And they brought the colt to Jesus (John 12)

Okay, John chapter twelve opens with Jesus being anointed by Mary. The SAB compares this story with one in the other gospels, but I think if you look at the details, it's two different anointings. In this story, we're told the anointer is Mary, while in the other, it's a nameless woman who is a "sinner" (I think it may be implied that she is a prostitute). In this story, Jesus is at the house of Lazarus, while in the other he is at the house of Simon "the leper" (probably a former leper that Jesus healed). In this story, it's six days before Passover, while in the other, it's two days before. In this story, there's no mention of what sort of vessel Mary had the ointment in, while in the other, they specify an alabaster box.

Is it OK to use perfume? Wow, a lot of the SAB's supposed contradictions are insightful, but this is a reach. The answer is yes, it is okay. The Exodus 30 verse is crystal clear in context that it's talking about a specific perfume; the one described in the previous two verses is specified to be for ceremonial use only, and not personal use. The Proverbs 7 passage is saying that prostitutes use perfume, but doesn't in any way say only prostitutes use it. I don't know entirely what the point of the Isaiah verses is, but they certainly don't say not to use perfume. This really is a non-issue.

Anyway, Judas complains that the perfume was worth about a year's worth of wages, and it could have been sold to help the poor. The Bible notes that Judas didn't really care about the poor, but rather was in charge of holding the money bag for the group, and often stole from it for himself. Jesus says an interesting thing here, "the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always." It dounds a bit calloused, and indeed it's sort of strange that Jesus, who often taught about helping the poor, would say it, but keep in mind, Jesus has about a week to live. This is actually a rather unfortunate verse in the Bible that I have actually heard "Christians" quote to justify not helping the poor.

So the next day, Jesus rides into Jerusalem, but the SAB asks, On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? This seems like a contradiction, but it's just that the different gospel writers used different words for the same thing. Jesus rode on the colt of an ass. Saying he rode on a colt or an ass essentially means the same thing, and saying that he rode on both is just saying the colt's mother was there; obviously he didn't ride on two things at once. The SAB also questions whether this truly fulfilled the prophecy quoted in verse 15. While he fulfilled that specific verse, the SAB claims, "But this can't be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom." Let's see those verses:

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Be glad and shout, people of Jerusalem, because your king comes to you, humble and riding on a young donkey.
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
12 Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee;
13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

I think I don't see the military thing, as verse 10 talks about peace; nonetheless, there is a concept that is pretty consistent in the New Testament of "spiritual warfare" which is to say that there is always a battle going on in the spiritual realm between good and bad (actually, there are elements of this concept in the Old Testament, too). It's also known that it's symbolic that when a military leader rides into a city on a stallion, he's coming for war, but when he rides on a colt, he's coming in peace. As for an earthly kingdom, the book of Revelation says some things similar to this, implying that at Jesus's second coming, he will have a kingdom on earth.

After riding into Jerusalem, Jesus makes a speech. In the speech, he says something about seeds "dying" that the SAB takes issue with. I vaguely recall addressing this somewhere before, but I have no idea where that would have been. Yes, technically seeds don't "die", but they have the appearance of not being alive and need to be buried in the ground to grow (most of them, anyway) so speaking metaphorically, I think this makes sense. In verse 27, Jesus says something that prompts the SAB to ask, Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion? I'd have to say at most, this is another instance of Jesus lying, which is not a contradiction, but it's probably worth examining the other verses where Jesus seems to contradict himself. Yes, Jesus says, "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," but Jesus knows it's not possible to avoid crucifixion and fulfill God's will, so he follows with, "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Although Jesus went willingly to the cross, it's understandable that he wasn't enthusiastic about it. Then something interesting happens; God the Father speaks out of the sky again, like he did at Jesus's baptism.

Jesus, in talking about his crucifixion, mentions that "now shall the prince of this world be cast out." This prompts the SAB to ask Who is the Lord of this world? Interestingly enough, I really covered this at the end of my post on Ruth chapter four, where I said God is the original owner of the earth, but gave it to Adam, who essentially sold it to Satan for a piece of fruit. My link to Revelation five there implies that there is a trust deed that Jesus will redeem from whoever currently owns it, which is likely Satan, since he essentially offered the world to Jesus as a temptation. So the answer is that Satan has it temporarily in his possession, but it ultimately belongs to God.

