www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings St. John 8 and Galatians 3

I was reading the Bible online and I came up with 5 different chapters. The two New Testament Chapters I "randomly?" picked were St. John 8 and Galatians 3. Both refer to Abraham, and both talk about his descendants. Any ideas on how these fit together?

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50008.htm

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/55003.htm

Yes.

And what were the other three chapters? You said you randomly picked ... 5 chapters.

-ray

Genesis 3, Canticles 2, and Psalm 42.

They are definitly linked. I would suggest to you that there is more than coincidence in your selections.

I must do a little preparation and then I will see if I can explian to you - in short - that they talk of the same subject. This subject must have been on your heart. For you have gotten a most full - reply.

I will post as soon as I can.

-ray

Seldom, do we take the overview of things. We assume there is no connection to events in our lives. A random battle of conflicting things. We are like the mice (and have their view) working their way through the maze - and so we see only the walls before us and the openings. While the lab assistants look down upon the mouse and the maze� and see the grand overview and if the mouse is headed in the right direction or not. The lab people see all the walls and all the openings. They can see which are dead ends and which lead out of the maze.

And so we simply do not see the overview of life because we do not look for the seemingly unconnected events to be connected - intelligently formed and guided - to the one goal of forming our personalities to an image.

You have selected scripture passages which - are connected, even repetitive (when one knows how to read them) and together they show one (in a very succinct way) out of confusion and into the glory of mystical union (Canticle 2) and then gives thanks for that union (Psalm 42).

The question here is - does one make his own way to heaven? By doing what he thinks God wants him to do? Or does God form a man for heaven by ways of which we really can not hope to understand?

There has always been a polarization inside the church. The same polarization exists inside each member of the church. Each member of the church is a microcosm of the entire church (the macrocosm). This polarization is natural and will always be there.

Now - I do not know in what order you selected them but I do know in what order you gave them to me.

John 8 and Galatians 3 - both speak about what appears to be faith but is not faith. As you noted - the image used is Abraham. A name which is most often given as �Father of heights� but when the Hebrew is understood properly it is rather �High-Father� and has the meaning of High Spiritual Father.

Then - in your order - from Abraham we dive into the Fall from the garden (our fall from All-Providence into self-providence). Genesis 3

So the order of the readings you gave - telescope one - right from the New Testament - into the Old Testament - and then right into the root which is in Genesis. The effect is like a man who opens a windows - and then opens a further window - and then opens the last window - each time - the view is clarified more and more. Like raising the resolution on a microscope.

Once you have understood the single thread through these readings (that which connects them) you will have that which opens to real union (Canticle 2) and your own praise and thanks for that union (Psalm 42)

In my next post (Good God � willing) I will show you that thread.

-ray

I read them in "chronological order" Genesis, Psalms, Canticles, John, Galatians. (Even though John has been supposedly written after Galatians the subject matter was before.)

I usually read one Patriarchal chapter, one psalm, one Prophetic chapter, one Gospel Chapter, and one chapter from the letters. 5 Chapters per day, that will go through the whole Bible, with a few arrangements of the order after the NT is finished, in 9 months.

Well.

Having slept most of Saturday with a sprained ankle that I could not walk on, and add to that my wife has a cold and congestion which is making her snore something terrible� I awoke here at 3am - rested and now with time and house quiet. Let me see what I can do with this �thread�.

OK.. You read them in chronological order. I will start with the New Testament (that which is nearer to us and most like us) and work back. I will take them in the order you gave me at first.

In the first reading - rabbi Jesus is at temple to teach and is surrounded by a crowd. Only a rabbi might teach in temple - so by this we know Jesus was a rabbi. A woman is accused of adultery and temple scribes and Phariess elbow through the crowd to place the woman near Jesus - and then address him as a rabbi �Master� they call him. The way to address a Rabbi.

They had mind to accuse him. Accuse him of what? - some form of conspiracy and deception. The spirit of accusation and conspiracy theories. The spirit of the Accuser.

Jesus kneels down and uses his finger to write in the sand. This is a well known way for Eastern prophets. They make signs in the sand and then divine the future from the markings. So it was plain to anyone there that Jesus was signaling that he knew the future of every man involved. They did not know their own future - but Jesus as telling them �I know your future - the results of your life. I know your sins.�

At this - anyone who had wanted to stone her - must not be stoning her out of his own sins. While she might deserve to be stoned under the law of Moses (the way they read it and applied it) � was that their real motive? Or was their motive sinful itself? Yes it was sinful itself because they wanted Jesus to have been the judge that called for her stoning� that was their prime motive. They wanted the public to later question the judgment of Jesus who had judged her to death.

Under Mosaic law - at court of judgment - there must be - two witnesses. Two - must collaborate the truth. Jesus tells them he is qualified - as he bears witness to himself and the Father also bears witness (but they can not hear it). Then you see Jesus say (now referring to the way they had tried to trick him into being a judge of the adulterous woman) �You all judge [me] according to [the inclinations of] the flesh. But I do not judge any one.� I believe this should be translated to mean that Jesus is saying �You judge according to the inclinations of your human flesh nature - I do not judge as one of you.� Clearly - Jesus sits in judgment - announces that he will be the final judge of all men - and continues with �And if I do judge �� (keep in mind he had side-stepped their plot to force him to judge the woman) my judgment is not alone by is also the judgment of the one who sent me.�. That is a paraphrase and the exact translation is inconsequential because we all know what he meant.

