tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post115397983876885970..comments2024-01-29T14:24:46.852-05:00Comments on Wes Ellis: The Serpent In The Gardenwellis68http://www.blogger.com/profile/06087588494600746854noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-1154177198195198202006-07-29T08:46:00.000-04:002006-07-29T08:46:00.000-04:00Wes,Today is moving day for me. Actually, all wee...Wes,<BR/><BR/>Today is moving day for me. Actually, all week has been, but that is a long story -no time.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I bet I need a couple days to get back with you here. And I trust the conversation can wait. Plus, I need to do some thinking. I am not convinced that you questions are really contextual. But, I am not the final judge on that either. However, you are right to expect me to say why I am not, and I am too busy being distracted at the moment.<BR/><BR/>Very interesting exchange though. I really enjoy it. And as always, you definitely have my respect as a thinker. You are a rather brash questioner yourself.<BR/><BR/>Many blessings...Agent Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17797031158032033042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-1154154706177867302006-07-29T02:31:00.000-04:002006-07-29T02:31:00.000-04:00Right on Mike!I love your thoughts... i'm with you...Right on Mike!<BR/><BR/>I love your thoughts... i'm with you.<BR/><BR/>I will say you have challenged me to examine my methods but after thinking through it I don't think I am too far off base (or at all) in my questions and conclusion about this specific text. <BR/><BR/>The first thing I call into question is the assumption that the serpent is Satan and that he is evil. In doing this I am going back to the text.<BR/><BR/>Of course a Hebrew writer wouldn't have me thinking about weather or not the serpent is evil but tradition would have me assume that it is. I am merely saying what you are saying; no hebrew author would have us assume that. I suspect that a Hebrew author would have us assuming something else. I think we are to assume the serpent is good, in fact the greatest of all animals. <BR/><BR/>questions arise from that. Now we, who've always thought the serpent was evil, have to question weather or not he/she is and how that should change us. I think there may be an important aspect of this text that has been ignored and I think it is something the author would have wanted us to understand. it is obvious the author wants us to know that everything God made was good (see all of Geneis chapter 1). So we have to assume the serpent is good, the author would want us to. If I'm right about this then we must re-think our whole understanding of the origin of sin and the curse. Instead of an evil influence prompting Eve it was actually a "good" one, meaning something good prompting her to do evil. This may be implied by the cursing of the serpent (God cursed Adam and Eve and we know they weren't evil). <BR/><BR/>If I'm right about this then we have to rethink what the often discussed breaking of the curse should look like. Instead of seeing the bruising of the serpent as prophesy for Satan being defeated in the end times we should see it as another part of the curse to be broken. And if I'm right about this then the breaking of the curse doesn't mean destroying and crushing our enemies it actually means harmonizing with them. It means that we are to restore peace with the serpent, with the things that tempt intead of defeating them in some final battle. Perhaps the defeat of Satan is more about practicing peace than "spiritual warfare."<BR/><BR/>Do you see where I'm coming from? I don't think I'm asking any questions a Hebrew author wouldn't want me to ask in light of our current pop-interpretations. I don't think I'm putting it in a test toob. I am desparately wrestling it out of the stinking test toob. <BR/><BR/>Mike, I hope you know how much I appreciate your help in thinking through this. I should not have expected to go it alone. I still don't, if you still think I'm failing to do the text justice please help me out. If you think I'm asking unnecessary questions please sugget how we are to approach the text without asking them. Do you not think we are to assume the serpent is good? Let me know. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for taking the time to read and share with me. Your aspect of the picture always makes mine look so much better. <BR/><BR/>-Weswellis68https://www.blogger.com/profile/06087588494600746854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-1154147927164114572006-07-29T00:38:00.000-04:002006-07-29T00:38:00.000-04:00Wes,I hear ya, bro. I think I am seeing what you ...Wes,<BR/><BR/>I hear ya, bro. I think I am seeing what you are saying. And by using the word "think" I am not softening it. I really think so, but I am willing to acknowlegde my fallibility -it is possible that I really don't. But allow me to make some clarifications that might illuminate my earlier comments in a new way. Because, I think what you have said is all exactly true, but it seems that your view of what I offered is a bit limited too.<BR/><BR/>You are not the typical enlightenment thinker. And you are not typically traditional -not in the sense of uncritically accepting tradition. That is all exactly true, and my comment does not accuse you of such at all.