I answered the question of whether Jesus performed many signs in John chapter three. Does God want some to go to hell? and Who forces non-believers to disbelieve? are both closely related questions and have a lot of proof texts in common. It seems pretty evident that there seems to be contradiction in the first question, but the second one can be very easily dismissed: some people are influenced by Satan to disbelieve, but for many people who disbelieve, God solidifies their disbelief. It's a lot like what was said about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart; if you're stubborn, sometimes God entrenches your stubbornness. And really, for those verses shared by both pages, that's the explanation; but what about the others? Well, the Proverbs verse is just stating a fact: God made all people, both good and bad, and in ways we don't always fully understand, bad people have a purpose, too. The 2Thessalonians verse in a larger context is largely saying all of the things that were said in the above paragraph; Satan deceived them, they preferred the delusion, and so God reinforced it.

The chapter winds up with Jesus saying stuff about belief and judgment, with there being a side note about there being members of the Sanhedrin who believed, but were silent. I answered the question about whether Jesus judges people or not in John chapter five.

The LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek (Luke 4)

Here's where I'm really going to feel like I'm repeating myself, as this scene in Luke 4 doesn't change much between the Gospels.

Jesus goes off into the wilderness and fasts for forty days. Note that it doesn't say that he drank nothing, only that he ate nothing. As it happens, I have known people who have gone on a forty day fast from solid food, but really, that's beside the point, as Jesus is meant to be understood as being rather exceptional. If a guy can walk on water and bring people back from the dead, going for forty days with maybe only water should be a cinch.

When the devil takes Jesus up on a mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, I never took it as being a literal thing, but more a sort of a vision. Even if the world were flat, you can only see so far, so I don't think this passage is suggesting such a thing.

Who is the Lord of all the earth? As is implied by this passage, the devil is, but then why all the verses saying that God is? Rather than a contradiction, this is a sort of complicated feudal matter; God is Lord in the end, but for some reason that's never fully explored in the Bible, when Adam ate from the tree in the garden of Eden, a certain amount of control over the earth was given to Satan. Anyway, if I remember from the first time I addressed Jesus' misquote, yes the word "only" doesn't appear in the verse Jesus is quoting, but it's strongly implied. So yeah, technically a misquote, but Jesus hasn't changed the meaning of the verse.

Can God be tempted? I answered this at length once before; let me try to give a short answer this time: You certainly can try to tempt God, but that doesn't mean it would be effective. Is it OK to test (or tempt) God? Generally no, but clearly there have been exceptions. Not only is it not a hard-and-fast rule, but the page on the SAB is missing an important verse, Malachi 3:10, in which God commands Israel to test him! (Perhaps the SAB will add the verse once this goes up? I think it's a big one for this issue.)

The SAB has a few issues with the comparison of Luke 4:18-19 to Isaiah 61:1-2. First of all, the SAB claims that the verse in Isaiah refers to Isaiah, and not to a future prophet. While yes, the verse does refer to Isaiah, that does not mean that it's impossible that it might have another layer of meaning. It actually comes up a lot in the New Testament that a verse that people thought referred to a past event is reinterpreted to have a secondary fulfillment; that's what's going on here. Secondly, the SAB points out that this appears to be yet another case of Jesus misquoting Scripture, and asks idly if Jesus made the mistake or if Luke added it in later. I don't know how to answer that question, but I do have some insight into what's going on here. In Jesus' time, Greek was a very commonly-spoken language, and a lot of people read their Old Testament from a Greek version known as the Septuagint. As is happens, the Septuagint does mention "typhlois anablepsin" or "recovering sight to the blind" in this verse. Jesus could have been reading from the Septuagint, or Luke could have gotten his verses from the same, but we don't really have any way of knowing for sure. Admittedly, this does still leave the verse open for questioning in a number of different ways. Is the Septuagint a bad translation? Was it wrong for whoever quoted from the Septuagint to do so? If Jesus actually read correctly from the Hebrew text, and Luke substituted the Septuagint, what does that imply? These are all potentially big issues that I admittedly don't have answers for; although its not a contradiction, it is an inconsistency, which some people may consider just as bad. Please feel free to share your thoughts one way or the other in the comments.

How long was Elijah's drought? The SAB claims a contradiction here, but I seem to be failing to see it. The Old Testament doesn't seem to be at all specific as to the length of the drought. I'd be curious as to where James and Jesus got three and a half years.

