The Beautiful Creatures: Trees in the Biblical Story
by Sylvia C. Keesmaat
2009-07-07 18:08:32


- +
Click here for the TOJ RSS feed
11 Posts

Send This Article to a Friend
Printer Friendly Version
In the beginning, there were no trees. There were no trees, for there was no rain to nourish them and no creature to tend them. In the beginning, there was the Voice. The Voice called the earth to birth the trees. As the Voice called and beckoned, the earth brought forth and the growth began: sap rushed up, limbs stretched, breaking the moist soil, reaching for the warmth of the sun. Roots groped, stretched, moved through the crumbly earth, embraced and cleft rocks, drew nourishment. Buds formed and leaves unfurled, fluffy and small, growing as the sun dried and warmed them and as sap filled them.

The Voice said, “Be trees full of life, be strong. Grow fruit for the birds and the animals, and branches for their homes. Be pleasing to look at, shout forth the grandeur of the Word. Dig your roots deep; draw nourishment from the earth.”

And the trees became living beings.

Then the trees watched as the Voice called forth once again, as the Voice formed another creature out of the earth. “This is the earth creature,” said the Voice, “who will tend you, who will dress your figs and prune your young blossoms. This is the creature who will provide water in your youth and pruning in your old age.”

Then the Voice spoke to two of the trees. “You are the tree of life,” said the Voice to one, “And you are the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” the Voice said to the other. “You are set apart for the covenantal meal I will share with my image bearer—the meal that will bring life, and, eventually, knowledge.”1

The trees rejoiced in their calling, but not so much that they didn’t hear the words spoken to the image, the words that made the trees wonder at the gravity of their calling: “Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day that you eat of it you will die.”

* * *

The trees wondered at how it had all gone wrong so quickly. Oh, they knew what had happened, all right. They had overheard the conversation as they surrounded the serpent, the woman, and the man. They bore mute witness as the wisest of the animals discussed the words of the Voice with the woman. They watched in silence as the image took the fruit, the fruit that belonged only to the Voice, and ate it. They knew that if their gifts were taken at the wrong time, there would be no nourishment; they knew that grasping would result in death, not life.2

Before the Voice returned in the cool of the evening, the trees had already begun to mourn.

* * *

She was a young tree, as far as trees go, but she had already heard most of the stories of the land in which she stood. Some were stories of care and nurture, of a time when the earth creatures had given rest to the trees, when instruments had been fashioned from her wood to give praise to the Voice, when those who bore the image of the Voice had ensured that the fruit was dressed and the pruning done. They were stories of hospitality given under the shade of the tamarisk tree and shelter given in the shade of the broom.

But even in those stories, she saw the seeds of brutality. She had heard of Abraham, planting the great tamarisks for shelter, providing hospitality in their shade. She had also heard of Hagar, sent by that same Abraham out to the brutality of the desert, placing her son in the shelter of a broom tree as she waited for his death. The deep sweet shade of hospitality and the desperate last shade of the starving and parched.

The young tree knew the other trees in Israel—the tamarisk, whose size and water droplets create a uniquely refreshing shade; the white broom tree, whose fallen branches provide embers that never go out and bedding for a night in the desert; the sycomore, whose fast growing branches sustain many harvests for light, strong beams and whose dressed fruit provide food for the hungry; the saltplant, whose leaves provide a quick meal; the yitran tree, whose bark makes strong and sturdy rope.3 She knew the yearning of the trees to freely provide nourishment, shelter, and wood for the earth creatures who imaged the Voice.

But she knew that such gifts were scorned. She had heard how the king had conscripted forced labor out of his people, how he had taken the men from the nurturance of the land and the trees to quarry stone for the temple and palace. But not only were the people enslaved, so were the trees. No regenerative sycomore from the land of Israel for the buildings of this king. Rather, whole forests cut from other lands and used for walls and floors and roofs—cedar and cypress, the proudest of the trees of Lebanon. She had heard how one of the king’s houses was called the House of the Forest of Lebanon—a forest sacrificed and re-created for the splendor of the king.4

The trees felt silenced, shunned not only for building, but also for praise. The king brought wood from afar—almug wood—to make trusses and beams and steps, to shape into lyres and harps (I Kgs. 10:11-12; 2 Chron. 9:10-11).

The young tree knew that even though her fellow trees were not being shaped into instruments of praise, they could still send forth praise to the Voice. And she knew that she provided sustenance and shelter for many creatures besides those who bore the image of the Voice. But still she mourned, for there was more than neglect. There was abuse.

