Genesis 1-11 as Ancient Macrohistory

Scholars have differed on the nature of Genesis 1-11 as long as the sciences have been around. For some, it is historicized myth; for others, it is mythicized history. Still others choose one of two extremes: a linear, didactic, strictly literal historical account or a purely fictional myth stripped of any power, inspiration, or spiritual truth. The first extreme deprives the narrative of its obvious symbolic and literary elements. These elements are important for understanding early Jewish theology and anthropology. They also give cause to compare the Genesis narrative to other ancient creation and flood narratives that came beforehand, illuminating what kind of countercultural statements the Genesis narrative made in contrast. The problem with the latter extreme is that it typically motivates people to dismiss the Genesis narrative as too primitive, barbaric, outdated, and irrelevant.

Unfortunately, American Christians have usually failed at wrestling with this text graciously due to the extreme social pressures laid on seminarians and pastors to interpret it completely literally and non-symbolically. In places like Europe, living in the tension is expected. This is the best and most honest place to be.

I would argue that Genesis 1-11 is best understood as an ancient form of macrohistory. Macrohistorians look back and trace the general trajectory of human history in evolutionary terms and attempt to make meaning out of it, typically offering a prediction of the future. This is what I see in Gen 1-11: an early project in sociology, a history of human development. Here’s an overview of this “macrohistory”:

(1) Eden (hunter/gatherers & agriculturalists); (2) Exile (nomadic herders); (3) Flood (city-dwellers); (4) Babel (empire-builders). This follows the general trajectory of what anthropologists know about ancient history (and pre-history). From a normative, human point of view, this is a progress, an ascent. Each stage maps an increase in knowledge, advancement, and complexity. However, from a countercultural point of view, or a Jewish perspective, this was actually a descent.

According to the Genesis 1-11 narrative, sin began with the will to power and knowledge. This led to disobedience. Once in exile (nomads), the hunter (Abel) and the gatherer (Cain) raise evil to the next level: murder. Once the land is populated with city-dwellers, there is widespread violence and abuse (flood account). The final level is oppression and empire (Babel). Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, YHWH becomes most angry with oppressors. The major Jewish statement is this: YHWH, unlike the other gods, has complete control over the created order but made it good and values it. He also values man who he made in his own image. This is not the case with the pagan gods. Also, man is not portrayed as gaining progress in his will to power and knowledge, but rather he is seen as becoming increasingly violent and evil. The New Testament provides a rescue plan for the creation: the advent of the Kingdom of God on earth. Otherwise, the created order will continually spiral downwards as in the Gen 1-11 narrative because of man’s evil. This is how I believe Gen 1-11 is meant to be understood, if we want to be honest and biblical. It is greater than mere myth and greater than literal, historical account.

Evolving God: How We Should Understand Divine Holiness

We’ve all heard it said before: “when we are weak, He is strong.” Let’s flip that around and say the other is also true: “when He is weak, we are strong.” But we’ll get to that later.

We’ve been told over and over again that God is holy, and that this is primarily his nature. But let’s just stop and define the word “holy” for a minute. Holy means set apart, different. Is it enough to say that God is different? Don’t we have to define how he is different? How do we do that? Normally when we hear holy, we think “good” and “righteous” and even “distant.” But we still have to define “good” and “righteous.” We normally think that for God to be righteous, He must be against the wicked and set to slay them unless a miracle happens, unless blood is shed and He feels better. Normally, I don’t think a person is “good” or “righteous” when this is their nature; I would assume they were pretty evil, actually – that is, if they have to shed an innocent person’s blood to feel better about evil people.

But maybe there’s another story here. Sure, the image of God begins with a relatively violent being that is more powerful in war than any other, but throughout the OT He is always seen directing his violence against the oppressor and vindicating the weak. The other gods were not oriented towards vindicating the weak; they were in support of the oppressor. In this way, YHWH was different. He punished the oppressor (with warning) out of LOVE for the oppressed, the weak.

But the story does not end there. In the NT, this God reveals the fullness of his righteousness and justice in Christ. He sends his Son to proclaim forgiveness and love, and the gift is butchered. But God does not give up on humanity. He raises this gift from the dead, sealing his commitment to forgiveness and love. Here God is scandalously different on another level: He does not conquer through weapons of war, but through the power of powerlessness, through weakness. In this way, the weakness of God is greater than the strength of men (1 Cor 1:25). Out of love, Jesus asks God to forgive his slayers, which would mean nothing if he planned on paying them back later. He walks the road of love, even to the point of death. He is the God who sacrifices himself, the God who serves. “Through the Son, God also reconciled all things to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, thereby making peace through the blood of his cross” (Col 1:20).

