stop thinking about what I had just read. Staring out of the window, I wondered what all these twin beings in the creation myths of indigenous people could possibly mean.When I arrived home, I went for a walk in the woods to clarify my thoughts. I started recapitulating from the beginning: I was trying to keep one eye on DNA and the other on shamanism to discover the common ground between the two. I reviewed the correspondences that I had found so far. Then I walked in silence, because I was struck. Ruminating over this mental block I recalled Carlos Perez Shuma's words: "Look at the FORM."

That morning, at the library, I had looked up DNA in several encyclopedias and had noted in passing that the shape of the double helix was most often described as a ladder, or a twisted rope ladder, or a spiral staircase. I was during the following split second, asking myself whether there were any ladders in shamanism, that the revelation occurred: "THE LADDERS! The shamans' ladders, 'symbols of the profession' according to Metraux, present in shamanic themes around the world according to Eliade!"

I rushed back to my office and plunged into Mircea Eliade's book Shamanism: Archaic techniques of ecstasy and discovered that there were "countless examples' of shamanic ladders on all five continents, here a "spiral ladder," there a "stairway" or "braided ropes." In Australia, Tibet, Ancient Egypt, Africa, North and South America, "the symbolism of the rope, like that of the ladder, necessarily implies communication between sky and earth. It is by means of a rope or a ladder (as, too, by a vine, a bridge, a chain of arrows, etc.) that the gods descended to earth and men go up to the sky." Eliade even cites an example from the Old Testament, where Jacob dreams of a ladder reaching up to heaven, "with the angels of God ascending and descending on it." According to Eliade, the shamanic ladder is the earliest version of the idea of an axis of the world, which connects the different levels of the cosmos, and is found in numerous creation myths in the form of a tree. (pp. 62 - 63)

I was staggered. It seemed that no one had noticed the possible links between the "myths" of "primitive peoples" and molecular biology. No one had seen that the double helix had symbolized the life principle for thousands of years around the world. On the contrary, everything was upside down. It was said that the hallucinations could in no way constitute a source of knowledge, that Indians had found their useful molecules by chance experimentation, and that their "myths" were precisely myths, bearing no relationship to the real knowledge discovered in laboratories. (p. 71)


Conclusion

Eliade and others have studied shamanic techniques of ecstasy among primitive peoples. (See also I.M. Lewis’ Ecstatic Religion, 1971.) Narby argues that shamans receive information from DNA in the form of visions. His conclusion is that nature is speaking. The illogic of this view never seems to occur to him. If this is nature speaking, then why must the shaman neutralize the natural enzyme MAO-A in order to gain knowledge? This is contrary to the biblical understanding in which knowledge and wisdom are not gained by a self-induced ecstatic state.

Consider the staretz, a spiritual adviser to whom priests, monks and laymen turn for spiritual wisdom and guidance. These men and women do not seek to steal knowledge by trances. Instead by constant prayer, communion with God in Christ, and study of Scripture, they gradually and steadily grow in holiness. They become, not the mouthpieces of serpents, but of angels.

(To read about the difference between priests and shamans, go here.)