She had seen the idolatry of those who ceased to nurture the trees but rather worshipped them, of those who formed unwilling trees into the sacred groves. She had smelled the scent of the cakes, baked on reluctant embers and offered to a god who had no voice. She had seen the practices of those who worshipped under the young trees, in the groves. They did not allow the trees to fulfill their calling: providing shelter and warmth and food. Instead, they carved the trees into unwilling images—the earth creatures who were supposed to be the image themselves! They used the wood of the trees to make their false weights and their short measures with which to defraud the poor. They used the wood for the stalls for their warhorses, and the crafting of beds for their opulent leisure. And they took wood not to cook food, but to put their children in the fire of sacrifice (2 Kgs. 16; 2 Kgs. 17:10 ff). The trees were no longer the sustainers of life, but the bringers of death.

She did not hear the Voice, the word of life, through these people who neglected and abused her, who brought death and not life to the land. The earth had become like iron and the sky like copper: no one provided dressing for her fruit or tender pruning in the spring. No one granted the trees their Sabbath for rest and glory. Her fruit withered on the limb. She cried out, groaned. So she was not sorry when the armies invaded and the people of the land were taken away. The people were captured but the trees were free.5

* * *

At first, the trees rejoiced in their newfound freedom. No more was the axe heard in the forest; no more was the sound of sawing and chopping in the land. The trees enjoyed their rest; they grew to maturity once again; birds inhabited their branches, and animals ate of their fruit. The trees clapped their hands with joy. But then the land began to change. It turned from rest to wilderness. The thistles began to strangle out the seedlings and the vines began to bind the branches, choking out the sunlight, soaking up the water. Limbs that were unwieldy began to crack and drop. The shoots of the olive roots began to weaken the parent trees, and the side shoots on the fig began to sap their strength.6

The elder trees told the stories, then, of the earth creatures, made by the Voice to care for the trees, to cut the vines and root out the thistles, to transplant the new shoots to places of space, and to prune the saplings and weak limbs. The trees began to long for the coming of such creatures, for the return of those obedient to the Voice (Lev. 26:34-26, 43; Isa. 64:10; Ezek. 6:14).

Then, one morning the trees heard the Voice once again. It was a voice of power, a voice of love, a voice of gladness. But not a light gladness. The gladness of this voice was deep as if it had known deep sorrow and suffering, yet once again saw reason to be joyful. It was like the beginning again. The Voice called to the trees, “Awake, awake, awake.”

The sap began to answer, drawing itself up through the trees to respond to the Voice. Buds began to form leaves and then blossoms. And with the blossoms, birds came, eager for a drink of nectar and a meal of insects. Fruit formed, grew plump and ripe, and with the fruit, animals came, eager to take and eat. The trees rejoiced in the calling of the Voice; they clapped their hands, and the Voice whispered the promises. “They are coming once again. You will be tended and cared for; no longer shall the thistle choke your young and the vine bind your elders. Myrtle and cypress will shoot forth. Stumps will give birth to branches and trees. The dead shall bear life. There will be peace. You will provide shelter once more; the earth creatures will sleep securely among you (Ezek. 34:25; Ezek. 36).

“And you trees,” said the Voice, “will have a new task. No longer will you be just for food. Your fruit will be for food, but your leaves, your leaves, they will be for healing.

“My creatures are broken,” said the Voice, “they are in need of healing.” And the trees saw a great river come from the Voice, and the waters of the river nourished their roots. And their leaves sprang out, green and firm and tender—the leaves for healing.

The earth creatures began to return. The trees saw that they were broken. And they began to call as the Spirit gave them voice, “Come, all you weary, we have healing for you” (Isa. 11:55; Ezek. 34:25-27, 36:22-30, 47:3-12; cf. Ezek. 17:22-24).

* * *

At first the trees believed what the Voice had said. At first they trusted. At first the renewal seemed to come. Sabbaths were practiced once again. The land and the trees were rested and tended. They were fruitful, and they flourished. And then the wars began.

The trees saw their strongest and straightest taken for weapons, for barricades, for crosses. The trees were once again instruments of oppression, instruments of curse. They groaned under the weight of the death they were called to witness and to bear.

After a while, the war ended. But in peace, the reconstruction began: trees to rebuild houses, trees to line the temple, trees to line the palaces.

Then there was war again. And then peace. But for the trees, peace or war, the violence never stopped. They knew now that death, not healing was the only end to the story the Voice had told. The elders could not even begin to whisper the promises of healing, or the story of the earth creatures who had imaged the Voice.

