 |
|
     |
|
|
|
From Behind the Veil: The Epistles of John
Deep Exegesis:The Mystery of Reading Scripture
1 & 2 Kings
Brazos Theological Commentary
The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter
A Great Mystery: Fourteen Wedding Sermons
Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, And Hope In Western Literature
Miniatures & Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen
The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism
A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel
From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution
Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante's Divine Comedy
Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper
A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament
Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature
Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide To Six Shakespeare Plays
Wise Words: Family Stories That Bring the Proverbs to Life
The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church
John Paul II offers a profound and subtle analysis of the the sources of sexual deviance in his theology of the body. The steps are:
1. Lust is a disorder of the spirit, and breaks the natural bond between body and soul. Men no longer act as single simple beings, their bodily actions an expression of a person.
2. This is linked to shame. Due to the breakdown of the unity of spirit and body, human beings lose the confidence that their bodies express their persons. Lacking such confidence in the “spousal meaning of the body” and the gifted character of creation, men want to hide their bodies from visibility. They no longer are certain of their right to signify their presence in the visible world, no longer confident of being images of God.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, February 15, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Why is it not good for man to be alone? John Paul II said it was because Adam needed an other in order to realize the relation of mutual self-gift that is the fullness of humanity’s imaging of the Triune life. In the process he suggests a kind of theistic proof from sexual difference.
The reality of mutual reciprocity is evident in the body, and in the specific forms of the bodies of male and female: “Exactly through the depth of [Adam's] original solitude, man now emerges in the dimension of reciprocal gift, the expression of which – by that very fact the expression of his existence as a person – is the human body in all the original truth of its masculinity and femininity. The body, which expresses femininity ‘for’ masculinity and, vice versa, masculinity ‘for’ femininity, manifests the reciprocity and the communion of persons. It expresses it through gift as the fundamental characteristic of personal existence.”
The similarity and difference between male and female bodies, their created suitability and “fit,” points to the fact that male and female are created to give themselves to one another. And this is a theistic proof of sorts:
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, February 8, 2010 at 12:32 pm
No human being gets anointed in Genesis; only pillars (Gen 28:18; 35:14). The pillars represent the “house” of Yahweh, the cornerstones of the future temple.
It’s not until Exodus 29 that we read of a human being anointed with oil. Aaron is the first Christ. He is also Bethel, the gate of God, the living house of Yahweh.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 5:36 am
The odd Hebrew phrase “in the bone of the day” (translated as “the very same day”) occurs in Genesis 7 (Noah enters the ark), Genesis 17 (circumcision of Abram’s household), Exodus 12 (Passover), and Leviticus 23 (day of atonement).
Though the phrase is used a few other times in the OT, perhaps the repetition of the phrase joins these events together. In the flood, the world is “circumcised” and we have a foreshadowing of the Passover and the ultimate atonement.
What makes these “bone” days? Literally, the “bone of the day” has been taken as a reference to noonday – the “strength” of the day. That may be, but why describe strength as “bone”? Bones are structuring organs for the human body. The bone of days are days that provide a skeletal structure to time.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, January 18, 2010 at 12:49 pm
How do we know things? Experimentation, deduction, observation?
In Genesis, knowledge is first associated with two things – with food and with sex. There is a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whose fruit opens the eyes of Adam and Eve so that they perceive that they are naked. Then Adam knows his wife and she conceives Cain.
If we want a strictly biblical answer: Knowledge is eating. Knowledge is sex.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 10:52 am
John Paul II suggests that Adam’s wedding song, celebrating Eve as “flesh of flesh” and “bone of bone” should not be understood merely as a statement of derivation. Even is “flesh of flesh” not merely because she was taken from flesh; the phrases are superlatives, like “holy of holies” or “Song of songs.” Eve is not just more human flesh; she is the perfection of flesh.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, January 4, 2010 at 3:44 pm
In one of the early meditations in his Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body
The naming of the animals, which takes place before the differentiation of Adam into male and female, is thus a way of displaying humanity’s distinction from the animals, the fact that “he cannot identify himself essentially with the visible world of the other living beings.” And this, in turn, places man in his fundamental relation, with God: “the created man finds himself from the first moment of his existence before God.”
And yet (beyond John Paul): It is not good for him to be alone before God. Before God, not merely in his “cultural” work of filling and subduing, man needs a helper suitable to him. He needs a liturgical partner.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, January 4, 2010 at 3:16 pm
The word “seed” is used six times in Genesis 1, twice each in verses 11, 12, and 29. None of these refers to a human being. The first use of the word for a human being comes in 3:15, which is the next time the word is used after chapter 1. Again the word is doubled: “enmity between your seed and her seed.”