Caesar and the Romans, those who oppressed the Jews in Jesus’ day, made peace through the sword, through shedding other people’s blood. But Jesus made peace by shedding his own blood. Because peace only comes through peace and you can’t fight fire with fire. This is how God is holy, good, just, and righteous: He is eternal, self-sacrificial love. This is why I can say that when He is weak, we are strong.

Modern Utopianism and the Unholy Trinity

Surrounding the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution, there was a movement toward rationalism, reductionism, and a more mechanical view of the universe. With the growth of human knowledge came many good things such as overthrown superstition, new medicines and cures, higher and more effective levels of transportation, better living conditions, etc. However, with the rise of human knowledge and progress came the rise of human pride and over-confidence coupled with a higher rate of intellectual progress than of moral and ethical progress. In other words, knowledge was enthroned and ethics did not prevail at the same speed.

Around the same time as increasing scientific progress, a more utopian vision arose. The way I choose to summarize the vision is through three tenets in a new trinity for a new religion: science, technology, and education. The major, secular thinkers of this time sought cures through science, convenience through technology, and morality through education. This was how they sought to build a perfect world. They understood nature as mishap and in need of perfection, which they believed they could do with their increasing knowledge of science. Nature was a machine, and machines can be fixed. They believed that if people had more knowledge, they would naturally be good and moral citizens, contributing to this utopian vision. Of course, this vision never achieved its end; in fact, nature is now even more screwed up as evidenced by environmental degradation, our convenient communities of high technology that are losing sustainability and turning into impossibilities, and people who have more questions than answers. After scientific “laws” and “order” were established in a post-Newtonian context, turning our view of nature into clockwork and machinery, the laws began to collapse at smaller levels in Einstein’s new theories in physics.

As a result of such unforeseen failures, there has been a new attitude arising in critique of modernity, recognizing its victories while pointing out its failures – a posture scholars classify as “post-modern.” However, there are some who appear to still carry on the modern myth – what today could be called GTE, or a Grand Theory of Everything. The biggest proponents of this view call themselves the New Atheists – scientists who continue to believe that salvation will come through science and that religion is useless and destructive. Many post-moderns find themselves caught on the outside of everything, disillusioned at humanity’s over-confidence in answers and final, systematic explanations of everything. They are incredulous of the belief that all truth in every area, whether scientific, metaphysical, ethical, or whatever, can be summed up in a simple and elegant equation.

In the cross of Christ I see an event that stands in subversive contradiction to the religious, political, and social orders of its day. It is an event with no easy answers, with a man – both human and divine – who cries out that his God has forsaken him. Within this picture we find solidarity in the brokenness, disillusionment, doubt, and paradox experienced. We also find resurrection. Resurrection that follows a messiah who loved and forgave unto death, even forgiving those who were murdering him while the words left his mouth. In a world of disillusionment and doubt, where answers are scarce and intellect has bypassed ethic, I stake my hope on the giving of oneself to others. I may not have the empirical proof in my hands that this is the answer, but I have found glimpses of good and hope in those who love one another. It is my conviction that love could heal this world if people would commit to it. I know that people don’t want to, and this is why I look to a messiah who grants the power to do so. I don’t believe that the salvation of our lived reality exists in a utopian vision based on science, intellect, or easy answers, but in a revolution of transformative love.

Agnostic Christianity: Reconciling the Paradox of Faith and Uncertainty

Are faith and doubt antonyms? I doubt that.

The Scripture certainly speaks against "doubt", although I am not sure if the Greek word means the same exact thing as we mean by doubt. In context, it is normally speaking of making a conscious decision not to trust or believe. It seems to be more about the absence of faith than the size of it, because Jesus did say - it only takes the faith of a mustard seed.


Normally when we speak of doubt in our current religious context, we mean uncertainty. We aren't using doubt as to refer to decisively not trusting as much as to uncertainty. It is certainly true that most of us never see miracles, even if our friends say they have or know someone who has, or know someone who knows someone who knows someone who has...

For some of us, faith comes much more difficultly. This is due to the root of our faith. If our faith is based upon miracles, and we don't see any, we will lose it. If our faith is based upon God giving us material wealth and possessions, and we lack in those areas, we might lose our faith. If our faith is based upon historical or scientific evidence (which seems to be the prevalent basis for Western apologetics), and the facts we discover seemingly contradict our faith or what we believe about the Bible, then we are quite likely to lose our faith (as many have for this reason).

Jesus said that "they will know us by our fruit" and that we are his because we have love for one another. That is what Shane Claiborne means by "The Irresistible Revolution". When we follow the way of Jesus and the Kingdom of God, loving our enemies and each other, embodying peace and harmony and righteousness in a Christian community, then we will set the foundation for our faith. Following Jesus isn't about certainty, and neither is faith.

Because Jesus did say, "Blessed is the man who sees and believes, but more blessed is the man who does not see and believes".