* * *

The night was very dark, and the shepherds avoided the darkness of the trees, keeping their flocks to the plain. It was exceedingly dark. And then, in the darkness, there was light. Suddenly there was singing in the spheres, the heavens alive and lighted and the music of the spheres singing, “Glory to the Voice and peace on the earth where God’s favor rests.”

It was a song the trees had long forgotten. But after that night, they began to sing it once again, “Glory, glory and peace.”

For years they sang it, and occasionally a tree would experience that peace, that glory. For there were whispers that the earth creature had come, the one who would truly image the Voice, the one who would tend and bring healing to the trees. There were stories that he had sought shelter in the desert under the white broom trees for a time, along with the wild animals. There were stories of teaching he gave in the shade of the trees. There were sycomore trees who provided sight when he came to teach.

Some trees had felt his presence, experienced his touch, felt bondage lifted when he spoke. The trees again began to hope. And it truly was hope, for the brutality continued. The building progressed. The crosses were shaped. But hope came.

And then one day the trees felt their branches seized, and they were caught up in the voice of the crowd as it exclaimed, “Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord—the King of Israel!” And the song they had been singing since that dark night on the plain was finally sung by all of creation.

Until the day of the twilight of the world. The trees knew that a violence greater than any the world had ever seen was in the air. They heard the plots. They were in the garden, silent witnesses as the image of the Word prayed to be let out, let out of the violence. They were there for the kiss, the soldiers roughly leading the image away. One of them was forced to be the instrument of torture. One of them was forced to bear the death of the only faithful earth creature, the image of the Voice, the one who had called them to life once more. Now they were complicit in the death of life itself. One of them bore the wounds, soaked up the blood, stood firm and tall until death came. When the sun refused to shine, the trees were there, weeping.7

The trees were also in the garden at dawn. They saw the beings who rolled away the stones. They were waiting when the creature, the image, emerged. But they saw that the creature was an image that had changed. Like the trees, the image was wounded. And coming to the trees, the image began to tend them, digging in the earth, shaping branches, touching wounds with his wounds. The trees knew that the ancient promises were coming true after all. Death had come, and with it, hope was fulfilled.

Here was the image who had borne death, who still bore the wounds of brutality and violence, living and giving healing. And the Voice came once more: “There will be a river of life from my throne, from the heart of my suffering rule. Go, find nourishment in that river, stand on its banks, drink water without price, draw its life into your roots, produce fruit in abundance, every month of every year. And your leaves, your leaves will be for the healing of all creatures.

“My creatures are violated, raped, betrayed, killed, and tortured,” said the Voice. “They are in need of healing.”

It was the promise of old. But this time it came after the death of the world, and the trees knew that life had conquered.

As the image tended the trees, a woman came and recognized him as the gardener. The trees knew that he was the gardener, for the Voice was one who tends and heals (Jn. 20:11-18; Rev. 22:1-2).

* * *

The trees have noticed a small difference. They have seen, here and there, those who share their groanings, who want to end the violence, who are like that one who so completely imaged the Voice.

The violence has not ended. But the trees once again tell the story in hope. And in that story, their wounds find a place in new life; they too bring life and healing. But even in that healing, they await the coming of the one who will make all things new. And in that hope they rejoice, clapping their wounded hands (Rom. 8:18-25; Isa. 55:12).




Notes
Click the images at the bottom of the Notes section to purchase these books from Amazon.com and help support The Other Journal.

1. For this interpretation see Nicholas John Ansell, “The Call of Wisdom/The Voice of the Serpent: A Canonical Approach to the Tree of Knowledge,” Christian Scholars Review 31.1 (2001): 40-43 (whole article: 31-57).

2. Ibid. This interpretation is also depicted in C. S. Lewis, The Magician's Nephew, where the witch takes the apple that can give life in a way that is illegitimate and greedy.

3. These trees and their uses are described in a fascinating book: Nogah Hareuveni, Tree and Shrub in Our Biblical Heritage (Israel: Neot Kedumim, 1984).

4. Hareuveni describes how the trees would have been reconstructed with the clever placement of mirrors so it looked as though those standing in the room were standing in the middle of a forest (1 Kgs. 7:2-5), in Hareuveni, Tree and Shrub, 100-104.

5. 1 Kgs. 5:13-18, 6:9-38, 7:1-8; Isa. 57:1-6; Jer. 2:20, 3:6-10, 17:2; Ezek. 6:11-14, 20:28; Hos 4:12-13; Lev. 26:4, 26:18-20; Deut. 11:13-17; Hos. 4:1-3; Lev. 26:34-36,43; cf Isa. 14.8. See also Susan Griffin, Women and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her (New York, NY: Harper and Row: 1978), 56-64, for a description of the modern exploitation of trees.

