November 28, 2007
-
Genesis 1-4: Authority
So believe it or not, I haven't quit this series yet (and I have something to say about The Church and I series, too, some other time). I've just done more commenting on sites lately rather than writing posts. It's an irritating struggle for me; if I comment on sites too much, my posts suffer. Otherwise, however, I lose contact with friends. Grumble, grumble.
See the first one on commitment here: http://www.xanga.com/GreekPhysique/624070196/genesis-1-4-commitment.html or just follow the tags.
After looking at Genesis 1-4, I'm fascinated by how deep the root of Authority is in the Bible. Like many of you, I struggle with passages such as Romans 13 (which advocates extreme submission to rulers, at least by our Western standards) and, to a much lesser extent, the OT genocides (i.e. leave no Canaanites alive, not even animals). But look at chapter 1, before sin has even entered the world (vs 26):
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Subdue? Rule? Fill the earth? Those words reek of colonialistic imperialism! What about the native plants and fishes that were there first, and the delightful baskets they wove during their festivals! (Wait, I'm mixing metaphors here, ignore the baskets).
Yet, those words are there. I'm also fascinated by the man naming everything, including the woman; naming is an authoritarian act, at least to me. Yet, before we rush to wonder whether the man had authority over the woman before the fall (I think the answer is "No, but if it were 'yes', that authority did not matter pre-Fall, anyway!"), I want to bring you back to my main point. Authority itself is present, even before sin is in the world. We see authority and hierarchy even in the Godhood, as God definitely seems to have what we would term authority over Jesus and the Holy Spirit (I give you I Corithians 15:20-28, among other passages). Thus I'll gloss over what "rule" means in Genesis 3:16 for another time, lest I detract from my point here. However, I would also wonder out loud; if not for Genesis 3:16, would women live cheery, manless lives while we men begged them to pay attention to us? :-p I'm more amused by the first phrase "Your desire will be for your husband"; were women better able to resist our awkward advances in pre-fall days, until God sabotaged their resistance? :-p
Also, I'd quickly note that from Genesis 4, God seemingly has a pattern of preferring the younger son over the older son. That's another fascinating root in the Bible; why does God prefer the younger son first? Does the answer lie in birth-order--that the firstborn is bound too tightly to the past and tradition, somehow? Or is it God being anti-authoritarian to our authority customs? ha.
Comments (8)
I hope not, on that last point. Speaking as a firstborn, of course.
"were women better able to resist our awkward advances in pre-fall days?" Nonsense! Nobody, fallen or unfallen, can resist the stammering, blushing, guy-who-almost-asks-her-out-and-then-chickens! SWOON AT MAH AHWKWARD MAHNLINESS!
Yeah, postcolonial philosophy and Genesis definitely don't mix well. It's like that beer and liquor poem.
^i miss that guy!
don't put too much emphasis on the "fill" part. the fish and birds were commanded to "fill" too. but the land animals didn't get any such encouragement... can't tell you why?
as to the naming business (and i won't even get to eve and such). perhaps you need to read some aquinas. the animals were called as they are made by God, not given designations by Adam. by naming them, Adam was more naming God's rulership manifest in nature than establishing his own.
you know it's been a long semester at the catholic university when the protestant postmodern starts spontaneously quoting aquinas. sheesh.
Funny that you mention that last thing... I've been studying Genesis recently, and (also as a firstborn, ha) wondered about the pattern of God's preference of the younger over the older. Here's what my study Bible had to tell me (this is the note on Genesis 25:23, regarding Jacob and Esau): "The ancient law of primogeniture provided that, under ordinary circumstances, the younger of two sons would be subservient to the older. God's election of the younger son highlights the fact that God's people are the product not of natural or worldly development but of his sovereign intervention in the affairs of men... Part of this verse is quoted in Romans 9:10-12 as an example of God's sovereign right to do 'whatever pleases him' (Psalm 115:3) - not in an arbitrary way (see Romans 9:14), but according to his own perfect will." Makes sense. My study Bible is so smart.
RYC: I feel like that a lot, actually. Being incredibly witty and clever is hard work! Ha.
RY(picture)C: TOLD you I wasn't joking! And thanks for the forgiveness, but forgiveness alone won't buy me a new computer (hint, hint).
Theotica: Because the land animals didn't make delightful baskets, of course! Really, you should read my posts more closely. :-p And you may be right about naming. However, you're nibbling at the edges today; what about the main point of the post?
I'm just challenging you because I'm curious to hear your perspective.
Sunflower2457: Study Bibles are smart, ha, although I tend to like to squabble with mine when it doesn't adhere to my beliefs. :-p And being funny IS hard work. It's terrible to admit this, but I have to remind myself to be funny most of the time. Sad, isn't it?
RYC: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU FLIPPING MINI-IED ME!! good gravy.
i thought i made it clear that i think you are falsely ascribing authoritarian meanings. remember, being egalitarian isn't all about gender.
i just don't know understand where mini's came from or why i'm supposed to want to sprinkle them all over cyber space. i don't send cards to people either.
i'm not really in the position to talk about authority in the OT and it's implications for christians. but "submit to one another" kinda levels the playing field. i am to esteem my brothers and sisters, but they do the same for me. perfectly mutual... at least in theory. look at Paul's stuff on the gift and the body. etc. it's there to be read by any non-authoritarian eye.
I'm more amused by the first phrase "Your desire will be for your husband"; were women better able to resist our awkward advances in pre-fall days, until God sabotaged their resistance? :-p
I knew there was a biblical explanation for that. LOL.
*doesn't do minis either*
I was going to ask about the fish having festivals and weaving baskets but then I read your comment, so never mind. I'll bite back a snarky comment.
ryc: Oh yes. Yes, I am The Stalker.
Comments are closed.