The distinction and analogy between “seed” and “seed” is important. Fruit trees bearing seed are types of men – or, better, women – bearing seed.
The numerology is important too. The seventh use of the word is a reference to the seed of the serpent. As the seventh seed, he owns the first week of human history. But there’s another seed coming, “her seed,” the seed of the woman, the eighth seed who begins a new week.
The next time the word is used in Genesis is 4:25, to describe Seth. Neither Cain nor Abel is “seed.” But Seth is, and specifically he is a seed appointed by God, to replace Abel, the second second-born.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Monday, January 4, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Citing the Oresteia, Kass points to the “tragic” character of sibling relations in heroic societies. Though he does not mean the word “tragic” in this sense, it seems that this is bound up with the essentially backward-looking character of brotherhood. Cain and Abel are bound only by their common origin; everything else, Kass points out, diverges – occupation, names, birth order, Eve’s enthusiasm at their birth. Nothing beckons from the future, drawing them to comic cooperation and co-belligerency.
For brotherly rivalry to be healed, there must be a common destiny, a common project. Eschatology is the medicine the solves sibling rivalry.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, January 2, 2010 at 2:51 pm
In his meditation on the births of Cain and Abel (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis
As a result, brothers are natural rivals, not naturally complementary. Sisters too are rivals, he admits, but the rivalry is different. Instead of rivalry for mastery and primacy in the world, sisters (Leah/Rachel) are rivals over the power of procreation and the love of a husband. Thus, “the prototypical story of sibling rivalry to the point of fratricide is not sex-neutral. It is not by chance a story about brothers.” He adds: “Very likely for the same reason, there is no special word for sister killing; ’sororocide’ is not an English word.”
This is a very provocative line of argument, and highlights, among much else, the difficulty of healing brother-brother relations. It is no less a miracle of the Spirit that brothers get along than that sinners are restored to fellowship with God.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, January 2, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Chee-Chiew Lee has an interesting article on the phrase “company of nations” in Genesis 35:11. She links the promise that Jacob will become a company of nations to the promise that Abraham would be a father of many nations in Genesis 17:4-5. But 35:11 adds an important gloss to the earlier promise:
“While the promise that Abraham will be the ‘father of many nations’ may still be fulfilled to some extent by his physical descendants, the promise that Jacob will become ‘a nation and a company of nations’ can only be fulfilled beyond his physical descendants.” The phrase thus indicates that Israel will include not only the physical descendants of Jacob but also other nations. Ultimately, the promise to Jacob is fulfilled in the new “Israel of God” that consists of Jews and Gentiles (Galatians 6:16b).
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 4:15 am
Paul Niskanen has an insightful analysis of Genesis 1:27 in the latest JBL. He starts with the question of whether Barth’s view that the image of God is found in relationality and specifically in sexual difference has any exegetical support. He reviews the current discussion, and notes that there is a “virtual consensus” that views dominion as the content of the image of God, with the corollary that relationality and sexual difference are not essential to the image. Niskanen differs on a number of grounds.
1) Phyllis Bird, Richard Middleton and others have disputed the idea that Genesis 1:27 (”male and female He created them”) is part of the description of the image of God begun in 1:27a (”elohim created ha’adam in his image”). In most Hebrew poetry, Middleton argues, a third line isn’t parallel but introduces a new thought. Niskanen disputes this for several reasons.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 11:22 am
When Rebekah sends her younger son to her husband, she clothes him in goat skins (Genesis 27:15-16). To this point in Genesis, the only other people to be clothed were Adam and Eve, clothed with skins as they left Eden (3:21). Rebekah stands in the place of Yahweh to “invest” her son.
In the light of later uses of this verb, we can infer that Rebekah is clothing her son as a priest. She “fills his hand” with savory food, sends him into the inner room to his father, in hopes of winning a blessing.
(The investiture theme in Genesis culminates with the robing of Joseph in 41:42. His garments are not animal skins but linen, along with a ring and a gold necklace.)
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 8:00 am
“When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.” That’s Genesis 25:24, and it’s talking about Rebekah pregnant with Jacob and Esau.
“It came about at the time she was giving birth, that behold, there were twins in her womb.” That’s Genesis 38:27, and it’s talking about Tamar pregnant with Perez and Zerah.
These are the only twins in Genesis; in both cases, there’s a reversal of primogeniture; within the tribe of Judah, the history of Jacob and Esau is lived out.
One of the things that intrigues here, however, is the parallel this suggests between Rebekah and Tamar. Both deceive men in order to ensure that God’s purposes are done. Both are heroines. If Isaac didn’t anticipate Judah’s words, he should have: “She is more righteous than I.”