6. Hareuveni describes how the offshoots of the olive tree are pruned out, except for a few that are kept and nurtured for new stock. The offshoots of the sycomore are pruned as well, but are not useful for starting new saplings. Tree and Shrub, 83-88.

7. See “The Dream of the Rood” (700-1000), in The Middle Age (700-1500), ed. Michael Alexander and Felicity Riddy (New York, NY: St Martins Press, 1989), 13-18. My thanks to Pauline Head for bringing this piece to my attention.




 
    Siuyin: There is much to love about your article Sylvia but one thing - may I just emphasize the fact that the serpent in the Garden of Eden cannot by any means be really considered "the wisest of animals" because this particular 'serpent' was literally Satan in disguise and therefore is only fit to be described as a sly monster instead of an animal, and anything but wise is he!  
 
 
    Siuyin: correction: "anything except loving, wise, and all other God-given life-qualities!!" My sincere apologies to you again Sylvia also for not having said much else but I just wanted to clarify this misnomer before going on to other more important themes in your article - more on those later...  
 
    jstanley: Hi Siuyin,

The take on the serpent that you are defending has certainly had a privileged place among other interpretations, but it is far from the only legitimate interpretive option. Sylvia's interpretation of the serpent as "the wisest of the animals" is thoroughly developed in Nicholas Ansell's article, “The Call of Wisdom/The Voice of the Serpent: A Canonical Approach to the Tree of Knowledge,” Christian Scholars Review 31.1 (2001): 40-43 (whole article: 31-57). It won the Christian Scholars Review "article of the year" award in 2001, and it's cited as the first footnote in Sylvia's article--always check the footnotes:-) I would absolutely love to hear your thoughts after reading Ansell's article. Even if it didn't convert you I think it would at least persuade you that it is a legitimate, if not compelling and productive, interpretation of the biblical material on the serpent. At minimum, (1) it is consistent with the emphatic "goodness" of creation in general and all of God's creatures in particular prior to the fall; (2) it resists the temptation to read a fall before the fall into the biblical narrative; (3) it accounts for the lack of the mentioning of a "Satan" figure in Gen. 1-3; (4) and it makes sense of other canonical references that put "serpents" in a positive light as "wise," not least the instruction of Jesus to be "as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves." Incidentally, the traditional interpretation, which you seem to assume is the only legitimate interpretation, fails on all four counts. But once again, I'd love to hear your response to Ansell's article itself. And c'mon now, bible reading is supposed to be fun, so why not allow Sylvia's interpretation to intrigue you rather than offend you?

Cheers,

Jon 		 
 
    Siuyin: Just to reassure readers - there is new and far more relevant discussion on Sylvia's contribution - this time actually looking at the most important aspect of her entire account - the blessing of relationship within God's creation. (If interested, scroll down to where the entry begins with: "First of all... then the very next paragraph on takes an entirely different and far more joyous turn for the better.) Thankfully, I just got out of that pandamonium of an almost valve-like discussion about the Fall!!!  
 
    Siuyin: Hi Jon, I may not have made it clear enough to your understanding and indeed I did not think it was necessary at that point to talk about the idea of serpents themselves as rendered through Biblical narrative generally - to be more precise I was only referring to the serpent's disguise taken on by the devil in the Garden of Eden and was certainly in no way generalizing about all serpents! Further to this you cannot claim me to be ignorant on Biblical perspective about "serpents as part of the creation" just on account of me having not written more widely on this subject in my first commentary on this issue as mentioned in Sylvia's article! Why would I initially defend the truth about God's creation by maintaining that the serpent associated with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was nothing more than a fake snake? To make out that I am ignorant of the broader conclusion to this understanding as posed through other Biblical stories is ridiculous! The serpent in the Garden of Eden was not a real one of God's creation but only a counterfeit. Moreover, this understanding that I am advocating is NOT privileged, it is the reality as spoken of in Genesis - and in fact what is privileged is the idea that this serpent was in fact a real animal manipulated by the devil somehow and not merely a cunning aparation, a disguise of Satan. What I am attempting to do is to dispell this fallacy because this fallacy puts a slur on the purity of God's creation - the thing that differentiates the animal world from humanity in this particular context is that God is revealed through Scripture as directly commanding Adam and Eve NOT to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, He is not depicted as having given the same sets of direct instructions to the animals - therefore, there is no way animals could have been tested in the same ways as Adam and Eve, and we can rightly conclude that because of that absence of testing, they had no business to answer the enemy so they were beyond potential manipulation. Therefore, the idea that the serpent associated with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a real animal is absolutely absurd! It defies the integrity of God's creation on top of what had already been swung into motion by the fall. What's more is that I never said that Bible reading wasn't fun! Your urging me to "C'mon, Bible reading should be fun" just reeks of presumptuousness! You cannot realistically presume anything about someone until you hear it directly from them or from a reliable source. And if you read my initial comment again, there is no mention of whether I enjoy reading or don't enjoy reading - why question me on this? If my writing exudes a militant overtone, let that be a sign that I am committed to these matters because I care, and if I care then I do not begrudge what I do.  
 
