Harm as Contagion

but your father has cheated me, changing my wages time and again. God, however, would not let him do me harm.
Genesis 31:7 (The Contemporary Torah, JPS 2006)

The cheating and wage-changing was bad, but not “harm,” according to Jacob. Harm here is “ra’a,” or “do evil.” It’s the same “ra” from the tree in the garden.

and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.
Genesis 19:7 (NIV)

“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
Genesis 19:9 (NIV)

This same “do evil” is first introduced with the men of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I suspect it’s meant to suggest a corrupting kind of harm – the kind that spreads, like abusers creating abusers.

The God of the Barren

Jacob was incensed at Rachel, and said, “Can I take the place of God, who has denied you fruit of the womb?”
Genesis 30:2 (The Contemporary Torah, JPS 2006)

I think this passage is meant to help us learn how to properly frame the unfortunate circumstance of barrenness, and to understand what prayer is supposed to do. Is Jacob speaking correctly here? Has God “denied” Rachel fruit of the womb?

When we pray to have children, are we praying that God overcomes some kind of problem in the world (our barrenness), and that God may choose to heal us or not? Or are we praying that God undoes what God is also in control over? Ie., “God, you have made me barren. Please make me fruitful instead.”

The way we view “barrenness” here directly impacts how we view a God who addresses it.
In the first view (barrenness is a condition of the world, and God may/may-not heal us), the personality of God is one who sees a problem that happened to you, and in God’s infinite wisdom may choose to rescue or not. And if not, our unheard prayers might feel like God either does not care or does not exist. Or perhaps we’re not praying hard enough.

In the second view, where God has closed the womb and caused the barrenness, the view of God is different. We desire a child, and God has said no, or not-yet. And in this setting, we can get mad at God because we don’t like the answer, and this is very different than being let down because God cannot hear us, or because we need to pray more faithfully.

This is different than prayers of healing for someone who is dying, or praying for respite from crushing poverty or war. Those are “bad things” from which we cry out to be rescued. Yes, God created the darkness and the light; God created Ra (evil) and Tov (good). But “rescue” is a different topic.
Praying for release from barrenness is… something else. It’s a reflection of our desire to live into God’s promise of “be fruitful and multiply.”

So when Jacob declares that it is God who closed Rachel’s womb, I think the text is giving us a theological axiom: we can’t be fruitful on our own. A branch must be connected to the vine to bear fruit, and it will not bear fruit any earlier than that.

But also, branches will bear fruit when connected to the vine. This is a promise: we will be fruitful and multiply.

Obviously, this is spiritual talk. I’m not saying everyone who wants a baby will have a baby. We are being told a physical story to understand a spiritual principle.
Notably, this is the THIRD time we’ve been told this same story. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob each have wives who start out barren. Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel each are longing for the promise.

Perhaps closeness to God is tied to that same longing. Perhaps the “no; not-yet” is a parable of our lived experience.

Good and Evil

When you read through Genesis 1-3, it doesn’t appear that the text presents us with a cosmic battle of good verses evil. It appears that Good and Evil — the fruits from the tree similarly named — are inside of us, and that the “bad guy” in the story is merely one who whispers and makes us feel ashamed. But the whispering one is ultimately cursed and doomed to die by having its head crushed.

Perhaps this makes the little cartoons of the devil-and-angel on your shoulder (as versions of yourself) a good metaphor of our day-to-day lives.

Good vs Beautiful

The sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
Genesis 6:2 (NIV)

Translators do violence to the text.

This word we translated as “beautiful” here? FIFTEEN TIMES this Hebrew word is used before this, and EVERY SINGLE TIME, the word is “GOOD.”

“Good” is how God described the world he created in Genesis 1. It’s the same “good” of the Tree of good and evil knowledge.

The theological paths you can take here are absolutely tremendous.

The daughters of humanity were GOOD. What does this teach us about women? What does it say about God’s view of them? Who or what corrupts them by way of violence?

There is much water to draw from this well.

Another important link:

When Sarai is taken by Pharaoh in Genesis 12, she is described as beautiful (yawfeh), but when Esther is taken by Xerxes in Esther 2:7, she is described as both good (tov) and beautiful (yawfeh). And actually, the whole book of Esther links Haman with the concept of “falling,” which is the same root word as the Nephilim in Genesis 6. One might argue that Haman is Nephilim, and both the Pharaoh and King Xerxes are like “sons of God” who take women they please.

The Price of Souls

Then the king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give the [a]people to me and take the possessions for yourself.”
Genesis 14:21 (NASB)

[a] Lit soul

The Hebrew language is a little on the nose . Earlier, the king of Sodom’s name is given: Bera, which means “Evil.”

Here, the Evil one makes an offer to Abram, who is the rescuer of the people: “if you give me the souls, I’ll let you keep the stuff.”

Abe declines the offer. He doesn’t want the stuff. And God will rescue the souls anyway.