<BR/><BR/>Think of it this way: Originally, the Enlightenment was hostile to Tradition. At some levels, you have that in common with the Enlightenment -because Enlightenment thinking is the new Tradition, in a sense. And yet, another tradition of the Enlightenment is to question Tradition -but in a sterile field.<BR/><BR/>Now by sterile field, I will have a hard time making clear what I mean, but I will try. Enlightenment tried to hold to test-tube style observations -even of matters of Bible and faith. Test-tubes are found and used in laboratories typically, rather than all natural environments. You take a solution of chemicals in a tube, heat it over a burner, shine red or purple light on it and watch it fizz. You can learn a lot about said solution by doing this, but nothing like this happens in nature. It is all a lab experiment. There may actually be great insight into the solution, but it really does not tell you much about how it lives in its natural environment.<BR/><BR/>I am suggesting that some questions brought to a text do that too. They lift it out of context etc or whatever, thus the observations might be of great interest without conveying the message God is sending.<BR/><BR/>How do we guard against that? Well, we might quibble on those details until the parousia, but I was not convinced you had made your observations of the text in its natural setting.<BR/><BR/>You definitely challenged tradition, even Enlightenments best conclusions. However, I am not sure you didn't use Enlightenment tools to do it. At least not in this specific instance.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps that is arguable really, but that does not seem to be your rebuttal either. So, I am sticking with my challenge for the moment.<BR/><BR/>So, let me rephrase my initial challenge like this, and see if it makes better sense... Would an ancient Hebrew writing this text intend for you to ponder whether the serpent is the Satan or not; evil or not? You might actually answer the question with a yes, but then when I say why? you would make your case for it. Or, we might put the question the otherway round... Would an ancient Hebrew, or first-century Jes read this text and question whether the serpent is the Satan or not; evil or not? And again I would ask why, and you no doubt would have your reasons for thinking they would.<BR/><BR/>As it is, I suspect questions of the kind you specifically have asked of the text are foreign to the context of the writer or the early readers. However, they sound very suspiciously Modern and Tradition bucking. <BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, I actually have great faith in you. I don't think every scholar (notable possible exception being Wright of course - but then I am an overboard enthusiast) knocks a home run with every thought or querry. However, most of the really good ones revise and revisit their methods and perfect them as they go. And I believe you are definitely in that group of scholars!<BR/><BR/>But you are right, I am asking you to consider your approach here carefully. But I am not rejecting it outright -more like questioning your questions. And I suspect you are right to analyse the passage with questions, but why these?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I hope that is clearer. And, you seem to understand well that I have great admiration for you. You also seem to take me seriously, which I appreciate. And you look forward to challenging me! Good. I welcome it. And I say, you actually have already. It is just not so stark. But your latest comments on my blog have given me great cause for pause. You have highlighted an aspect of greed that neither I or any of my other commentors have drawn out. And I think it needs wrestled with, which until you came along wasn't.<BR/><BR/>So now I am looking for ways to incorporate your very apt observation about worry, more deeply into my view of greed. As I was just talking to my Mom on the phone as I read your comment, I told her, "You know, that Wes is a very bright 20 year old. Now that he has said it, it is as plain as the nose on your face, but I had not seen it before!" Actually I have seen it before, but I have barked so far up another tree on the issue of greed at this point that I had forgotten to consider the affect fear has on it.<BR/><BR/>So, you do challenge me. A lot in fact. But perhaps not as starkly as it seems I have challenged you.<BR/><BR/>Hey bro, we actually get bigger pictures and deeper insights by sharing and challenging than we get on our own. When I bring my puzzle pieces and you bring yours, and Dolores brings hers etc, we form new pictures we don't get without each other.<BR/><BR/>And that is not to say that everyone is equally effective in placing puzzle pieces, but it is a community thing. No Lone Rangers here!<BR/><BR/>Many blessings...Agent Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17797031158032033042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-1154126258205582682006-07-28T18:37:00.000-04:002006-07-28T18:37:00.000-04:00Dolores (AKA Mom),Before you decide to change you'...Dolores (AKA Mom),<BR/>Before you decide to change you're whole world I encourage you to read Mike's comment. It's very challenging.