In verse 38, there is mention of "Simon's wife" which implies, as the SAB says, that the "first Pope" was married. I don't know what Catholics believe about this, or even if it would be an issue, as I'm pretty sure that celibacy among clergy was not a thing practiced in the early church. The SAB also implies that Simon Peter abandoned his wife to follow Jesus, but I don't know that one could say that with certainty. Sure, it's possible, but just because verse 5:11 says "they forsook all" doesn't mean that it should be taken quite so literally; at the very least one might assume that they didn't leave behind their clothes, and if they took something at all, who knows what they may have taken overall?

In the rest of the chapter, there's a lot of healing and casting out "devils", and while the SAB marks all of this as absurd and/or scientifically wrong, we're talking about miracles once again. Just because Jesus cleared a fever by rebuking it doesn't mean that the Bible is saying that's standard medical practice. As for the casting out of devils, the SAB brings up a question that I don't have a good answer for.

He anointed the eyes of the blind man (Mark 8)

Mark 8 opens with the story of a miraculous feeding, and while the SAB suggests this is the result of "two oral traditions of the same story" just as in Matthew, there is a moment (in this Gospel in verses 8:19-20) where Jesus refers to the two feedings as two clearly separate events, so I don't think so.

I responded to the question of signs and wonders in Matthew 12.

The SAB asks two questions about Jesus healing a blind man, "Where did Jesus cure the blind man?" and "How did Jesus cure the blind man?" Frankly, I think the two stories are so different that there's no contradiction, there's just two completely different blind men.

I know I've already answered the charge somewhere that "There were various opinions about the identity of Jesus...With credulity like that just about anyone could later be passed off as the risen Christ." but it's worth addressing again. In one case, you have a bunch of people who are trying to figure out who Jesus is from rumor and speculation; in the other you have a specific claim about a specific person that nobody seems to be willing to question. It's food for thought, but I don't find it convincing.

I'm also sure I addressed the question of whether Jesus forewarned his apostles, but the response is simple enough to give again: just because John says they didn't understand doesn't mean they weren't told.

Yes, when Peter was acting adversarial, Jesus called him "Satan" which means "adversary".

Then shall they fast in those days (Matthew 4)

The first issue that the SAB has with Matthew 4 is an interesting one, as it brings up bigger theological issues. If James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted, then how is it that Jesus, supposedly being God, can be tempted? Is this a contradiction? Once again, I think this can be chalked up to the ambiguity of language, but it raises other questions for me. The ambiguity is this: Let me use the example of one of my kids. Suppose you were to try to get my older daughter to do something and you were to bribe her with a chocolate bar. Believe it or not,  she actually doesn't like chocolate, so in a sense, while you could bribe her with chocolate, in another sense, you can't...because it wouldn't be successful. I think that's the point of what James is saying. (This goes for the issue on verse seven as well.)

The bigger theological issue this raises, at least for me, is the question of why the devil would even bother. As I've heard many people point out--in regards to this passage, no less--the devil seems to be well-versed in scripture, so one might wonder why he bothers to oppose God since he must know how futile such action must be. I don't have an answer for that, it's just something I've always wondered.

Anyway, the SAB seems to be asking how it can be possible for Jesus to have fasted for 40 days and nights. There are a few things to say about this. One thing is that there are no details given about the fast; I would assume that Jesus didn't go without water for forty days, but rather only went without food. As it happens, there was this thing a few years back (it may still be as popular now, I don't know) where a lot of people I knew were doing 40-day fasts. They didn't go completely without consuming anything, but I know they went without solid food for 40 days; it doesn't take superhuman endurance for that sort of thing. Which brings me to a more important point: Jesus was superhuman. I don't think it's so hard to imagine that someone who had the ability to walk on water and raise people from the dead could manage to go a long time without food.

Well, after fasting, the devil shows up and tries to tempt Jesus, even suggesting scripture to support the things that he's tempting Jesus to do. As the SAB says, Jesus misquotes Deuteronomy 6:13, and this is not a translation error for the KJV. Not only is the word "only" present in the Greek, but it's there in the parallel passage of Luke 4:8. I would say in defense of this misquote that the verse that immediately follows ("Ye shall not go after other gods...") implies "only", so it's not an unreasonable stretch for Jesus to put it there.

