Universalism : That Serpent of Old January 28, 2009

“That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which it may be said,
‘See, this is new’
It has already been in ancient times before us.”

- Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

Not too long ago, I was considering the current state of the world and realized something: In spite of all of distractions we face daily, the world has not changed very much at all. Sure, technology has “advanced” (meaning, we have been secure enough from natural disasters and political upheavals to have the freedom and spare time to devote ourselves to playing with nature in order to extrapolate all that it is embedded within it already), but has anything really changed?
Some would say that we are “evolving” spiritually; that “God” is no longer a particular Being with specific demands regarding human behavior; that “sin” is an outdated concept that really only served to keep the “marginalized” from enjoying the benefits that the “privileged” kept to themselves; and, still others, that all religions point to the same “God”. And this, many say, is something new in the history of humanity.

But is it?

If we want to be honest with ourselves, absolutely not.

Why? I’ll answer that. But first, here’s another quotation:

“Now the serpent was more
cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he
said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every
tree of the garden’?”
And the woman said to the serpent,

“We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree                                                                                                                                                                        which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it,                                                                                                                                                                                     nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.                                                                                                                                                                                                     For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened,                                                                                                                                                                                     and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
- Genesis 3:1-5

Let’s briefly analyze this
1. The serpent questions the moral guideline established by God (“Has God indeed said?”).

2. The serpent denies the consequences of sinning (“You will not surely die”).

3.The serpent claims that the fruit is being withheld from Adam and Eve (the marginalized) by God (the privileged) because He (God) does not want them to share in His privileged status as divinity (“..you will be like God…”).

4. The serpent claims that the transgression of the law will give them knowledge that will enable them to transcend being human (“…in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God…” Interestingly enough, this is exactly what Nietzsche, whose proto-postmodern ruminations are responsible for our current zeitgeist of spiritual/moral/political antipathy, claims in Beyond Good and Evil).

5. The serpent implies that divinity is beyond good and evil by stating that Adam and Eve “will be like God”, the God whose commands only serve to preserve His prestigious, privileged role. “Good” and “Evil” are constructs, he argues, that serve to benefit the constructor.

6. The serpent places the satiation of one’s desires and, literally, appetites above obedience to the God’s moral command.

That being said, I’ll ask again:

Is there any difference between the serpent’s lies and the competing ideologies that currently seek to blur, if not completely eradicate, the line between good and evil, erase any manner of specificity regarding the name and nature of God, and that aggressively promote the idea that what life is really all about is the satiation of our sensual desires and that anyone who says otherwise is a political tyrant who is socio-economically privileged?

I’m afraid there really isn’t. There is no difference. Same content, different package.

Unfortunately, the serpent’s desire to erase the identity of God by 1.) denying His word, 2.) deliberately misrepresenting His Word as being an oppressive tool utilized by the privileged (in this case, God) merely for the sake of the privileged (God), and 3.) placing the sensual appetites of humanity above the Word of God, is coming to fruition in New Age “spirituality”, New Atheism, globalist spiritual paradigms, and Universalism.

Seeing any similarities yet?

And now for an intense moment of irony

“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,                                                                                                                                                                                                               that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise,                                                                                                                                                                                  she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked;                                                                                                                                                          and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the
cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence
of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid                                                                                                                                                                                                        because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
And He said, “Who told you that you were naked?                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”
Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”
And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
- Genesis 3:6-13

Adam and Eve’s disobedience opened their eyes only to their own shame, a shame that was so pervasive that they were led to cover their bodies and hide from judgment. Adam and Eve’s innate recognition of God’s impending judgment caused them to run. In spite of the serpent’s defiance of God’s Word, and in spite of their own defiant behavior, they still hid and covered themselves. Their guiltiness remained in tact. Their sense of being under the judgment of God remained in tact. The were completely guilty before God (externally and internally).

The serpent’s promises fell flat. They could not escape God’s judgment, although they tried to by placing the blame on one another until they could no longer do so. The man blames the woman who blames the serpent who has no one to blame. Adam and Eve, despite their desire to transcend the law, refer back to the law when they are being held accountable for their behavior, in order to condemn the other! Ironic? Just a little bit.
In short, God’s Word alone is the basis for all judgment. What would possess Adam to think he could appeal to God’s law in order to exonerate himself? His  own fear, guilt, and shame that came from sinning against God blinded him.

Fortunately, God spared them, graciously granting them life for many years thereafter, and fully covering their nakedness by sacrificing an animal that died in their place. The text reads:

“Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.”
- Genesis 3:21

Only God could remove their guilt and shame.

And He could only do it by sacrificing another in their place.