Ish and Isha

The big question in Scripture I’ve chewed on for years is this: Why does shame not enter the world when Eve eats the fruit? Their eyes are not open and they don’t realize they are naked until ADAM eats.

Every answer I’ve heard has been untenable.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Genesis 3:6-7 (NIV)

The structure of the answers often start with this: “Adam was told the instruction before Eve existed.”

From this starting point, we get answers like this:

“Eve was deceived. Adam should have told Eve and stopped her, but Adam was tempted by Eve.”

It’s gender/marriage focused.

In this view, Adam failed in his responsibility, so men must take charge and lead. However, we’re still stuck with a question: If Adam didn’t eat, what happens? Why is there no shame yet?

But also, in the absence of sin, how does Adam “fail?”

This is a broken answer.

Another view suggests this is not a gender/marriage story at all. It’s a story of those hear God’s words directly vs those who don’t. Those who know the rules are accountable; those who don’t get more grace. But we all experience the consequence of the former’s disobedience.

In this view, Eve isn’t accountable; she didn’t hear the words from God directly; she only heard second-hand. The explains why she might have added to the law (“nor shall you touch it.”) It’s ignorance, and while it’s not sin, it makes you more vulnerable TO sin.

But…

While this view is more palatable (it helps answer “What happens to those who never hear the Gospel?”), it only roughly aligns with certain spiritual/religious views of the world, but NOT AT ALL with our lived reality: ignorance doesn’t prevent a consequence. It can cause it!

So both of these views, although interesting, are unsatisfactory. They fall out of alignment with the rest of scripture and our perceived reality, so I’m forced to reject them and keep studying. And in my studying, I’ve noticed a few things that are hard to ignore.

At the end of Gen 2:24, the text says something important: “… and they become one flesh.” They are ONE. In the Gen 1:27 creation account, it says the same thing.

(NIV breaks the translation and says “them” in both places, but it’s IT/HIM and THEM. It says they are one.)

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃
H853: אֹתָם (‘ēṯ)

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them <- (it/him);
male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27 (NIV)

And while they are one, they don’t have names. I know you think “Adam and Eve,” but early in Genesis, Adam is actually “the adam/human” and is called by a noun and not by a name.

In the Hebrew, Adam isn’t used as a name until Genesis 3:17. Eve isn’t given a name until Genesis 3:20.

For both, they don’t have names until after they both eat the fruit. Until then, they are the ish (אִישׁ – man/husband) and the isha (אִשָּׁה – woman/wife).

In Genesis 2:23, the ish doesn’t say that the isha is simply a female version of him. He says the isha is FROM him.

“In the image of God He created him (the human).”
“Male and female He created them (the individuals).”

Despite now being split (ish/isha), they are still… one. And while we want to view them as a literal man and literal woman, there’s something else to see here.

Immediately after the text shows us the isha, it tells us what she is like in Genesis 3.

She…
hears/speaks to the serpent (v1 and v2)
knows/speaks WHAT IS TRUE (v2)
builds a fence around the Law (v3)
sees FRUIT (v6)
shares FOOD (v6)
desires WISDOM and being like God (v6)
gives to the ish (v6)

This feels… spiritual.

And this is interesting: The Spirit (רוּחַ) of God in Genesis 1:2 is a feminine noun.

And “Wisdom’s desire” of Proverbs 8 sounds familiar:

Feminine (v1)
Knows the truth and can speak it (v6)
Knows good fruit (v19)
Shares food (v5)

What I see is that “the isha” of the human being is like the Spirit of God; she is built with similar characteristics.

Let me be clear: I’m not making a statement about women or Eve. Remember: at this time, the ish and the isha are ONE. One flesh. Of the same thing.

…but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
James 1:14-15 (NIV)

If the isha represents the part of humanity that is in tune with the spiritual world, able to see and hear the serpent/temptation and to know how to interpret and even safeguard the law (“nor shall you touch it”), perhaps the isha is our spirit. Perhaps the ish is our flesh.

In that, perhaps Genesis 3 is not merely a “how sin entered the world” sort of story, but it’s also a “how sin enters the world always” sort of story.

This way of framing the human condition also gives another message of hope from back in Genesis 2.

“It’s NOT GOOD that the man is alone.”
“In the day you eat of it, you will surely die.”

God doesn’t say “if.” It isn’t a conditional statement. The man will eat it. He will die. The only way to save him is to split him in two. The flesh WILL die, but the spirit will live.

The isha was built so the human could live.

When Adam gets a name, God tells says “to dust (‘adam’) you will return.” You will surely die.

When Adam names his wife, he calls her “Eve,” which means LIFE. This is why there is hope in her, and why her curse carries a promise.

Finally, their definitions (that is, the flesh and the spirit) are established, they have names, and God covers them in skin.

Going forward, it’s a story about a MAN, Adam and a WOMAN, Eve. Prior to having a covering, perhaps it was a story about our spiritual selves.