The Beginning of Wisdom

Here you will find my somewhat disorganized thoughts regarding the commentary I have been reading with a group from the Ann Arbor Vineyard on the Book of Genesis.

Leon Kass' reading of Genesis in The Beginning of Wisdom is exhaustive and valuable, but often incomplete. I greatly appreciate the depth and detail. However, I do not always agree with his interpretations but I enjoy the thought-provoking questions he raises. The things he questions in the text have long been on my mind, but I haven't taken the time to really think about them. And he often highlights what the original Hebrew words were in the text as well. All this is helpful, but I always take his perspective on things with a grain of salt.

I am thankful that I am reading another book alongside this reading of Genesis. For Lent, I've committed to reading Jesus: 90 Days with the One and Only. I bought the book in January with the intention of being done by March 31st (the 90th day of the year). That didn't happen. That's why I renewed this intention for Lent. So far it's working out. It's not very difficult or lengthy. It's just a matter of setting aside some time to do it. I would try to do all 7 days in one sitting, which is okay if you are cramming for a test, but not nearly as beneficial as reading something every day and reflecting on it throughout the week. I'm finding each day's reading to be well timed. For example, the same day the Vineyard taught on a passage, this same passage was reflected on in the book.

I find Genesis rather disheartening. It is a sad story. We have only read up to the point of the choice to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. The consequences have been outlined and the seraphim are guarding the entrance, preventing access to the Tree of Life. However, before the humans had knowledge of good and bad, they really had no explicit desire for the tree of life. There is no mention of their awareness of the presence of God. Only in His absence do they realize what they had. This is what Kass says anyway in her very literal reading of the text. His modus operandi being, "If something is not clearly stated in the text, then it did not happen" or it was left out intentionally. He also says it is a blessing that God did not give humans immortality in their current state, because they would be miserable. It was His mercy that cut our days short.

Kass also argues that the serpent was merely a symbol for human reason. Now this, I do not agree with. I also felt his argument on this point was inconsistent. He says the serpent (reason) felt rejected by Adam as a suitable counterpart, so that is why the serpent corrupted Eve first. Adam chose sex over reason. How exactly can "reason" feel rejected? He did make an interesting point about how Adam came to the awareness of needing a counterpart.

I also enjoyed how he showed that Genesis and the findings of modern science and even evolution do not always conflict. He drew out all of the similarities and agreements between modern science and Genesis. Some of these themes, have been on my mind for years. I am thankful an intelligent academic is studying Genesis on this level. So this is good. However, he does not explore (or at least thus far) the Scripture that follows Genesis. Or it seems he only refers to subsequent passages of the Bible, when they suit whatever argument he is making at the time. This focus purely on Genesis is good and bad. It provides focus to remain in just one period of time, however there is so much that can be found in later chapters in the Bible. Briefly, in a footnote he mentioned that Lucifer is not mentioned in the Bible until Isaiah or Zechariah. This reference was used to help the argument that the serpent is merely a metaphor for human reason. That just doesn't sit well with me. God commands us to love him with all our mind. I think this command in itself implies that God is not against our rational capacities and they are not inherently evil, though often limited. Furthermore, why would God put enmity between the woman and the ability to reason? And again, how can "reason" feel rejected thereby causing the motive to corrupt the woman first? I don't know...I am apparently enemies with the ability to reason. No, Kass never makes any disparaging statements against women. Actually, in the introduction he noted that indeed women are addressed far less in the Bible. He suggests that maybe that is because they do not need as much instruction as men, flipping a negative feminist reading of Genesis around.

I very much enjoyed his comparison of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, or the First and Second Creation stories. Kass explains why they are juxtaposed in such a way. Some people have said the two creation stories conflict. He pointed out how they perfectly compliment each other. The first story rejects the divinity of nature while the second story rejects the divinity of humans. Throughout history, one culture or another will always worship nature and/or man, if they are not presented with the alternative.