 
    callers: Ansell's article can be found here:
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Ansell-Serpent-CSR.pdf

Siuyin,
You write that:
"this understanding that I am advocating [I assume you mean "The serpent in the Garden of Eden was not a real one of God's creation but only a counterfeit" and, by counterfeit, you mean "disguise taken on by the devil in the Garden of Eden," "a cunning aparation, a disguise of Satan"] is NOT privileged, it is the reality as spoken of in Genesis..."
But is it? We don't hear about "the devil" until Matthew 4:1, we don't even hear about "devils" until Leviticus 17:7, and we don't hear of "Satan" until 1 Chronicles 1:21 (where it is actually "the satan" which is a title, the satan is the accuser, the director of public persecutions and by no means what we mean by "Satan" today). So already, it seems, the understanding you are advocating is already going beyond Genesis and certainly beyond any so-called "reality as spoken in Genesis."

You then go on to set up a dichotomy between the serpent as "a real animal manipulated by the devil somehow," on the one hand, and the serpent as "a cunning aparation, a disguise of Satan," on the other. You then attempt to "dispel the fallacy" that is the former with a certain logic that I don't follow and end up on the side of the serpent as a disguise of Satan, deeming the other side as "absolutely absurd." But why accept this either/or to begin with? Why should we accept that the serpent has anything to do with Satan? You just seem to assume this. You might be able to make a persuasive case by tying it in with Rev. 12:9 and 20:2 (I have yet to see one) but this certainly wouldn't be the "reality as spoken in Genesis."
As for your conclusion: "Therefore, the idea that the serpent associated with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a real animal is absolutely absurd! It defies the integrity of God's creation on top of what had already been swung into motion by the fall." I'm not following this. You are say that it is an "absolutely absurd" idea that "the serpent associated with the tree... is a real animal." But you haven't made that case. The case you tried to make is that the serpent is not a real animal "manipulated by the devil somehow," you haven't "dispelled the fallacy" that the serpent is not a "real animal." Furthermore, I don't see how if the serpent were a "real animal," it would "[defy] the integrity of God's creation." I think you could try to make the case that if it were a "real animal" that was "manipulated" by Satan, it would defy the integrity of God's creation. I think a much easier case could be made that the very appearance of "Satan" in the Garden "defies the integrity of God's creation" - and such a case would apply to both sides of your dichotomy. But again, that case wouldn't be made by appealing to Genesis. At any rate, you haven't made the case that the serpent isn't just a serpent, let alone that the serpent is a disguise for Satan.

Blessings,
Chris		  
 
 
    Siuyin: Anything that contravenes God's Word, His commands or His value system is from the opposition - and that is indeed later on revealed in the personage of Satan himself - he is the deceiver, the father of lies, and the author of opposition to the Creator - he contravened God's word to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in the cunning disguise as a snake. He told them the exact opposite to what God had told them about the consequences of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - he said that they wouldn't die by eating from the tree but God said that they would - so there you have it - a complete contradiction to God's Word, and an outright lie to try and trick Adam and Eve into disobeying the Lord. That is evidence enough to atest that this was no pure version of a serpent. God's animal creation did not have it in them to be already affected by the Fall because the Fall hadn't occurred until Adam and Eve gave in to the whims of the deceiver. Even Paul knew that the forces opposed to the Lord God Almighty were willing to go so far as to disguise themselves as "angels of light". Anything that is in either direct or indirect opposition to God is borne of the devil so you cannot tell me that the 'snake' appearing in the Genesis account of the Fall was not a force oppositional to God for indeed it was, and this is how the understanding comes to the fore that it was Satan in disguise. What's more is that I sense an unwillingness on your part to really look at the difference between God's creation in it's purity and something that is defiled, moreover you have actually misconstrued my wording in your reply. If you read my comment carefully you will notice that I did not say "the serpent is not a real animal manipulated by the devil somehow" for this is a very mixed-up, jumbled configuration or rendering of my sentence and therefore makes absolutely no sense! The truth is, I did not say what you had written that I had said! I did say however that "what is privileged is the idea that this serpent was in fact a real animal manipulated by the devil somehow and not merely a cunning aparition, a disguise of Satan". See how different the two sentences actually are? The first one - your grammatically flawed paraphrasing, makes no sense but it kind of looks vaguely similar to what I did say despite the fact that it is actually jumbled and does not convey the same meaning as what I did say! whilst the second - my actual wording - is grammatically coherent. What's more is that I made no mention of "either/or", let alone accepted it. Where precisely did I indicate an acceptance of "either/or"? That's just a wishy-washy conclusion you've jumped to from I don't know where! I put forward a straightforward clarification about the identity of 'the serpent' in the Genesis account of the Fall - I did not "set up a dichotomy". You are trying to make what I have said sound more confusing that what I actually did say! That comes as an obvious glimpse upon reading your wording.