<BR/>-WESwellis68https://www.blogger.com/profile/06087588494600746854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-1154126175211413302006-07-28T18:36:00.000-04:002006-07-28T18:36:00.000-04:00Mike,Initially your comment bothered me. People do...Mike,<BR/>Initially your comment bothered me. People don't usually accuse me of thinking in an enlightenment bubble. My point afterall was to call to question an assumption, though traditional, that comes from an enlightenment bubble. The more I question it the more I don't think the text ever meant for us to think of the serpent as Satan or even evil. So this post is simply a questionin. If it's not Satan, if it's not evil, who is it? And how does that effect the way we read this text and thus live our lives. <BR/><BR/>In further considering your comment I realize my conclusions may not be the original intention of the text either. Maybe I am reading in a bubble. This is something I need to investigate. But I'm left in a gap between tradition and truth; I don't believe the serpent was supposed to seem evil to us, I don't believe that anything was evil when it was created. So why do we seek to defeat evil, to destroy it? Maybe we should seek to bring it to harmony.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I am only hitting the tip of a very mysterious Ice berg. I intent to swin down to its' belly.<BR/><BR/>Thanks so much for challenging me once again. Perhaps one day I'll be able to challenge you in the same way. You are always appreciated here, I hope you know that.<BR/><BR/>Shalom, <BR/>Weswellis68https://www.blogger.com/profile/06087588494600746854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-1154042789860045912006-07-27T19:26:00.000-04:002006-07-27T19:26:00.000-04:00Wes,I appreciate your inquisitiveness too. Howeve...Wes,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your inquisitiveness too. However, I am not sure you have successfully overturned traditional analysis with a few questions. You have merely shown that they can be questioned.<BR/><BR/>All my comment here should come under the umbrella thought of assumeing that God, Creation and this passage in particular are all deeply mysterious. And your questions have only scratched the surface really.<BR/><BR/>But to begin, let me hug closer to tradition. You surely realise that Genesis, not even the opening scenes, was not written in a vacuum. To question it in one is not really fair to the text. It is a deeply Hebrew text with a deeply Hebrew context in which to read it. The challenge and the job of a student/minister of Genesis is to learn that context as much as possible. Then interpret it.<BR/><BR/>So, as you question the text, what contextual issues present themselves? Do ancient Hebrew writers expect the kind of questions you are asking? Or are your questions actually Enlightenment or post-Enlightenments questions of a text that it was never designed to answer? I am sure we could argue endlessly over criteria for deciding the issue, but the issue must be wrestled.<BR/><BR/>Also, how did ancient Hebrews question the text? How about first-century Jews? My questions of it should find congruity with theirs. Anywhere mine differ, I should plan to explain why I think mine are worthwhile.<BR/><BR/>None of this is to say that our traditional "sunday school lense" has suffinciently wrestled these issues either. But I get the sense your questions unfairly hold the text in an Enlightenment vacuum. Thus, I will stay with the tradition until I am otherwise pursuaded. But, and do not think I underestimate you, I will keep listening to you because I hope you are only getting started here and on revisioning your questions, I expect you to take us closer to the heart of things.<BR/><BR/>Now for more mystery. <BR/><BR/>I find it incredible that the serpent tempts Eve to "be like God" and to "know good from evil." As far as the first is concerned, she already is like God -Gen 1:26. How is that a temptation? Why is it a temptation? I am mindful at the same time that the Philippian Hymn suggests that Jesus did not grasp for deity status, but gave that up to be a slave and to die on a cross! That un-grasping posture was the antidote to the Fall that came with Adam and Eve. And Eve's response to the serpant seems to fit the other side of that coin. She wanted to "be like God" in some inappropriate way.<BR/><BR/>And then for "knowing good from evil" -Hey, I thought that was the point of my life when I was about 6-12 years of age. I think that was the main thing my parents wanted for/from me. It seems to have been their most basic agenda for me to teach me just that. So why is it a temptation to sin for Eve? <BR/><BR/>As I said, my thoughts all come under the umbrella of mystery. I think your questions are only the tip of the ice berg really. <BR/><BR/>Good thoughts. Keep it up. I am impressed.<BR/><BR/>Many blessings...Agent Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17797031158032033042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11928317.post-1154037934083150522006-07-27T18:05:00.000-04:002006-07-27T18:05:00.000-04:00OK. Once again you have taken what I thought I kne...OK. Once again you have taken what I thought I knew and turned it on its head. The Sunday School lens is so much easier! Must I think so hard? Thank you for your inquisitions. Keep using your mind and may your heart be blessed beyond all levels of understanding or logic!Doloreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13185093436164539262noreply@blogger.com