I find it interesting the way that the SAB envisions the sorts of things that the Bible talks about, and how it's clearly different than I do. I would have never considered the physical impossibility of the scene in verse eight, but I suppose it's an issue worth considering. The thing I'd always wondered about this scene is how and why it ended up in the Gospels at all, since there's no recording of a time that Jesus sat down with his disciples and said, "Let me tell you about this wild thing that happened this one time I was fasting!" As for the issue of whether we've got some sort of flat-earth situation, I think that I'd have to say that this is figurative language in some way. I mean, even if you supposed that the devil and Jesus were standing on the moon, they'd still only see half the earth (there were kingdoms in the western hemisphere, and maybe even Australia), and I don't think there is an angle at which you could see everything. But even if the world were flat and there was a huge mountain, you'd be looking at everything from miles and miles away, so you wouldn't really see all those kingdoms, would you? I'm sure detractors will call it a cop-out, but yeah, I'm going to go with figurative speech here.

Verse nine is an interesting one, because I think a lot of people miss the implications of the offer the devil is giving, but the SAB gets it. If the devil is offering Jesus the earth, doesn't that imply that the devil owns it? You can't tempt someone by offering them something that's not yours, so the devil must own "all the kingdoms of the world". So the SAB is right to ask the questions it asks about the earth. As important as this issue is, since this post is getting long, I'm going to answer it simply. There's a sense in which both God and the devil own the earth. In the end, God owns the earth; He created it, and at the end of time, He's going to take it back. In another very real sense, the devil owns the earth, but it's sort of like a guy with a long-term lease. I actually talked about this when I covered the book of Ruth and cross-referenced Revelation 5 and referred back to this chapter.

But back to verse 10 and Jesus' quote of Deut. 6:13. The SAB asks whether the Bible tells us to serve only God or whether we are to serve others. I think the answer to this is similar to the one I just gave. Ultimately, God is the one we are made to serve, but in the course of living our lives, we serve God by serving others. Children should serve parents, spouses should serve one another, employees should serve bosses, and citizens should serve their governments in some manner. While it may seem like a contradiction on the face of it if you take the language a certain way, I think the idea is that we serve God by serving the people that God wants us to serve.

So the last issue in this chapter is that of timing. Matthew (and Mark, apparently) seem to be implying that Jesus chose his apostles (or particularly Peter and Andrew) after John got put in prison, while the Gospel of John suggests the opposite. Well, as it happens, this sort of thing happens a lot in the Gospels. The ordering of events seems to get scrambled around a lot between one telling and another. My general answer is once again, something that's going to be considered a cop-out by many, but I really don't think it is: the Gospel writers just didn't care about getting their narratives in proper temporal order. I'm using that as a blanket dismissal of contradictions of this type, but there still will be times where getting the order is important (the Sunday morning after Jesus is crucified has some issues that need sorting out) and a fair number of times, there will be things that can be said to sort things out anyway.

In this particular case, I'd say a couple things. One is that one event coming after the other in the narrative doesn't necessarily mean that they come after each other in time, and I think here verse 17 ends one story and 18 starts another. But that's about what I said in the previous paragraph. Another possibility is that John ended up in prison more than once; he was pretty unpopular among the religious and political leaders, maybe even moreso than Jesus. Here's a more important distinction: I don't think that the story of the calling of Peter in John is the same story told here. Doesn't it seem odd that Jesus would just be walking along and call these two guys almost at random, and they immediately drop everything and follow him? No, I think this is the official calling moment, while other stories like the one in John 1 are stories of how Jesus had interacted with these men previous to calling them.

And said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan (1Sam 29)

Back to David in chapter 29, we find him in the uncomfortable situation of marching to war with the Philistines against his own country. Some of the leaders of the Philistines aren't happy and insist that David go away.

The SAB notes that the word in the Hebrew used of David is "Satan", but I'm not sure what's noteworthy about this. I think most people who know anything of Hebrew (well, I guess that's not too many) know that "Satan" is a Hebrew word meaning "adversary". Also, they make mention of the song about David being a great warrior. It is decided that David should leave, and so he does.

The house of him that hath his shoe loosed (Ruth 4)

So Boaz goes to the gate of the city and waits. The purpose is twofold: he's expecting the nearer kinsman to come through the gate eventually, and in that location, the elders of the city will be present to act as witnesses to whatever comes to pass. (Important men of the city in those days tended to sit by the city gate and talk about civic matters.) The man comes along and Boaz flags him down.

