The Genesis of Justice (35 page)

—P.K.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute my ideas to your own.

In the creation account in Genesis 2, when God created human life, He created it out of dust or soil or clay we are told.
Dust holds no shape, so I see the creation out of water and dust. What I find interesting is that both creation stories tell
us that the water was here first and was not created by God. The water was here before God made the rain to fall. God, therefore,
created human life out of that which He had created and that which He had not created. He breathed life into something of
Himself and something not of Himself. He breathed life into the being knowing that they were made of God and of chaos. The
story speaks of a tension between God and human life from the first moments of creation. The human used the five senses that
God gave it to stand in wonder and awe of the Creator, and the Creator responded with the joy of one very pleased with what
He has made. But then God divides the human into male and female, and all of creation changes direction. The “knowledge” that
God so closely guards, while leaving it very available, was the knowledge that allows humans to focus on things other than
the Creator. The two halves, male and female, discover (come to knowledge of) each other and all their attention is focused
on the other. All the senses become involved in pleasing and sharing with the other human life, and God is now the third party,
no longer the main focus of creation.

We quickly learn that this Creator is a jealous and passionate God. He does not take kindly to being placed in a second position
to the two halves who are seeking wholeness in something other than Him. This jealous God decides to change the rules of the
game and to make life a little more difficult. The two humans must now learn to labor and struggle to survive, and they are
forced to acknowledge their need for something beyond themselves. The other alone is not enough to satisfy in the world as
it is now redesigned. Now God is needed, and while creation is different, God is again more important in the struggles of
each individual. God has discovered that by making Himself too present to humanity, He was taken for granted. When He withdrew
and separated Himself, He made Himself the object of wonder and awe, the mysterious unknown, which humanity must continue
to struggle to discover. He is still available for a walk in the “breezy” time of the day, but He is not available in the
same way He had been in the original garden. He has hidden His face and is now only available to those who seek and search,
who labor and struggle. God still sees creation as good in every way, but He has chosen to be present to it in a different
fashion.

—G.A.C.

I strongly disagree with your statement “What child could avoid wondering how Adam and Eve could fairly be punished for disobeying
God’s commandment not to eat from the Tree of Knowing of Good and Evil, if—before eating of that tree—they lacked all knowledge
of good and evil?” The concept of obedience relates to the relationship one has (and accepts) with authority, it is not relative
to personal experience or the understanding of underlying concepts related to “why” the rules exist or why things are “good”
or “evil.” I firmly believe my children don’t question in this way, and while I don’t hinder the yearning to learn they know
that some rules exist simply for their own good, as determined by me on their behalf. For example, when I tell my child not
to touch the burner on the stove, I don’t expect him to understand the physics of heat transfer and human neurology, nor do
I expect him to doubt my instruction simply because he has never been burned to know what it is like.

—K.H.

In reading Part I, notes 11–13, I was reminded that a Hebrew schoolteacher of mine said that any interpretation of Torah is
valid, no matter how unusual, naive, or off the beaten track. This is because when handing down the text on Mt. Sinai, God
also whispered to Moses’ every possible interpretation that would ever be made of it in the future. Thus, even the thoughts
of a child such as me were anticipated by God, and told to Moses long ago. How comforting and encouraging to a young and inquiring
mind!

—W.F.G.

I believe in the progression of revelation. I think God has always had a perfect plan for man and the application of justice.
Therefore, the greater burden lies on me today in applying God’s justice system than did on Abraham who lived in a society
that practiced the sacrificing of children to appease their gods.

Thank you for giving your readers the opportunity to communicate their thoughts and ideas with you.

—L.E.R.

In reading various scholars, as well as having heard many personal complaints, I have discovered a lot of cynicism regarding
Abraham. Protests are made as to what kind of God could make such a demand or what kind of person would obey such a God. Others
explain the story away as being merely a relic from a previous barbaric culture. Not that I am necessarily going to change
any minds, but I have another take on this one-time event as it is told in the Scriptures.

