In Genesis figures of authority use their power to protect their own interests. The first time conflict appears in the hierarchy of creation is when Adam and Eve disobey God and eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The serpent reveals to Eve that the reason God does not want her and Adam to eat from the tree is that when they do they “will become as gods knowing good and evil” (3:6). This suggests that understanding the nature of what is good is a key source of God’s power, and one which he does not want to share. God lies to the humans to attempt to protect this source of power, telling them that if they eat from the tree they will die. Not only do the humans not die, but afterward they eat from the tree God fears that Adam and Eve will “reach out and take as well from the Tree of Life and live forever” (3:22). This comment reveals two things: first, that Adam and Eve were not going to live forever before, and as such were going to die whether or not they ate from the tree of knowledge; and second, that eating from the tree of knowledge did not cause them to die as God said, and indeed increased their chances of gaining eternal life as their rebellion could have led them to eat from the Tree of Life. To prevent Adam and Eve from gaining power comparable to his own, God banishes them from the garden of Eden.
Another instance of authority acting in its own interests is when God prevents humans from building the tower in Babel. Once again, God involved himself in human affairs when he notices that they are gaining power comparable to his own. Noticing the progress the humans have made working together on the tower, God says, “As one people with one language for all, if this is what they have begun to do, nothing they plot will elude them” (11:6). Fearful of the humans’ potential and wanting to keep the tower from penetrating heaven, God scatters the humans and destroys their common language. This act is clearly in his own interests and has nothing to do with judgments of good or evil, even from God’s own perspective.
God is not the only figure in Genesis to use power in his own interest. After the invention of wine Noah gets drunk and passes out in his tent. When his son Ham enters he “saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside” (9:22-23). Nakedness is a state of vulnerability, and as such is compromising for Noah, a figure of authority and the head of the household. Ham’s brothers listen to what he has to say and then “walked backward and covered their father’s nakedness, their faces turned backward so they did not see their father’s nakedness” (9:23). When he wakes up the next morning Noah punishes the Ham for recognizing his weakness, condemning Ham’s son Canaan to slavery in service of the sons who walked backwards to avoid facing their father’s vulnerability. Like the instances with God, Noah has no moral precedent for his action beyond the perpetuation of his own power.
Authorities in Genesis consistently use their position to perpetuate their power and repress those below them, without any moral precedent beyond their own self-interest.
Lachlan's points are very well analyzed. I was just curious on the last point made about Noah and his son Ham. Within the footnotes of Genesis 9:20-27, it says that Ham "acted out of violation," not necessarily showing weakness to his father. He must have done something to cause such a curse, which is still unknown to this day. It has been shown that there could have been some possibilities of taking "advantage" of Noah in his drunken state. The other possibility is the curse of having looked upon another naked man, especially an authority figure, during that time Then again I agree with Lachlan, his point on how Noah is protecting his authority and power over others by punishing Ham for seeing him in that vulnerable state.
ReplyDeleteLachlan makes some really fascinating and insightful points here! I think that this discussion raises the question, is it ever okay for the created to transcend the creator? CAN the created ever transcend the creator in the first place? If God hadn't kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden or thwarted the construction of the Tower of Babel, would humans ever have attained his divine status? I would tend to say no (especially after reading about Frankenstein's failure), but then again, why would God go to such great measures to limit human power? To protect them/nature from the disaster that would result from the attempt, however unsuccessful? Or is it, as Lachlan has suggested, truly just a measure of selfishness?
ReplyDeleteLachlan's point about nakedness and vulnerability is very interesting. I also think it can be taken a step further in terms of its relationship to power. Before the apple from the tree of knowledge was consumed, Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness. However, once they have been enlightened to the nature of good and evil, the pair develop new understanding. "And the eyes of the two were opened, and they knew they were named, and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves loincloths," (3:7). With the acquisition of knowledge, Adam and Eve have a new perception of right and wrong, or good and bad. This places them on an equal level as God, who is angered and threatened by Eve's act of rebellion. He calls to them, "Who told you that you were naked? From the tree I commanded you not to eat have you eaten?" (3:11-12). I find this passage extremely interesting. It proves the point of arbitrary meaning because before Eve had eaten from the tree of knowledge, the concept of nakedness hadn't even existed. It shows the way that people in power assign titles that come with a moral judgement. This is arbitrary but can also be useful in asserting power. Since Adam and Eve gain knowledge from the tree, and God feels threatened by this gain of knowledge, we can conclude that knowledge is power.
ReplyDeleteWhile Lachlan's post was well informed and written, I think that on some points he may be taking too harsh of a stance. The tree of Life is a tree with unknown powers. It obviously grants immortality, as God himself tells us, but we have no idea what else it may do. We see in Genesis that God can greatly expand (or perhaps contract) the natural lifespans of humans. It is not sure that Adam and Eve would have died -- it could very well be that God granted them immortality on his own terms, rather than by those of a tree which grants it of its own accord. This leads to more speculation, of perhaps the tree being a power greater than God, for otherwise how could he not revoke the immortality? We have already seen that God is neither Omnipotent nor Omniscient, for he is surprised when he enters the Garden of Eden and finds the humans aware, he takes an entire week to create Creation, and Omnipotence and Omnicience are two sides of the same coin. On this point, however, the answer cannot be known -- either could be true.
ReplyDeleteThe last sentence of the post is rather vague, however, and such a sweeping generalization is (generally) hard to prove. Abram, for one, refuses to take the spoils from the king of Sodom, not wishing to become rich before the Lord. Granted, this is a single example, but more selfless acts (such as the covering of Noah by his children, as referenced abouve, who deliberately avoided using their potential power over him) can be found within the text. The abuse of power is common, but some decent people remain.
Lachan what you say about power being exercised is something that I noticed too. You say, "Noticing the progress the humans have made working together on the tower, God says, “As one people with one language for all, if this is what they have begun to do, nothing they plot will elude them” (11:6). Fearful of the humans’ potential and wanting to keep the tower from penetrating heaven, God scatters the humans and destroys their common language." You also note the experience with Noah. These two instances baffle me because I have always been taught that God is yes, an authority figure, but also fair, loving, and just. Here it seems like God is much like any father where he can assert authority, but sometimes get it wrong. God is using his authority but maybe overextending it. Another example we can look at is during the great flood. After wiping out almost all life, he decides to never do it again in a way implying that he regrets what he has done. This also brings up this point of God not being a perfect being. He makes mistakes. But he is not human and is our authority figure so what should our relationship with him be?
ReplyDeleteI find that reading Genesis without the assumption that God is always right leads to a much different conclusion than reading Genesis with no opinion about God. When you hold no opinion on God, than God's banishing of Adam and Eve to prevent them from achieving power equal to His seems like a defensive and potentially selfish action.
ReplyDeleteWhen you come in with the idea that this God is the one that Jesus preached about, than you could argue that God banishing Adam and Eve was not acted out of selfishness or defense, but was His way of putting Adam and Eve into a place more deserving. All of Lachlan's points can be argued in this way, if you have a preconceived notion of God, for better or for worse.