You cannot really win over me by saying that I am going beyond Genesis or any of what you dare to fashion as "so-called" relative to my statement about the reality as spoken of in Genesis. Why? Because Genesis, like any other book of the Bible is not to be read as a series of events, positionings, understandings, and revelations that are discretely separate and disconnected from every other interlinked book that makes up the entirity of Biblical text - everything in it is as a tapestry because the whole story only makes more sense when every individual part is seen in light of every other part of the Bible. No aspect of the entire Biblical story unfolding can be taken as incoherent, isolated, decontextualized, and out there on it's own so to speak. Everything has a relationship to everything else. One of the reasons why the pharisees and sadducees and other members of the establishment were refusing to see Christ as the Messiah already come is because they refused to see the inherent connectedness of the prophecies spoken by the Old Testament Prophets with the way in which Christ Himself took physical form during His time here on earth. They vehemently vouched for a disconnected reading of scriptural revelation which got them into trouble with their expectations as to how to receive the Messiah. This is how I know that connecting links are many within Biblical narrative and are that way for a purpose, which is Divinely orchestrated.

Christ also came to redeem humankind and all of creation from the curse of the Fall - if there wasn't a Fall, there would be no Messiah - the Fall was THAT serious - and only so because it was wickedly instigated by the opposition as a contestation to the complete sovereignty of God Himself. Christ came to reassert that sovereignty because He knew it was being hotly contested by His rival, Satan. This battle for sovereignty is illustrated right throughout the entire Biblical narrative from Genesis to Revelation. This further thematically ties together every book and every story therein. Therefore, when one looks at Genesis, there is no such thing as "going beyond Genesis" as we cannot afford to ignore the inherent relationship this book bears upon every Biblical event, particularly those that give manifold insight into the battle for cosmic sovereignty.

Despite the tricks and snares of the evil one, God the Almighty Creator is the ultimate victor!		  
 
    callers: Siuyin,
I had a reply written up, but my session timed out and logged me out (why, The Other Journal, why?).
I don't want to write it all again, so I will just ask a few questions.
First, as you understand it, what is the serpent?
I assumed you wanted to say it is Satan in disguise and not a real snake manipulated by Satan, but apparently I am wrong. So what is the serpent?
Second, if you are saying that it is Satan in disguise, how does that not defile the integrity of God's creation? You wrote:

"God's animal creation did not have it in them to be already affected by the Fall because the Fall hadn't occurred until Adam and Eve gave in to the whims of the deceiver."

So the serpent is not a real snake that was manipulated by Satan because that would posit a Fall before the Fall. Right?
However, if the serpent is Satan in disguise, wouldn't that also posit a Fall before the Fall? How is Satan there before the Fall? And how would Satan's presence not "defile the integrity of God's creation"?

That's all. 		 
 
    Siuyin: First of all, to Chris's insistant dispute over my commentary, to answer your question about how does the disguise does not defile creation's integrity - it doesn't because the enemy is not a real animal, only a trumped up disguise as an animal. And it is clear that you do acknowledge the logic of this lies in the fact that there was no Fall before the Fall. What you are puzzled about is the context of the enemy's existance. Well, Biblical narrative has it that the existance of that force opposed to God came about through a battle over supremacy in heaven - before the time of the earth - God is supreme and always will be but there was a time when His very identity as God was literally challenged by one of the angels. I hopes this clarifies things a little more.