Boaz informs the man that Naomi has returned, and a goel is needed to buy back her sold land. Boaz tells this man that he is willing to do it, but this man has first right to it. The man agrees to buy the field. Boaz points out that along with the field, the goel has to marry Ruth, a Moabite woman, and give her children. The kinsman doesn't like the sound of this, and refuses, giving his shoe to Boaz in apparent accordance with Deuteronomy 25:10.

This is exactly what Boaz wanted, and he declares to all assembled that he is buying the land back, paying off the debt of Elimelech, Naomi and Ruth, and marrying Ruth in order that he might reestablish the inheritance of Elimelech. The people pronounce blessings on Boaz, both a straightforward one ("The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel.") and a very strange one ("And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah"). This second blessing is odd, because it's a reference to what is probably one of the more shameful chapters in Israel's early history, but most likely, the reason for the blessing was twofold: First, Boaz and perhaps several others there were descendants of Pharez, and so it might be fitting to remember not just the founding of the tribes of Israel, but the founding of their own tribe within the nation. Secondly, there is an interesting similarity between the two stories, both involving a non-Israelite woman whose first husband died and had to be given a son by the second-closest living relative.

The story closes with a genealogy from Pharez to David through Obed, the son of Ruth, reminding us that despite the fact that Jewish men to the present pray daily thanks to God that they are Jews and not gentiles, men and not women, and free and not slaves, it was the work of a gentile woman under the enslavement of a debt that led to the establishment of Israel's greatest dynasty.

Allegorically, who is this nearer kinsman? Well, if we're taking a Christian approach to this, who had the first chance to redeem the nation of Israel, but was not able to do so? This first kinsman may represent the Mosaic Law, which does not have the ability to redeem, but has to be given the first opportunity to at least make an attempt. In the end, though, there was a need for a redeemer who was willing to give up everything to redeem. (Admittedly, this part of the allegory is a bit murky.)

Is there significance to the shoe thing? I think so. It's actually quite surprising how many times in the Bible there is talk of the removing of shoes at significant transitional points in history. Most people remember that Moses was asked to remove his shoes when he approached the burning bush (Exodus 3:5), but the point I like the best is a point from the New Testament that actually appears in all four Gospels:

Matthew 3:11 "he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:"
Mark 1:7 "There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose."
Luke 3:16 "one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose"
John 1:27 "He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose."

Why would John the Baptist be so concerned with Jesus' shoes? As we have seen, removing another person's shoes is symbolic of that person having failed to perform an important duty to you. I believe John is saying there is no portion of the Law that Jesus will fail to fulfill, and His redemption will be complete.

What is it in the allegory that is really being redeemed, though? Well, in the days of ancient Israel, when the land was sold, the title was written on a trust deed scroll which was sealed until someone should come to redeem it. Since it was sealed, information had to be written on the outside of the scroll so that people could remember what was inside it, and who had the right to open it. Because of the nature of scrolls, this was one of the few times that a scroll would be written on both sides. Suggestive?

And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? (Revelation 5:1,2)

It has been suggested by some scholars of Apocalyptic literature that this "book" (a scroll), which by its format is clearly some sort of trust deed, may in fact be the trust deed to the earth, which in some esoteric manner was sold by Adam to Satan. Whatever the nature of the transaction that led to the earth being sold and needing to be redeemed, it does seem clear that Satan owns the land for the time being, as he offered to give it to Christ during His temptation in the wilderness. If the world were not Satan's to give, why would it be a temptation to offer it? But to get it the wrong way? That simply wouldn't do. Christ paid the full price for the earth with His blood on the cross, and in so doing redeemed us all from the debt that our ancestors left to us. Not out of a sense of power or acquisition, for He had all that He needed already, but out of a deep love that the love between a man and his new bride, however powerful that may be, can only be a mere shadow thereof.

And so death passed upon all men (Gen 3:14-19)

I've always thought it was a little strange that God doesn't ask the serpent for his version of what happened. Maybe God was tired of hearing people pass the buck, or perhaps since the serpent is apparently Satanic, He's just not interested in hearing any lies at this point in time. Anyway, after asking questions of the man and the woman, He just goes straight to pronouncing the curse on the snake.

Now a part of this is definitely my own opinion, and I'm not sure whether more formal theologians share this viewpoint, but I don't think God has much of a choice in this matter. A lot of Christians seem to operate under the assumption that God makes up the moral law, and that apart from God creating moral law, it simply wouldn't exist. I tend to believe that there may be certain aspects of the rules of morality and spirituality that God has no control over. I know many skeptics would ask whether that means God is not omnipotent after all.

