Contextual Exegesis

Lately, I've been trying something new. I've been taking a second look at certain Bible passages. It started with the previous blog entry which revealed some rather startling information about the Genesis Creation Story.

I learned that the serpent of the story didn't actually lie to Adam and Eve, a common notion held throughout the New Testament, and that Lord God's expulsion of Adam and Eve was prompted mostly to prevent them from becoming like him and the other gods--by forbidding them, early on, from eating the fruit of the tree of good and evil, and having access to the "tree of life," if the fruit was eaten.

Rather than attempt to interpret the various passages by bringing in previous knowledge, or understandings, I allow the text under consideration to contextually reveal itself.

And to my amazement, invariably, the text alone was sufficient to answer whatever questions might arise during a reading.

William Blake wrote a poem, entitled, Auguries of Innocence. It's a rather long poem, and I'm including here only the first four lines, because I believe that those lines relate to my entry:

"To see a world in a grain of sand /And a heaven in a wild flower, /Hold infinity in the palm of your hand/ And eternity in an hour."

Just as a "grain of sand" and "a wild flower" carry within them the fullness of the whole, so do the various texts of the Bible carry within them the full meaning of the whole, without resorting to any other passages for exegesis.

It's not that we mustn't ever approach the Bible in this way, it just that this is yet another valid approach to Biblical illumination.

I call this approach Contextual Exegesis, as the context is deemed sufficient for a full understanding of the text at hand, without resorting to other passages, scholarly research, and topical analysis.

I'm aware of the occasional unreliability of this approach, but this approach has one advantage: it may reveal certain insights that other methods may miss.

Over time, beginning with the following passage, I will go through the entire Creation Story this way, but not necessarily in any particular order:

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

There's much here in this passage. I will discuss each in their turn but, for right now, I wish to focus on the creation of man, for that's the part upon which I wish to dwell first. So let's cull out all but that:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Right away, questions arise. What is the image of God? And who is the "Let us " in this passage? Who or What else is assisting God in this creative process? Did God create more than one man? More than one woman?

Then, we have this continuation of the above passage, that raises even more questions:

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

Who is "them" in this passage? Who or what is being referred to?

Well, let's see if a contextual exegesis can shed some light on this. Mind you, my word is not the last word in this. I merely wish to keep an open mind here, without prejudicing the results.

And that is the hard part. It takes a great deal of mental discipline to approach these passages afresh, without bringing into play previous knowledge. To the extent that I'm able to do this, to that extent will what's before me open up and give forth it's meaning.

Let's try now to answer some of the questions previously posed:

What is the image of God? And who is the "Let us " in this passage?

In the passage we go from "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," where more than one creator is signaled by the words, "Let us" and the word, "our" used twice, to the following, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him...," that is, from a plurality approach to the creation of man, back to a singular approach.

This in itself, should cause us to pause and take special notice of the several passages. Some have interpreted the "Let us" to mean the Trinity (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), but that conclusion requires going beyond the several passages, and that would be cheating--stepping outside of the limitations placed on the interpretation, an interpretation which uses only the context, and the text at hand to achieve that end, and little else.

The answer to the two questions are in plain sight, but are elusive, if we seek to make the passages fit some preconceived notion of what is there.

The key to this passage is that Man is created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that what is true of Man is also true of God, otherwise Man can't be said to have been created in the image and likeness of God, if Man is somehow something other than God.

So, if we work our way back from what Man is, his nature and attributes, then we can reasonably say that whatever is Man's likeness is also God's likeness.

We're told that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Our first response to this passage is to say that God created more than one man and more than one woman. But that may be a premature judgment.

I will take that up later. Let's stay with the passage for now.

When we move backward from that which is created in God's image and likeness (the creature) to the Creator, we learn of God's Dual Nature, for it is also the nature of Man, who, we're told, possesses a dual nature, being both male and female. If it's true for Man, it's reasonable to assume that it's also true for God, since Man was created in God's image and likeness.