Now on to the next and more relevant appraisal of that which was graciously shared with us by Sylvia - not that the above discussion points are irrelevant but thinking on them again when looking at them in the light of Sylvia's contribution, there is far more to be positively acknowledged about the whole subject matter herein as this is really an exploration of the enmeshed relationships that so bind creation together in one blessed union with God as well as the struggles with fallen-ness that so wretchedly fragment it.

Sylvia gives insight into one of the most panoramic and sensitively understanding revelations about the life of God's creaion as spoken about through Biblical narrative. Her telling of these things essentially encompasses an account of how trees are given a place in God's creation and how this place relates to the places of other members of the creation. The intricate and intimate nature of these dependencies is so vividly and gorgeously portrayed - told in a way that reflects a genuine appreciation on her part of how trees fulfil a vital role in nourishing, replenishing, and sustaining everyone else:

"She was a young tree, as far as trees go, but she had already heard most of the stories of the land in which she stood. Some were stories of care and nurture, of a time when the earth creatures had given rest to the trees, when instruments had been fashioned from her wood to give praise to the Voice, when those who bore the image of the Voice had ensured that the fruit was dressed and the pruning done. They were stories of hospitality given under the shade of the tamarisk tree and shelter given in the shade of the broom.

But even in those stories, she saw the seeds of brutality. She had heard of Abraham, planting the great tamarisks for shelter, providing hospitality in their shade. She had also heard of Hagar, sent by that same Abraham out to the brutality of the desert, placing her son in the shelter of a broom tree as she waited for his death. The deep sweet shade of hospitality and the desperate last shade of the starving and parched.

The young tree knew the other trees in Israel—the tamarisk, whose size and water droplets create a uniquely refreshing shade; the white broom tree, whose fallen branches provide embers that never go out and bedding for a night in the desert; the sycomore, whose fast growing branches sustain many harvests for light, strong beams and whose dressed fruit provide food for the hungry; the saltplant, whose leaves provide a quick meal; the yitran tree, whose bark makes strong and sturdy rope.3 She knew the yearning of the trees to freely provide nourishment, shelter, and wood for the earth creatures who imaged the Voice."

Then in the paragraph after these, our narrator speaks about how wickedness came over humans and how they flaunted and wielded unrighteousness through leaving behind/forsaking the simple ways of being in relationship to their Creator, to each other, and to the rest of creation. The paragraph describes so well how this wickedness took the form of Israel coveting the societal complexities and sophistications of the pagan kingdoms. Not content to remain as nomadic tribes people faithful to their God, they fell into the slavery of sin when they succumbed to the whims of worldly flattery. This severed them from the covenanted relationship they had with the Creator and everyone else, this was a reflection of the Fall's identity dislocation. Through exchanging the sacredness of their oneness with God and the world He so generously provided to nurture and sustain healthy life practices with the profanity of worldly pride and all the artifices that went with it, Israel mirrored back to Babylon it's own wretchedness and cruelty. As if by morse code, Babylon likewise responded.

I am so moved by the way Sylvia then proceeds to tell about how it came to pass that God's promise of restoration began to unfold - she so diligently sees into the way things actually took place in the stories she is telling us about. With such love and empathy, stories of life, death, and renewal are told - about how trees know intimately their own unique relationship with God, and how they actually can understand the events unfolding around them, how they can actually know God, each other, and others, and how they can actually understand that which God holds to be most precious: love. Nearly every paragraph in this recounting of Biblical narrative resonates with love as expressed by those whom these stories embrace so sincerely and purposefully. And the author too shows this simply and fully by the very nature of her spiritual relationship with and through the telling of these stories. This is how Christianity actually is in it's cosmology - it understands these things which the wisdom of Western science and philosophy in and of themselves alone cannot fathom. Sylvia knows how to Biblically contextualize the actors in the stories in a way that very few mainstream doctrinal takes on such matters really can. She is doing this in such a way that honours authentically traditional Christianity, something so sweet and sensitive that it is sorely needed in a age when most of the time, even Biblical subjects are treated with very little sensitivity and care. Nurturance is all but infrequent when it comes to discussing the themes God raises - how ironic! - considering that God Himself desires His creation to nurture and care for one another. If people could just talk this way in everyday contexts more sincerely, then we would have a world where one's conscience is more important than one's ego. It is expected by our Creator that we act this way in the world - this way we are truly being salt and light to those around us, both near and far.

