The beginning of humankind's corruption is identified first and foremost by the fall of Adam and Eve. Their blissful ignorance shattered by the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge they hid from the Lord in fear of their nakedness "I heard your sound in the garden and I was afraid, for I was naked, and I hid"(Gen 3:10). For their transgressions the man and woman each receive a punishment of "pangs" in hand with banishment from the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:16-17). Humankind is thus derived from these two individuals as they obey God's command to be fruitful and multiply. What I find interesting is that, in a typical lifespan, an individual's child is typically removed from the influence of the older generation by their passing. In Genesis Adam and Eve are alive for many generations and thus their descendants are yet removed from Humankind's first sinners. While this doesn't imply that all of these descendants are consumed by Sin, the genealogy breaks its pattern to highlight Enoch's story. "...he begot Enoch...And Enoch live sixty-five years and he begot methuselah. And Enoch walked with God after he begot Methuselah three hundred years, and he begot suns and daughters. And Enoch walked with God and he was no more, for God took him." (Gen 5:19-24). Here I believe it is suggested that Enoch in whatever manner stayed true to God despite his knowledge of good and evil. For this, Enoch is "taken" by God which to me implies an admittance to the heavens (5: Gen 24). If one individual of the descendants of Adam, of which multiplied greatly, was saved then the entirety of the population must have suffered from a distinct corruption from which Enoch separated himself. I don't know whether this is due to the continued existence of Adam and Eve across enough generations to ensure their descendants proclivity for Sin or if it was just the natural progression of Original Sin.
Regardless only one other individual proves himself worthy in the eyes of God, Noah. Noah was described as "blameless in his time" and that "he walked with God" (Gen 6: 9-10). Whether by the same actions as Enoch or by a different path Noah proved himself to God in such a manner not only he but also his line would be saved from the coming flood. Of all the individuals descended from Adam and Eve only two are mentioned to have escaped the corruption of humanity as described by God, "that the evil of the human creature was great on the earth and that every scheme of his heart's devising was only perpetually evil." (Gen 6: 5). Noah is thus saved from the cleansing of the world because he had proved himself true to his god. The purpose of such a genocide was to remove the influence of any one once exposed to Original sin whether it was by the sinners or the individuals who had lived along side them. Now that the corruption has been purged, humankind is again free to "be fruitful and multiply"free of Adam and Eve's influence.
While I commend Morgan for carefully reading the lineages, I’m afraid I disagree with his point about the flood eliminating original sin and this leading God to encourage mankind to reproduce for three reasons. First, God does not single humans out to be exterminated. The Lord plans to destroy “from human to cattle to crawling thing to the fowl of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them” (6:7-8). If Morgan’s argument were correct, God would only have suck to eliminate humans (and possibly snakes) to correct original sin. Second, original sin is not mentioned as a motivating factor for the flood; rather, all things of the flesh are determined to be corrupted and evil in some vague way. Third, after flooding the earth God determines not that humanity cleansed and therefore should multiply, but rather that “the devisings of the human heart are evil from youth” (8:21). He orders all the animals saved by the ark to “be fruitful and multiply” (8:17-18) before he orders the humans to do so (9:7). Because God does not single out humans, does not mention original sin as a motivating factor, and the flood does not eliminate evil in humans, I fail to find Morgan’s argument convincing.
ReplyDeleteI am unsure that the flood is intended to cleanse the earth of Original Sin specifically, but I think that Morgan is correct in his assertion that the evil in humans was the cause for the flood. It is plainly stated that seeing the evil in humans causes God to "[regret] having made the human on earth" (6:6-7). Lachlan makes several well-developed arguments, yet, when considering the second account of creation in chapter two, I question the argument regarding the death of the animals is valid. In this chapter, the animals are created as "sustainers" (2:20) to Adam; thus, if the humans were to be killed, the animals would serve no further purpose. I could not find any evidence supporting the corruption of anything other than humans.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Kyra. Evil in humans was the cause for the flood. In Genesis 6:12, the author writes that "God saw the earth, and look, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on the earth." This corruptness doesn't necessarily stem from original sin, but rather of sins committed at the present. I'd also like to draw attention to the differences between Adam and Eve and Noah. Adam and Eve did not obey God's command, and they, and their offspring, were punished. However, Noah, who followed God's instructions, and his offspring were held in the highest esteem.
ReplyDeleteI too would agree with Kyra that evil in humans and the regret that this caused God were the causes for the flood. When God is describing his plan to destroy everything because he sees the earth now and "it was corrupt"(6:12), his regret is evident. I think his viewing of the earth as corrupt and therefore bad brings up how in the beginning everything was good. Genesis 1 repeats well in that God sees something and "it was good"(1:4). The contrast between the two scenarios highlights how things have, in God's eyes, degraded and therefore his regret is again pronounced.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very interesting that the evilness in the humans is never described it just is. I also find it peculiar that God should blame the humans for their evilness when he was the one who controlled their creation. It seems to bring up questions very similar to those in Frankenstein. Does a creator have the right to blame their creation for it’s actions?
ReplyDeleteI think that it is interesting that this is round two for God, and humanity. After purifying the human race of evil, God gives different advice this time around to Noah. When God sends Adam and Eve into the world, He says in Genesis 3:18-19 "Cursed be the soil for your sake... " God angrily makes the world a harsh place for the humans.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after Noah's triumph with the ark, God sends him out into the world with positive advice, possibly learning from his previous mistakes. He says in Genesis 9:6-7, "He who sheds blood by humans his blood shall be shed... be fruitful and multiply..."
Whether or not Noah's line is free from burdens of original sin, they still must live through it's repercussions such as birth pangs etc., but at least this time, God is looking out for them.
I would add to Morgan's post that there is another notable person chosen by the lord for his righteousness: Lot. While lot is mentioned in Genesis 11:27 as the son of Haran his flight from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't occur until chapter 19. It is interesting that there are two righteous people selected by God for their exceptional piety in Genesis. It might be that this is to emphasize the goodness of the Israelite's ancestors and show how they are descended from a godly people. This would help them to differentiate themselves from the other peoples of the biblical period especially the Canaanites whom they have already said to be destined to a lowly station in 9:25.
ReplyDelete