Uncertainty means not seeing the holes in his hands. It means being faced with a value judgment. In other words, in our current context where knowledge and circumstances are unpredictable, what metanarrative/religion we choose is probably going to have to be based on a value judgment. We will probably have to ask existential questions about our humanity and nature, and go from there into exploring how Jesus' way completes our purpose and fulfills our humanity, making us into holistic human beings again, bringing us back to Eden in a metaphysical sense.

In That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis, there is a place that speaks of this sort of thing. The character is being coerced into becoming part of a sketchy organization, being brought through conditioning and brainwashing, and Frost, an antagonistic character, asks him to beat and kick a crucifix while they are in the "Objectivity Room". Here is what follows:

Mark made no reply. He was thinking, and thinking hard because he knew, that if he stopped even for a moment, mere terror of death would take the decision out of his hands. Christianity was a fable. It would be ridiculous to die for a religion one did not believe. This Man himself, on that very cross, had discovered it to be a fable, and had died complaining that the God in whom he trusted had forsaken him - had, in fact, found the universe a cheat. But this raised a question that Mark had never thought of before. Was that the moment at which to turn against the Man? If the universe was a cheat, was that a good reason for joining its side? Supposing the Straight was utterly powerless, always and everywhere certain to be mocked, tortured, and finally killed by the Crooked, what then? Why not go down with the ship? He began to be frightened by the very fact that his fears seemed to have momentarily vanished. They had been a safeguard ... they had prevented him, all his life, from making mad decisions like that which he was now making as he turned to Frost and said,

"It's all bloody nonsense, and I'm damned if I do any such thing."

Amen.

True Faith and Holistic Salvation

What is salvation? Redemption from punishment? Living forever? Could it be more?
What is true faith? Is it simply believing the gospel? What is the gospel?
These are all important questions that should be asked from time to time to help us broaden and deepen our understanding of our faith.

Some people say that believing in Jesus' atonement and resurrection is what gets you your ticket to heaven. That whole statement is full of gaps.

When Jesus or the apostles talk about faith, it isn't just faith in the power of God to forgive sins, although this is very important. Jesus only taught forgiveness of sins as a part of a composite of teachings commonly referred to as the message of the Kingdom of God. I think Jesus is asking us to believe in more than just salvation from legal condemnation. Jesus was (and is) inviting people into a better way of life. When Jesus taught the beatitudes and about bearing the fruit of love, he was speaking of the way we enter into by faith.

Many times faith is metaphorically spoken of as sowing seeds or abiding and bearing fruit. Faith is believing what Jesus says and then choosing to enter into his way of life. It isn't just about a ticket to heaven, but about representing paradise in God's earthly kingdom right now. It is about doing his will on earth by loving others in his name.

The letters of James and 1 John are great arguments for this. According to James and John, we know we are in the faith if we love one another. According to Paul, we walk in the spirit, not the flesh. The spirit is grace and the flesh is law. We do not live by a set of rules and regulations, but we operate according to grace and love, not judging (in the condemnation sense) but loving and submitting and forgiving one another.

Salvation is holistic when it integrates both the work of the cross for us and the work of the cross in us. We must enter into a transformation by love and grace.

This isn't to say that simply following the way of Jesus is good enough. Forgiveness of sins only comes through the atonement of the cross, and transformation is essential to our paths.

The best way to know whether or not you know Jesus is not by simply asking yourself if you've believed in the gospel, but by examining yourself to see if you are loving others in the way of Jesus. I am not saying we should live in fear, but that transformation is the mark of a believer, and that loving others is the mark of transformation.

It's funny how we come to God praising him for his love and asking for his joy and peace, and yet isolate ourselves from our neighbors sometimes. According to John, loving God isn't a personal, individualized experience; it means loving others (1 John 4:20-21). If we want to experience God and live and move and breathe and have our being within his love and grace and peace and joy, we need to do good to others daily. This will really help us to understand God better and what his love and grace are really all about. This is where true joy and faith are. Paul calls the fruit of the spirit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. It is interesting how he groups all those together in one fruit (and contrasts them to the works of the flesh - again, flesh vs. spirit, law vs. grace). The feelings and experiences (joy, peace) are intertwined with good deeds (being kind, faithfulness which is perpetual faith, being gentle, being patient, etc). It is also interesting how according to John 15, faith is abiding in Christ in order to bear fruit. In other words, true faith means following Jesus' way of life which is loving others in gentleness and humility in order to experience God's peace and joy.

Thoughts from Pagan Christianity

Here’s my first response to Viola’s exhaustive masterpiece: Western Christianity is starting to look like the Twilight Zone in comparison (or should I say, contrast) to the primitive Christianity of the first century (the time of the apostles and New Testament documents).