I think omnipotence, while still being omnipotence, is actually limited by logic. I believe there are certain things that are a part of the world that are that way simply because having them not be that way would be absurd. The concept of 1+1=2 is a concept so basic that I don't think even God can make it not be true, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect Him to have that sort of power. Mathematics, geometry, logic and certain aspects of physics are, I believe, beyond God's control: they simply are true. If that's the case (and I leave it without proof as such proof may be well beyond my ability) then might it not also be true that at least some aspects of moral and spiritual law are beyond God's ability to change?

God is a being that is entirely good. Interestingly enough, that creates a difficulty for God, as He is by His very nature repellant to evil. Once the fruit had been eaten, God was unable to have the same sort of relationship with mankind that He'd had before. As I said previously, Adam "died" to his relationship with God. This in itself was a curse, as having an intimate relationship with God is (so a Christian believes) the absolute best thing one can have. So part of the curse that now comes upon Adam, his wife, the serpent, and the whole world is actually not by God's choice, but simply the logical conclusion of God having to step back and let Adam live without Him. Some of it is by God's choice, either to punish, to fix the situation, or both.

The curse God gives the serpent in verse 14 seems to be clearly punitive. Essentially, as just about everyone reads this, God takes away the serpent's legs, forcing it to walk on its belly and "eat dust". I don't see any reason to take that latter concept more literally than the fact that, having its face always on the ground or mere inches from the ground, it probably does swallow a fair amount of dust on a regular basis. (Note that this serpent takes on a curse that eventually affects the roughly 3,000 modernly known species of snakes. Perhaps all those species evolved from this one and its mate?) The part of the curse in verse 15 is part natural and part, well, something else. Simply because of the role that the serpent played in all of this, and because of the form snakes took afterwards, they became despised by humanity. (In general, of course; I've owned pet snakes myself, and think they're quite nice.) But of course, many Christians have also taken this verse to be a prophecy of the crucifixion: that one day a man would come who would be injured by Satan, but would, in the injuring, cause Satan utter destruction.

God then turns to the woman, and tells her that she is to be cursed with painful childbirth and an apparently subordinate position under men. I once read an interesting analysis of this concept from an evolutionary point of view. Of all the animals, humans seem to have the most painful process of childbirth. Interestingly enough, this is due in part to the fact that the pelvis is shaped differently due to our being bipedal, and our infants having very large heads. Thus when we, as a species, were separated from other animals, it was when we walked upright and became intelligent which led to change in social structure, development of tools and language, changed sexual practice, and difficult childbirth. Whatever your views on this, I think it's true that being intelligent can be painful at times. The woman wanted to be smarter, and it cost her, whatever the reason was. The fact that she ends up in a subordinate position to men is, in my opinion, not because God wanted to push her down, but because men, in their fallen state, have a tendency to do this anyway, which doesn't make it right. Maybe I'm too much of a feminist to be a good Christian.

Then God turns to man and curses the ground. (The SAB notes that Adam is cursed for listening to his wife, but I don't this is a sexist thing; only that Adam should have listened to God rather than anyone else at all regardless of gender.) Adam now has to work to get his food, rather than having lovely fruits to eat in a beautiful garden. Whether new types of plants with thorns and such came about because of this curse, or that they simply didn't exist in the garden, and man had to deal with them when he was tossed out, I don't know. I think there was a bit of both. The garden was meant to be an ideal situation, and probably had only fruit trees, and perhaps soft grass underfoot. Outside, things were wilder, and work was needed to produce something edible for mankind. And of course, after working hard for years and years to make things comfortable for himself, in the end physical death would come.

Now, natural consequences or choice of God, why are these curses a good thing? As I said above, the assumption we work with here is that the relationship that mankind had with God before the fall is the highest good that man can enjoy, but eating the fruit has destroyed that good. If God is righteous, and by His very nature that He cannot change, demands righteousness, how can an unrighteous human being come to have a relationship with God? The answer is justice. Man must pay for his crimes against God, and the payment is death. God doesn't allow them to live forever separated from Him, but causes them to live in a world that is difficult and deadly, so that they will always remember that their aim is to make it through life to a better life with God after they pass away. The full details of this really come out in the life of Jesus, of course, but some of it will be in the rest of this chapter.