As we look at the life of Abraham, we find him to be a man willing to take bold initiatives. First he moves from Ur of Sumaria
to Palestine at the request of God, which is like someone moving from New York City to Pulaski, Tennessee, in order to obey
God. It is not often seen nor heard of. While involved in all of these moves, we find him to be a capable man in bartering,
not only with world leaders, but with God as well; behavior which saved the life of his wife, as well as his nephew Lot, while
the latter was in Sodom and Gomorrah. So why did Abraham not barter furiously with God when he was approached by God to sacrifice
his son? First of all, Abraham had learned in all of his dealings with God that God was not only powerful but was trustworthy
as well, even when God seemed unreasonable. Secondly, on this particular occasion, despite what it looked like on the surface,
Abraham clearly had the advantage over God. He didn’t have to barter.

You see, several years before God had made a covenant with Abraham—promising him not only a son for an heir, but more descendants
than he could possibly count, as well as the land of Palestine for them to live on. In making this covenant, God had Abraham
lay out a number of animals for a sacrifice and then God walked between the severed pieces. By doing this, God was offering
up God’s very own life if God did not keep the promises God had made. Abraham knew that if Isaac his son would have died at
the command of God, then God would have to do something very extraordinary in order to save God’s own hide, so to speak! In
essence, if Abraham sacrificed his son, God had more to lose than did Abraham. And guess what?! God blinked! God stopped the
sacrifice and provided Abraham with a ram. While Abraham certainly proved his trustworthiness, his obedience ultimately challenged
God in a way that would be far more costly to God than to himself. And he knew it!

—G.L.B.

You are causing me to revisit the family relationships of Abraham, Sarah and Isaac.

Do you suppose that Abraham never really got over the loss of Ishmael? I think that it might be possible. Do you suppose that
Abraham was a little bitter because the very birth of Ishmael was a result of the conniving of Sarah? It was at her behest
that he took Hagar to wife. Then perhaps, because he had listened to Sarah’s advice in that matter, that God “punished” Abraham
by telling him to listen to Sarah’s wishes about sending Hagar and Ishmael off to the desert without proper provisions. How
could Abraham ever, ever forget Ishmael? Abraham petitioned the Lord three times to favor the boy, but G-d said, no, no, no.
[I find it interesting that Ishmael never forgot his father, as he attended his funeral so many years later that has always
tugged at my heart when I read it.]

Do you suppose Abraham loved Isaac, but not as much as he had loved Ishmael? I think that it is possible. It may not have
been as hard as one might think for Abraham to accommodate the Lord G-d at the expense of his son. However, Isaac’s death
also meant the end of that promise that YHWH made to Abraham that through Isaac would the nations of the earth be blessed,
and in Isaac shall thy seed be called (Heb 11:18).

Sarah must have been shaken, very shaken, perhaps bitter even, that Abraham would have tried to sacrifice Isaac. That brought
on her death, perhaps, as you so well pointed out. I had not considered that.

Isaac—what prompted him to get up on the altar without a sound and bow to his father’s will? Perhaps he was more afraid of
Abraham’s wrath had he disobeyed, than of his own impending death. And you have made it more clear to me why Isaac didn’t
descend the hill with his father. Perhaps the bond between them was broken forever, and he loved only his mother from then
on.

Abraham paid dearly for his faith. “Abraham believed G-d and it was counted to him for righteousness.” Gal 3:6. But what a
high price he paid.

Thank you for your book. My head reels as I make my way through it.

—L.H.

