The second (chronologically the older) account of creation has an especially subjective nature. The second chapter of Genesis constitutes, in a certain manner, the most ancient description and record of man's self-knowledge.
"The myth, in naming Adam, man, makes explicit the concrete universality of human evil; the spirit of penitence is given in the Adamic myth the symbol of this universality. Thus we find again...the universalizing function of the myth. But at the same time, we find two other functions, equally called forth by the penitential experience...The proto-historical myth thus serves not only to make general to mankind of all times and of all places the experience of Israel, but to extend to mankind the great tension of the condemnation and of mercy which the prophets had taught Israel to discern in its own destiny.
"Finally, the last function of the myth, which finds its motive in the faith of Israel; the myth prepares for speculation in exploring the point where the ontological and the historical part company."
The words which describe the unity and indissolubility of marriage are found in the immediate context of the second account of creation, which has as its defining characteristic feature the separate creation of woman (Gn. 2:18-23).
The Bible calls the first human being "man" ('adam), but from the moment of the creation of woman, it begins to call him "man" (ish), in relation to "woman" (ishshah). In referring to Genesis 2:24, Christ not only linked "the beginning" with the mystery of creation, but also led us to the limit of man's primitive innocence and of original sin. In Genesis 2 we have the creation of man and the creation of woman. We have them living in paradise, in blissful innocence. Immediately following this creation and idyllic life, we go into Genesis 3, wherein mankind falls.
"The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the line of demarcation between the two original situations that Genesis speaks of."
The first situation was original innocence, the second was original sinfulness. Fallen humanity, which is what we've all inherited.
"When Christ, referring to the 'beginning', directed his questioners to the words written in Genesis 2:24, he ordered them, in a certain sense, to go beyond the boundary which, in the Yahwist text of Genesis, runs between the first and second situation of man. He did not approve what Moses had permitted 'for their hardness of heart'. He appealed to the words of the first divine regulation, which in this text is expressly linked to man's state of original innocence. This means that this regulation has not lost its force, even though man has lost his primitive innocence."
Wow, so interesting!
ReplyDelete". In Genesis 2 we have the creation of man and the creation of woman. We have them living in paradise, in blissful innocence. Immediately following this creation and idyllic life, we go into Genesis 3, wherein mankind falls."
Have you ever wondered how much time passed between the two? One day living in blissful innocence and then one day - how much farther down the road? - sinning.
Not really, no. Since I consider the creation stories to be non-literal, it's never really crossed my mind. :)
ReplyDeleteBut, if they were literal, which would be worse? A brief stay in paradise before the fall, or a long one? Things left undone, or rememberance of time wasted?
Oh, I forgot you thought they weren't literal. Why is that and what do you think they represent?
ReplyDeleteI missed you today and wondered where you were. Glad to finally see you even though it's late. :)
I don't think the creation stories are literal because they don't line up with science. It's far more likely that they are creation myths given to us to present us with important truths, as opposed to being actual events.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I could be wrong about that. *shrug* I admit to not *actually* knowing everything. I just like to think I do. :)
Yeah, my other half at work is on vacation, so I'm *busy*. Can't play on the net so much. But I'll get on here as I can. You know I can't stay away...