The Fall as Communal Event: Degrees of Responsibility in Genesis 3 November 30, 2008

One of the problems I’ve always had with traditional theology is its strong emphasis on a simplistic one-to-one correspondence theory of etiological responsibility that is reductionist and only partially representative of what the Bible teaches.

Biblically speaking, the “fall” is always a communal event that individuals contribute to in varying degrees, even when a narrative presents us with an apparent transgressor-transgression schema.

Because these instances are more pronounced, we often fail to consider the role that other individuals in the surrounding narratives play in creating the kind of environment conducive to such transgressive behavior. Over time, we have been trained to read the Bible in paragraphs and isolated verses, viewing the book as a disjunctive collection of allegorical narratives and aphorisms, rather than as an organic narrative unity.

However, in spite of the many attempts of some scholars to read the Bible in such a piecemeal fashion, the events of the Fall narrative refer back to the preceding general creation narrative (1:1-2:3), as well as the following special creation narrative of man and woman (2:4-25), beginning a narrative pattern followed closely throughout the remainder of the book of Genesis.

A brief outline of this extrapolative style of narration would be as follows: 1. a general account of creation (and later, pro-creation, in the genealogies of Adam and onward), 2. a closer narrative account of God’s dealing with a specific individual (who serves as the figure-head of the community), and 3. a Fall event for which members of the community are judged by God (e.g. compare Gen. 1:1-2:3 (general creation) and 2:4-25 (special creation), with 5:1-32 (general pro-creation account) with 6:1-7:9 (special pro-creation account).

The consistency of this pattern indicates how the fall narrative should be read: as a communal event for which the serpent, the woman, and the man are held individually responsible. Adam is the central figure, I believe, because the commandment was entrusted to him directly by God (2:16-17); however, he is not the only individual at fault. Each individual bears responsibility for their contribution to the Fall event: the serpent is cursed for deceiving the woman (a topic I’ll touch upon later), the woman is cursed for believing the serpent’s word (regarding God’s character) above Adam’s word and, via implication, God himself, and Adam is cursed for directly breaking the commandment.

Other Theories

Textually, there isn’t much support for theories attempting to explain sin as transgression against the creaturely hierarchy. Contrary to the opinions of those who have proposed that Adam’s sin consisted in “listening to his wife” (3:17) and, thereby, failing to maintain God’s appropriate order, that Eve’s sin consisted in her not obeying her husband, and that the serpent’s sin lay in attempting to usurp man’s role as custodian of creation, the presented hierarchy is simply: God, Man and Woman, creation.

God gives Man and Woman full dominion and responsibility over creation (1:26-28); that is to say, his image bearers are given full joint responsibility to replenish the Earth and populate it. In fact, the decree to implement a political structure of any sort does not even come into play until 9:5-6, indicating that humans were not to rule over one another as they ruled over the rest of creation, but co-dominate and co-rule over creation, and, ipso facto, that Adam and Eve’s sin would not (primarily) be against the created order.

Theological and Narrative Consistency in the Book of Job November 16, 2008

I began re-reading Job after encountering criticisms regarding the text’s apparent narrative and theological inconsistencies, only to find that such criticisms were without any real foundation. Although I can see why a superficial reading of the text will, no doubt, leave the impression that the narrative is internally inconsistent.

Critics of the text’s consistency argue that the stylistic and theological simplicity of the opening and closing narratives (respectively, chapters 1, 2 & 42), in contrast to the complex poetic style and theology of chapters 3-41, give evidence of two or more theologically opposed authors. The author of the opening and closing narratives (Author 1) is orthodox, while the poetic author (Author 2) is said to be an opponent of the Author 1’s orthodoxy.

Yet, if this criticism holds true, then the book can no longer be read as a serious assessment of the problem of human suffering, but must be read ironically. In essence, the book of Job would be stating that human suffering is pointless, seeing as humanity is the play-thing of the Divine and evil is rewarded while good is not. The final conclusion would present us with a picture of God that is at drastic odds with the rest of Scripture; a God who acts “without cause”.

But is the book of Job really theologically and narratively inconsistent, or are we, rather, not reading the text closely enough? Are we, like Job, so enmeshed in the rapid succession of painful events in chapters 1 & 2 that we are dizzied to the point of losing sight of who God is? The structure of the book of Job is, I think, the key to understanding what the author is intending to convey.