Thanks again Sylvia, that was absolutely adorable!		  
 
 
    jstanley: Hi Siuyin,

I really appreciate this post. In fact, it mitigates much of what I found so troubling in your first post. That is to say, it troubled me that your response to this theologically insightful, biblically rich, and allusively written piece was to isolate one theological idea that you happen to disagree with, dismiss its legitimacy, and simply state your own position on the matter. This struck me as foul on two levels. First, it failed to acknowledge the genre and integrity of the piece as a whole, that is, its neither a catechism nor a statement of discreet doctrines, but a piece of creative biblical-theological writing. Second, it was characterized by a resistance to allow the theological difference at hand (i.e., whether the snake was either a good creature or an apparition of satan?) to intrigue you, pleasure you, and interest you, that is, you simply thetically stated your own position before allowing the author's position to call your own into question; and that reeks of a certain militancy (among militancies) that I believe is rooted less in delight and care, and more in defensiveness and fear.

That should put some flesh on the bones of my first reply to you. However, as I said, your latest response mitigates much of what I found so troubling; I find it quite adorable too! I still have two questions however. First, why did you not begin with this kind of reply and follow it up with your thetical critique? And second, where in the biblical narrative does it speak of a pre-creation rebellion among God's angels where God's authority is challenged? and if it is there somewhere, how would this not constitute a 'Fall (within the heavens) before the Fall (within the creation)', and thus write Evil into the very Origin rather than viewing evil as a 'surd' that has no rightful place in either God or creation? We (you, Chris, and I) are all in the same boat here in that we don't want a Fall before the Fall. It seems to me that your position falls into the same that trap you so rightfully want to avoid (with the apparition of satan rather than fallen creature position), but I would be delighted to hear otherwise.

And did you check out Ansell's article yet? I believe Chris posted the link to it. If so, what did you think?

Best,

Jon 		 
 
    Siuyin:
Jon,

To answer your question about why I didn't start off discussing the main themes and then move into my critique is simply due to wanting to get what I thought would be a relatively simple clarification out of the way first - it was not my intention to start a rip-roaring debate over that Fall issue really but I just wanted to make clear something I found rather perplexing - almost a startling inconsistency. I also made it clear in my brief introductory few lines that I was going to be discussing other more important issues a little later on. I am surprised you didn't take that seriously! Perhaps, I could have done it different if I had thought of it when I wrote what I wrote - I know that often my tutors at uni have a tendency to give appraisals in the order of good points first and then their suggestions for improvement later- but I really don't know why I didn't write up my comments in this same sequence!!! Sometimes it's okay to get the bad stuff over with first and then save the best 'til later! It's probably the best practice, since I notice the world is in the habit of popularizing the idea of "getting the good stuff first" and leave the bad bit to deal with later on!!!! That kind of idea doesn't appeal on the basis that what God wants of us is actually for us to deal with our hurts, unhealed pasts and difficult matters FIRST - so we are able to thoroughly resolve these - getting them out of the way - not sweeping them under the carpet - only then can we be healed enough inside to receive what Blessings the Lord has stored up for us and then pass them on to others. This doesn't mean God cannot bless us through the healing process - often He will use the very healing process as a blessing - the Gospels are full of such remarkable examples. Of course, to some degree, it is unrealistic to expcect any of us to be able to rid our entire make-up of every imperfection whilst we are here on earth because part of the human condition is still grappling with the consequences of that fallen un-natural side to our nature - hence the relevance of "now in our present incomplete state of humanity we only see in part but later on when we are transformed into the fullness God wants for us we shall see completely". That statement is a Christian acclamation of how reality is and how it is being transformed through the work of God as manifested within both individual and collective experience. Despite this "seeing only in part", as humans we are to aim for a healed and reconciled relationship with God and others in His creation NOW.

Just one peice of advice I have for you: stop making "put-down" remarks about my commentaries - there is a big difference between mature critique and snide put-downs! The way you said "quite adorable" hinted at token-gesture "throw a teeny weeny bit of politeness in there". God's creation is far more than "quite nice" and it certainly never originated from evil - it seems that you somehow believe I portrayed God's creation as having evil origins!!!! In fact it is obvious from my contribution that I never said any such thing or insinuated it for that matter! That's just downright slander you've heaped onto me! I could have "!ed" your reply but I refrained because you didn't exactly blast me with ribald obscenities. I have as much right as anybody else to offer my understandings of Biblical narrative! My discussion of the points I raised was in NO WAY motivated by a foul spirit or one of fear and defensiveness. I have already explained to you the reasons why I feel the way I do insofar as conceptualizing things the way I do. Anyhow, what gives you the right to condescendingly accuse me of being without care or diligence just because I strongly adhere to the convictions of my heart? This is a discussion forum and in discussion forums people are expected to present and contribute what they consider worthwhile.