If Adam and Eve, like animals, had an ignorance of mortality, what fear would they have regarding God’s threat of death? Apparently,
being immortal, they would have no comprehension of death. If I were to tell you that should you perform a particular act,
“I will kravis you,” wouldn’t you look at me with an odd expression and ask, “What in the heck is that!?!” Yet A&E never inquire.
So the question remains, did they know what death was and comprehended God’s threat, or were they just two blissful morons
who could care less? I thoroughly enjoyed your premise that only upon receiving mortality did A&E have to make choices regarding
Good and Evil. One more note, if God were omnipotent and omniscient, how could HE not find Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden?
A being that is all seeing and all knowing should certainly be able to find two naked people in a garden.

—J.A.

A fallible God, who is fumbling for an understanding of both his human creatures as well as a balance between crime and punishment,
is rooted in the Greek (and therefore Roman) divinities. While the ancient gods and the God of Genesis dispensed punishment
in similar ways, God brings fire and brimstone to Sodom much as Apollo brought such perils to Agamemnon’s Achaeans in
The Iliad
, their relationship with man is markedly different. The Greeks and Romans saw their gods as operating with the same passions
and motivations as themselves and are shown as bickering and conniving as their mortal counterparts. In such, these gods were
not considered morally or intellectually superior to man, but were merely more powerful physically. What makes the God of
Genesis remarkable is the moral mandate by which man grants God. The God of Genesis, at least in the way I have interpreted
it, is obeyed because of a genuine respect for Himself and this moral mandate. Perhaps this difference lies in the inherent
relationship between man and his God or gods. The God of Genesis was directly responsible for the creation of both the world
and man, while the gods of the ancients were co-inhabitants of the world and were credited neither for the world nor for man.
In this, man has an almost familial obligation to the God of Genesis, while ancient man has only a casual relationship with
his gods. While democracy was able to flourish in a society acknowledging the ancient gods, justice was not (just ask Socrates).
A democracy embracing the God of Genesis should seek to acknowledge its faults, its flaws and its own injustice and, in turn,
seeks to grow and learn much as God did throughout the Old Testament.

—M.G.

1) Even though you made a very serious effort to use the terms
human
and
humankind
instead of the old anglo-saxon terms
man
and
mankind
, you have maintained that God is masculine. God is He, His, Him in your references. As I read God’s introduction to the people,
there is a very definite avoidance of giving a name. In order to sidestep the baggage and responsibilities and superstitions
that we find in the power of naming, God was to be unlimited, without definition, unboxed. The historical pattern of referring
to God, the Father, The Patriarch, He, Him, His has come to mean that those of us who do not have sexual intercourse with
women and beget children fall short of the image of God, so ergo only begetters are in the image of God and all the rest of
us are subsidiary creatures. Women are “given” the roles of incubators for fetuses that become human beings with that first
breath of life. That leaves a great multitude that have, do, and will walk the earth as secondary creatures.

2) You write of the early Biblical characters in language that gives the impression that they were actual living people—although
in the concluding chapters you do write of the narratives. We are the heirs of thousands of years of oral tradition and should
be very careful about referring to Biblical people and events as factual if there are no historical corroborations to their
existence. Whether the Bible is a compilation of myths, or the elaborations of stories shared around the dinner fire, we have
to be very careful to see these stories as examples of ways to live, explanations of phenomena and, yes, the experiences from
which society has drawn a code of ethics and laws. Gospel scholars are just now, after nearly 2000 years, beginning to admit
that although Jesus was probably a real person, most of the things he is said to have shared and done may not be directly
from Jesus, but more in the manner of what Jesus would have done. And a minority of seminary scholars will even admit that
the nativity is more than likely the writers’ attempts to appeal to a Roman audience than a real happening. Many scholars
would like to have us start from their basic premises in order to follow their logic, but we are taught to first look very
carefully at the basic premise to see if it is believable and just what agenda the premise is the starting point for in the
study. Native Americans, Afro Americans, Asian Americans, and women have long been hurt by putting a spin on historical stories
in order to foster agendas. You and I are part of generations who want to look beyond what we are told is an obvious truth
and decide on our courses of action after we feel we have some control over how truth is presented.