Dealing with Apparent Inconsistencies

Not surprisingly, the above (liberal) reductionist interpretation fails once we inspect the text a little closer and realize that the first chapter, arguably the most important chapter (seeing as it is the foundation for understanding the ensuing dialogical cycles and the epilogue) is structured as a chiasm, at the center of which stands a dialogue between God and Satan in what is, presumably, the heavenly court of God.

A. Job’s Righteousness (1:1)
B. The Birth of Job’s Children (1:2)
C. Job’s Wealth (1:3)
D. Job’s Children, Their Feasts, and his Oblations and Prayers (1:4-5)
E. The God-Satan Dialogue (1:6-12)
D’. The Continued Feasts of Job’s Children (1:13)
C’. The Loss of Job’s Wealth (1:14-17)
B’. The Death of Job’s Children (1:18-19)
A’. Job’s Righteousness (1:20-22)

Let’s summarize what we see here:

Righteous Job (1:1) makes atonement for his unrighteous children (1:4-5) to a righteous God who, in verses 6-12, initiates conversation with Satan and places “everything”, but Job’s very life, in his hands.

Without the heavenly court scene, we observe Job’s children feasting (1:4), Job praying and sacrificing for them (continually, 1:5), their persistent questionably sinful feasts (1:13), and their death (1:18-19) while engaging in such behavior. Now with the heavenly court scene, we are given a glimpse of who allowed the deaths of Job’s children, while they engaged in such behavior – God.

Although their sin is merely a possibility in the mind of Job, the manner in which they die is consistent with other Old Testament narratives that emphasize the unexpectedness of God’s judgment upon the consistently unrepentant, in spite of those who intercede and make sacrifices for them (consider the “days of Noah” that Christ refers to in Matthew 24:37-39, God’s unexpected destruction of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9, or the judgment brought upon Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18).

God is in no way gambling with Job’s life, or playing a game with Satan. He is utilizing Satan as an instrument of His judgment upon Job’s children, while refining Job’s faith.

Interestingly, and adding some extra weight to the above interpretation, Job finds his antithetical parallel in Eli, the wicked priest of 1st Samuel. Regarding their similarities: the two men are in a position where they must make atonement for the sins of their children, which are related to, and juxtaposed against, sacrifices made to the Lord. Regarding their differences: Eli is wicked but Job is “blameless and upright”; Eli is aware of the sin of his children and does nothing about it and, accordingly, dies shortly after they die(1st Samuel 2:27-36, 3:11-14 & 4:11-18), while Job is uncertain, by his own admission, as to whether or not his children have “sinned and cursed God in their hearts” and, accordingly, makes sacrifices for them continually and, in spite of his immense suffering, does not die when his children do (Job 1:4, 2:6 (particularly, “…you must spare his life”) & 42:12-17).

Verses 6-12 Tie Together All the Supposed Loose Ends

1. They indicate the righteous judgment of God (seeing as they are situated between mention of Job’s continual sacrifices and the continual questionable behavior of his children, followed by their death). Let it be noted that this interpretation preserves God’s righteousness in that it proves that He has a twofold purpose(i.e. i.) judging Job’s children for their sin, and ii.) testing Job’s faith), while more traditional interpretations lump Job’s children together with his “substance”, objectifying them and, thereby, diminishing God’s righteousness.

Let it further be noted that it is Satan who, for no reason, tries to incite God against Job (2:6), and that God utilizes Satan’s hatred and jealousy against Job for His own Just and Righteous purposes. There is a reason for suffering, even if we become so enmeshed in the rapid succession of painful events that we forget this fact.

2. These verses, therefore, also speak of God’s sovereignty over the “sons of God”, “Satan”, and mankind, working all things for His glory and for the good of those who love Him.

3. They also powerfully reinforce orthodox theology regarding God’s benevolence toward the righteous, seeing as Job’s children are judged, but he is spared (2:6).

A Final Thought

I think that it is highly unfortunate that “scholars” can read William Faulkner’s “The Sound and the Fury” and interpret it structurally, but refuse to grant an ancient author the same ability to convey meaning by using two different styles of writing (while Faulkner uses four). The styles of expression, in both books, are directly related to the existential situations of the characters and, when juxtaposed, reveal a rich, consistent concept (or, in Job’s case, theology) that ties together otherwise (apparently) loose ends.