The Twilight Zone. That’s massive. That’s scary. One of the greatest truths I’ve gained (or relearned or supported further) from this mind-blowing array of information is, in the famous revolutionary words of Rob Bell (to give credit), simply this: everything is spiritual. While and where there has always existed a false separation of the secular and the sacred in Judaic and Pagan religions and philosophies (even New Age to a degree), primitive Christianity flipped this idea on its head which was one of the things that made it such a countercultural revolution (which it isn’t now so much). For the early Christians, there were no sacred spaces, because everywhere and everything was sacred for them (as they were themselves the “House of God”, not a building), and there was no priestly system because every believer was a priest (as well as a child of God). Now you may say, “But Judaism shares the same God and scriptures, therefore their system cannot be false”. Good question, glad you asked.

Within the Jewish system, the separation of sacred and venerated spaces and objects from the non-sacred was (along with the sacrificial system) a false reality of symbols and shadows. Animal sacrifices didn’t take away sin (as the book of Hebrews says), they foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice, the reality and substance. The separation of sacred and secular (if they even had such a word) was to symbolize the separation of darkness from light and the divine from its creation. However, while the Old Testament saw God as dwelling in a tabernacle, the New Testament sees God as being in everything, but especially in believers.

Unfortunately, Western Christianity has made church a special sacred time where you act different than on Monday when actually the early Christians of the first century got together in each other’s homes and interacted intimately and with spontaneity (like a gathering of friends, which it was). The Lord’s Supper was a full meal of happiness and celebration (not a mystical, magic ritual, or ritualistic “solemn remembrance”). In conclusion, I would encourage you to climb out of your neat and nice comfort zone and read this book, considering the in-your-face facts (but with grace, of course). Maybe then we can start to climb back out of the Twilight Zone.

Colossians 2:16-17

Hebrews 8:3-6

Hebrews 10:1

The Kingdom of God Movement: From the Elite to the Outcast and Foreigner

In Palestine during Jesus' day, the temple had become corrupted by the ruling elite (scribes, priests, pharisees) and they were oppressing the rest of the Jews (peasants, outcasts) and collaborating with Rome for their own wealth. Jesus, having grown up as a stone mason (not carpenter - wrong definition of Greek word within the historical context) with his father Joseph building Herod's city, approaches the temple in Mark 11 to condemn the ruling elite and the temple system they had created.

Jesus starts to overturn the money tables which are being used to the gain of the priests on Passover, and then he quotes his famous line. The first part says "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations". This is found in Isaiah 56 when God is calling the outcasts of Israel and the foreigner into his house. This is emphasized in 56:6-7 when God says that foreigners will be included if they serve him and 56:8 when it says that He gathers the outcasts of Israel. The ruling elite were keeping this from happening with their greed and legalism. Jesus then accuses them of making it into a den of bandits. The background to this is found in Jeremiah 7:1-15 when the priests murder, steal, and harm the Israelites and then take refuge in the temple for security. Jeremiah then condemns them. This is what the elite were doing, and Jesus is prophesying their condemnation.

In Mark 11:12-14, Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit in season to never bear fruit again. This is before the temple incident, so it is like he is prophesying of the temple system's condemnation. After the temple incident, the fig tree is withered to the roots. Jesus then says that if you have enough faith, you can say to this mountain, "Be taken up and thrown into the sea", and it will be done. When he said "this mountain", he was probably referring to the mount that the temple stood upon. This was all prophetic of the destruction of the temple system and condemnation of the ruling elite.

After this Jesus tells the parable of the tenants. The workers of a vineyard do not do their job, and when the owner sends his son, they kill him. The vineyard is of course taken away from the people who work it. The vineyard is the kingdom of God, the workers are the ruling elite (priests, scribes, pharisees), the owner is Jesus' Father, and the son is of course Jesus. This is prophetic of the kingdom of God being taken away from the elite, because they are not keeping it and bearing fruit, which means loving and serving their neighbors equally - which is what Jesus' teachings are many times about.
He teaches these things to the outcasts of Israel (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc) because the kingdom will be given to them. The idea of the vineyard is taken from Isaiah 5, where Israel is described as a vineyard, and because it doesn't bear fruit, God plans to destroy it. These passages provide the context and basis of John 15. This I will discuss in an upcoming blog. It also helps explain Romans 11.

Matthew 11 says that until now the kingdom suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. Matthew 12 says that Jesus will bring justice to the Gentiles, which means inclusion in the kingdom as prophesied in Isaiah. Matthew 22 tells the parable of the wedding feast, where the elite are not allowed into the feast because they do not wear the proper garments, which refers to putting on Jesus' righteousness, so instead the outcasts are invited.
Luke 13:28-30 and Matthew 8:11-12 says that many will come from the east and west and north and south and recline at the table in the kingdom of God with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It says that the sons of the kingdom will be casted out where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The people from the east and west are the foreigners and outcasts, and the sons of the kingdom are the elite.

As Matthew 5:3 says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.