Some Notes on How Adam and Eve tried to Exonerate Themselves

Adam and Eve refer back to the Law in order to hold one another accountable. Interestingly, however, this isn’t the only manner in which they try to defend themselves by pointing away from themselves. They also blame their behavior on: 1.) their created nature (“…the woman that you gave to me, gave me“, “…the serpent deceived me…”), 2.) their environment (hence, the serpent’s emphasis on the tree’s desirability and his indictment of God as hoarder), and, finally, by way of implication – God. Adam and Eve can recognize their own guiltiness, but refuse to take responsibility for their own behavior. Instead, they place the blame on 1.) one another, 2.) their environment, 3.) their created nature, and 4.) God, victimizing themselves, and vilifying one another and God.

Are they right in doing so? Absolutely not. God did indeed give Adam Eve, and Eve Adam, and the garden a tree, and the garden a serpent. But, he also gave them dominion over every[...]thing…(Gen. 1:23-31). This means that they had control over everything that they would later try to say dominated them. They chose to defy God and sin. And, in so doing, became dominated by those very things which were originally proclaimed “very good” by God Himself.

The Imagination of Man January 5, 2009

A favorite text among lay critics is Genesis 11:1-9 (the Tower of Babel narrative). Some, in an act of textual isolationism, claim that the text is concerned solely with the origin of multiple languages; others, anthropomorphizing exceedingly above and beyond what the text presents, state that “the God” of the narrative is neither omniscient nor omnipotent; still others are drawn to make the erroneous conclusion that God is fearful that these men might literally reach into heaven once they have completed the building of their tower!

Now, if there’s anything that annoys me to no end, it’s sloppy textual analysis, myopia, and falsity – i.e. the only factors that can make the above positions regarding the “Tower” narrative tenable. Sloppy textual analysis may have more to do with an individual’s lack of experience, so I can forgive that sort of ignorance when I see it; however, when people disingenuously froth and foam at the mouth defending an erroneous position that they have reached only by refusing to consider alternative methodologies (i.e. myopia) or by flat out lying about the text, I find it just a tad bit harder to take them seriously. If someone doesn’t believe, has no interest in ever believing, and will not believe even if they are shown to be wrong on every pseudo-point they raise, why should I cast my pearls before swine?

But if I don’t address the “critics”, won’t I appear to be guilty of the same errors as them? Possibly. So to be fair, I thought I’d post something on this topic, seeing as I haven’t found many serious defenses of the narratival consistency and theological integrity of the Tower narrative of Genesis 11:1-9, except for a few articles that attempt to justify a historical reading of the narrative’s secondary, yes secondary, emphasis (i.e. the origination of multiple languages) and, indirectly, its primary emphasis (i.e. the imagination of man).

The Real Emphasis of the Tower Narrative

Read Genesis 11:1-9.

While the main event of the narrative is the shift from lingual unity to lingual dissonance, and from communal harmony to communal dissonance, the driving force behind this fragmentation is “the imagination of man’s thoughts” of Gen. 6:5, here alluded to in v.6, and God’s necessary intervention. The impotence of humans to do anything that is good, communally or individually, necessitates God’s intervention throughout the entire Bible, not to mention just in the first few chapters of Genesis. From Adam and Eve’s inability to fend for themselves (3:17-19, 21), to Cain’s inability to “rule over” sin (4:8-9) and on to the very real threat of being murdered thereafter (4:13-16), past Lamech’s polygamy and abuse of God’s mercy (4:23-24), which foreshadows the widespread sexual immorality (6:1-3), “corruption” and “violence” preceding the deluge (6:5-7), God must intervene if humanity is to survive. God’s intervention is always rooted in his mercy.

God’s mercy is evident, in spite of man’s sinfulness and corruption. And contrary to what your liberal theologian will tell you, these narratives are inextricably woven together, presenting us with the larger narrative of God’s image and man’s imagination. The former is what drives God to institute a judicial system meant to prevent the sin that lead up to the deluge of Gen. 6-9 (see, 9:5-6); the latter is what drove man to unify, seeing as strife and violent division were outlawed (as evidenced throughout chapters 4-6), and foolishly imagine himself able to “penetrate heaven” (11:4). If we assume, logically, that man’s imagination here is the same mechanism whereby Adam and Eve believed themselves to be free from the ramifications of their behavior (3:4-6), inspired Cain to murder his own brother (4:8-9) and, in unparalleled hypocrisy, fear a similar death at the hands of another (4:13-16), caused Lamech to believe that he could demand God’s protection and mercy (4:23-24), and inspire men to live in violence and corruption (6:5-7), then why would any reader assume that the “imagination” of the tower builders is any less impotent and heading toward only one logical destination: violence and corruption against man by man, made in the image of God?

Man’s imagination in the book of Genesis, as well as throughout the Bible, is fully corrupt, giving him the ability to do only one thing: sin.

In fact, here’s an interesting piece of scripture for those who would claim otherwise:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

- Romans 1:18-25

Doesn’t this settle the issue?