Let me make the case: In the passage we're confronted with Him and Them, just as earlier we were confronted with He and "Let us." When we learn that Man was created as Male and Female, the inescapable conclusion must be that God is both Male and Female. Now let's take another look at that passage:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Then we can safely assume that the "Let us" represents God's dual Male-Female Nature that become the creators, not just one or the other, signalling the need for both in the creative process. Now we have God as Male-Female ( the "Let us") creating Him or Them, the Man as Male-Female.

I don't think that this is a stretch, and is clearly supported in the several passages before us.

If God is both Male and Female, just as is man, then the passage can be read this way:

And [Male-Female] God said, Let us make [Male-Female] Man in our image, after our likeness [Male-Female]:...So God [now singularly again, suggesting the blending of the two forces, powers, natures] created [Male-Female] man in his own image [Male-Female], in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them [Man as a dual being].

We know that in the second chapter of Genesis when the Lord God becomes the creator, that Woman, Man's helpmate is taken from Adam.

Up until that time we assume with a great deal of authority that Adam was one (both Male and Female) and that it was after the separation, the removal of a rib bone from which Eve was fashioned, that the two natures (Male and Female) emerged--separate and distinct one from the other.

But this is largely outside of the context, and is presented here because of the parallelism of the two creation stories.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

This second passage establishes God's creative attributes. As I pointed out earlier, what is true of God, is also true of His image and likeness. So if man is told to be fruitful, to multiply, to replenish and to subdue, then we learn something about the attributes of God as well.

The first three Creation Attributes are the following: to be fruitful, to multiply, and to replenish--the three together suggesting a power to enlarge, expand, and restore--powers and abilities attributable both to God and Man.

These three represents the Female attributes.

The fourth Creation Attribute is to subdue. My dictionary defines subdue in two ways: "To conquer and subjugate; vanquish," with defeat as a synonym.

The second definition is this: "To quiet or bring under control by physical force or persuasion; make tractable."

The first definition suggests using violence to force submission, where as the second suggests a softer approach--using power as a way to gain cooperation and a willing submission.

I think that the second definition comes closest to the kind of "subduing" that is meant in the passage.

The fourth represents the Male attribute.

We can extrapolate from this that all four attributes are essential in the creation process whether it's God doing the creating or Man.

And although there are three attributes within the Female category (suggesting that God, as Creator, possesses within His Divine Nature the capacity to be more Female than Male), the Male attribute of "subduing" is still required in order to create.

So those who know God as both Father and Mother come closer to understanding, and relating to His Divine Nature.

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Now here's a part of the various passages with which some of you will undoubtedly disagree. As part of his God-given attributes, Man is given the office of "dominion" over all--fish, fowl, cattle, the water, the air, the land, and indeed, "over all the earth," including creeping things. Nothing is left out.

One of the most common definitions of "dominion" is: "Control or the exercise of control; sovereignty...."

As the image and likeness of God, we share this dominion with Him. If these passages are clear about any one thing it is this: What is true for God is true for Man, and vice versa.

This is where many will quibble with me, will protest loudly, will seek to bring in doctrinal positions, life experiences, beliefs, and anecdotal examples to counter what I've just said.

Yet, Jesus understood his dominion "over all the earth," and didn't hesitate to exercise it.

Water: He turned water to wine.
Fish: He multiplied the fish.
Bread: He multiplied the bread.
Storm and waves: He calmed the tempest.
Water: He walked on it.
Fish: He filled the nets, when the fishermen couldn't.

Some will protest that this "dominion" was unique to Jesus, and not to anyone else. Yet, Jesus said no such thing. He went so far as to say this: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father...."

Moses, too, showed his "dominion" over the elements, visiting several plagues upon the Egyptians. Frogs, lice, flies, cattle dying, boils--a few of the plagues sent by Moses using the power of His God.

And in the wilderness, Moses caused water to flow from a rock, and God gave the people manna and quail to eat.

Whether we know it or not, we still exercise dominion over our world, but we do it unwittingly, without being aware, and we're not always pleased with the results. Hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes are all our doing in a collective sense.

As the image and likeness of God, we exercise dominion without wisdom or awareness. One day soon we will exercise it more responsibly with greater awareness and greater wisdom.