That old serpent (Gen 3:1-6)

Although the meaning of the Bible comes through well enough in the English translations, there definitely is some advantage to reading these things in the original Hebrew. God seems to really like poetry and wordplay, and the Old Testament is full of that sort of thing. The word translated here as "subtil" ("cunning", "clever", "crafty" or "shrewd" in other translations) sounds almost identical to the word used in the previous verse for "naked". Aside from sounding interesting, there is likely to be an intention of drawing your mind to the contrast. In chapter two, everything is innocent and out in the open, while here we have a creature who has some sort of secret.

Who is this creature, "the serpent"? I know some people have suggested that we might be talking about a d r a g o n, (pardon the spaces, this post seems to be attracting spam) as the term is used in the book of Revelation and refers back to this event. This holds some appeal, as mythologically, such beasts are often thought of as very dangerous and very clever, and sometimes even talking beasts. I don't think we can quite ignore the way this chapter works out in the end, however, since the serpent is apparently cursed to go upon his belly, which seems a clear reference to snakes as we know them; I'm inclined towards the common understanding of this being partially a tale of why snakes have no legs, since it seems to make sense to read it that way.

Still, a talking snake? What's up with that? One possibility that I've heard is that before the fall, perhaps all creatures were able to freely converse with one another. That has a certain poetic appeal, I think. Another one is that since it seems this snake is possessed by the spirit of Satan, it was through Satan's power that the snake was given the ability of speech. This also has some appeal. I don't see anything in the chapter that seems at all conclusive as to what's going on here though. It's even entirely possible that the snake was communicating non-verbally, if you think about it. If you were standing by a fruit tree and wanted to offer a piece of fruit to another person standing nearby, I think you could easily do so without speaking a word. That might be a bit of a stretch, though.

(This brings up another point about my personal take on the book of Genesis. Since even those who believe that the book of Genesis was divinely inspired believe it was written hundreds of years after the events within it, and actually thousands after these specific events of creation, I don't tend to assume that any dialogue is a direct quote, so to speak. And even the Gospels show that eyewitnesses sometimes don't remember speeches word for word.)

It's interesting that although the serpent is essentially lying from the beginning, when the woman corrects it, she also gets God's command wrong. God never said not to touch the fruit. I've certainly heard it said that this subtle difference may have been part of the problem. Once she touched the fruit and found no ill effects, she may have become confused as to the truth. In any case, the serpent's lie was almost a sort of half-truth, as indeed, they did come to know good and evil. They already knew good, as it was in everything that God had given them, but once they ate the fruit, they knew evil, and it was specifically the evil they themselves had committed in rebelling against God's command.

Whatever the specifics here, however, something that definitely is very interesting is the manner in which she is tempted. She "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise". This is an interesting scriptural pattern that is outlined in 1John 2:16

For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

This suggests that from the beginning throughout history, temptation has always been the same. 1) "If it feels good, do it!" 2) "If it looks good, do it!" and 3) "Look out for #1." This is the same sort of temptation that Jesus got in Luke 4 (and Matthew 4 as well), but He resisted.

So, the big question that every skeptic wants to ask, and rightly so, is why they didn't die at this point? Didn't God say "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"? The answer, which will no doubt not appease most skeptics, is to appeal to figurative speech. The two words here that are key are "day" and "die", and either one or both of them is figurative. I believe both are.

First of all, as I noted before, the term "day" can mean a number of things, not just in the Bible, but in modern usage. Sometimes it means "while the sun is out". Sometimes it means "a 24-hour period". Sometimes it means "an indefinite period of time that has a particular notable characteristic (definitions 6&7 from the above link). It's this latter meaning that is meant here I believe. It was the moment that man rebelled against God and brought sin into the world that the door was also opened for death to enter in. As is said in James 1:15 "sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." So God was really saying that once the fruit was eaten, a new era in which people die--including Adam in particular, of course--will begin. Of course, it has lasted up until now, and will continue to last until God changes it somehow.

More subtle is the word "die", however, and this may be more of a Christian viewpoint than a Jewish one, but the manner in which the human race "died" upon eating the fruit was not a physical death, but a spiritual one. We, as a race, died to our innocence; we died to our intimate relationship with God; something profound was lost. Sometimes Christian theologians refer to this as the death of our spirit, which causes us as a race to be all condemned to Hell by default. I have heard other people, Christian or not, refer to the concept that we as living beings in this world are dying a little bit every day. Supposedly that was not the case before the fruit was eaten, because there was no such thing as death.

Of course, the implications of eating the fruit don't stop there. More tomorrow...