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, August 29, 2009 at 8:22 am
In Genesis 9:11, Yahweh promises not to “cut off flesh” by water. That is the covenant with Noah.
A few chapters later, Yahweh tells Abram that he must cut off the flesh of all male children of Israel, not by water but by a knife.
That means that Abram’s children receive the “cutting off” that all flesh deserves, and got, in the flood. Or, it means that Abram’s cildren are the people who live beyond flesh, the people who have passed under the knife and through the flood that removes flesh.
It also means that the Noachic covenant is over. The world that then was was destroyed by a flood, and a new world came into being. But now God does again cut off flesh through water, the water, the water of baptism.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at 8:39 am
Abraham’s story moves from a priestly phase (setting up altars in the land) through a kingly phase (conquering the kings) to a prophetic phase (arguing with Yahweh and interceding for Abimelech). His life previews the history of Israel.
At each transition, there is an exodus, a thwarted threat to the bride, and a return. When he goes to Egypt in chapter 12, we don’t know that he’s a warrior; he’s been a priest. But he acquires stuff in Egypt, and comes back a king, with a sufficient company to raise an army of 318. Fending off Pharaoh’s assault on Sarai is the key to his elevation from priest to king. Then he goes out of the land again into Gerar, protects Sarai once again, and is explicitly called a prophet.
That is to say: Exile, death and resurrection, is the way of elevation; and, defending the bride from assault is the crisis that leads to exaltation. Adam failed; Abraham, the new Adam, succeeded; so too his Seed.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 11:52 am
In an elder meeting this week, Doug Wilson pointed to the promise at Noah’s birth that he would bring rest from work and from the toil arising from the cursed ground (Genesis 6:29). Doug made the interesting point that Noah embodies a reconciliation of herder and farmer, of Cain and Abel: He is an animal husbandman, but after the flood he turns farmer, planting a vineyard.
That sparked off several thoughts, for which Doug is not responsible.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Saturday, March 7, 2009 at 7:33 am
On the second day of creation, Yahweh divided waters, putting some waters above and some waters below. In between those divided waters, the Lord put the firmament, and he called that firmament “heaven.” At the end of Day 2, there were two heavens: In addition to the highest heaven in which the Lord Himself was enthroned, there was a second heaven, a heaven visible from earth, the blue dome of the sky.
Later, on Day 4 of creation, the Lord filled the firmament with sun, moon, and stars. From earth, the firmament appears to be a rounded surface, but from Day 4 we know that the firmament has depth. It is like the antechamber of heaven, the first room of the heavens. It is what we call outer space.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 7:38 am
A qualification to the previous post: It is not dry land as such that produces fruit. After the waters are gathered, the dry land emerges, but God immediately called the dry land “earth” (eretz). As eretz, the land produces fruit (v. 11).
The same holds for all the historical analogues of Day 3: Dry land is a transition, a liminal passage, to fruitful eretz. At the exodus, Yahweh makes Israel emerge as dry land from the sea of Egypt, leads her through the sea on dry land, but the goal is to transform Israel from yabash to eretz, from (perhaps) wilderness to garden.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 7:24 am
The word for “dry land” in Genesis 1:9-10 is not adamah or eretz but the rare yabash. After Genesis 1, that word is not used again until Moses pours water that turns to blood onto the dry land of Egypt (Exodus 4:9), and the word shows up again at the great dividing of waters at the exodus (Exodus 14:16, 22, 29; 15:16). The exodus is a new creation, the emergence of Israel from the sea of Egypt. So is the crossing into Canaan, when the waters of Jordan stand still and reveal the yabash (Joshua 4:22).
Elsewhere, the word is used mainly with reference to the exodus or new exodus (Nehemiah 9:11; Psalm 66:6; Isaiah 44:3). Interestingly, though, the word is used several times in Jonah. Jonah serves the God of sea and dry land (1:9), the sailors row to get to the dry land (1:13), and the fish spews Jonah onto the dry land (2:10).
Jonah is an exodus story, but with a twist. The waters do not divide so that land can emerge; the sailors can’t get to the dry land that they seek, though they end up worshiping Yahweh, God of dry land. Jonah reaches the dry land only by being plunged into the sea. More literally than Israel coming from Egypt, he passes through the waters to the other side. That is why Jesus gives the sign of Jonah rather than the sign of exodus, because Jesus too will be restored to the land, bringing an end to exile, only by being tossed into the sea.
posted by Peter J. Leithart on Sunday, December 14, 2008 at 7:15 am
Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.