�Many things I have to speak (not accuse! The truth is not an accusation) and to judge of you.� So again � it makes no sense for Jesus to say �I judge no one� in one breath and then counter that with �But � if I do judge a man� and also �I have many things to speak of you and judge you on.�

Let us move on.

When Jesus begins to speak about himself �You are beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world� etc..� he is speaking about what is called at that time - the procession of creation. A doctrine shared by the Greeks. A doctrine any Rabbi, scribe or Pharisee knew well. It is a doctrine which describes the formation of creation. A doctrine which has it that creation (at any moment) proceeds out from God (the One) to multiplicity (the many). In this doctrine the �beginning� of creation is not millions of years ago - but it is rather the first step of the procession out of the mind of God. The beginning is a foundation upon which all else if built and follows as a pattern. In this - it is the same as we today call - Providence. And so for Jesus to call himself �the beginning� he is calling himself - Providence. The judgment and governance of God. At this time it is going through the heads of the scribes and Pharasees �What right does this man have to speak so and judge me [us] in this way - here in public!!??� but Jesus knows their minds even if they do not say it aloud and so he answers them � �Many things I have to speak and judge of you all!� etc�

The item to note in all this - is that from the start - Jesus knew exactly what they were thinking� how they thought to trap him into judging the woman in public - how they were galled that Jesus turned it around and judged them instead.

We do not know why the woman had committed adultery. Perhaps she thought she needed the money for survival and prostituted to a married �john�. But it seems clear that he sins were of weakness and not full intention. We do not know here circumstances but we can guess she would have preferred not to prostitute. On the other hand - what the scribes and Pharisees had in mind - was on the road to murder. Their goal was the eventual death of Jesus. �� you seek to murder me�� Jesus tells them as he knows what if in their mind and hearts and thoughts.

�If any man keep my words � (the meaning of his words) he shall not see eternal death.�

Now the Jews had two - types of �death�. One type was death � of a body. A corpse. This word would be used for example to indicate the death of an animal. The other word for death indicated a spiritual death. So one meant the end of animal life and the other meant the absence of spiritual life. We shall note this again when we get to Genesis 3.

And so Jesus used �spiritual death� and the scribes and Pharisees heard �animal death�. There is only a slight difference in the pronunciation. It has happened to us all� we hear someone say something and for some reason we hear - something other than what was really said. We can not hear - what we do not understand. And so our minds will only hear what we do understand. So if we do not understand the person speaking � our minds will supply to our ears what it - understands. �Now we KNOW you have a devil � because Abraham is dead (animal death) and you said that if someone keeps your words - they will never taste (animal) death. Are you greater than - Abraham?!�

To this Jesus replies (referring to his coming crucifixion and resurrection) if I glorify (resurrect) myself - that would be nothing. It is my father that glorifies (resurrects) me� the same as you claim to be - your own God.� and �Abraham your father [you claim] rejoiced that he saw my time.� to which they said �You are not yet 50 years old and YOU have seen Abraham!?� (still thinking along the lines of animal death).

And now Jesus again, refers to the - procession of creation - and how Providence (above all time - and present to all times) is the �beginning� of all things and all events �Before Abraham created - I am - already.� and we can not help but think back to that God to which Moses spoke face to face �I AM�.

And the scribes and Pharisees had it in mind at that blasphemy - to murder him then and there. But such a thing was not within creation yet. The event - was not - yet. And so Jesus (Providence himself) just walked away - in plain sight of all - but to the scribes and Pharisees - they simply could not see him. Jesus did not turn invisible - it was just that they eyes of the scribes and Pharisees could not recognize him and looked for him where he was not.

Dear Dr Eric� most of this you already know and I am sorry for being boring. But I wanted to frame the tow important items which are mostly over looked. The one being that Jesus identified himself as - Providence himself. And the other - the procession of creation (a here and now at every moment thing). These two - are united. They are one - act. While we tend to think of the beginning of creation in a mechanical way (a time bound creation that was begun millions of years ago and set into motion like a mechanical clock) this is not the view of Jesus in scripture. All events are contingent upon - the procession of creation - of which Christ (the same person as Providence) is its mediating and governing - first step (out of God and into the levels of procession). This is too much for me to explain (perhaps you are already familiar with it) and so all we need concentrate upon is - Providence - itself. A day to day and moment to moment - movement of Providence - the immediate cause of all events.

Now next, in Galatians, we shall see the exact same misunderstanding - taking place. There -it does not lead to murder (these have already accepted Christ) by Paul wants to nip-it-in-the-bud. To expose it. To show how and why it exists. And to that end he also goes to Abraham (just as this last exchange did). And we shall examine Abraham as the personification of - faith. The - archetype of faith - in us all (if you will). That spirit within us which can have faith. And detail �faith - in what?�

Till next opportunity.

Please excuse where my proof-speller had its own mind <smile>.

-ray

Not quite, I am not familiar with this type of exegesis. I am aware of Scott Hahn's interpretation of the "Woman caught in adultery" story. But I am more concerned with the way that Abraham is being used as the father in the faith and who his children really are. How do these two chapters elucidate that fact. I know that those under the Law are children of Hagar and those under Grace are of Sarah. But what else is there in these two passages?

It would seem that the Pharisees are sons of Hagar because of the Law and we the followers of Jesus are the true sons of Abraham because we are sons of Sarah according to Grace.

Now in Galatians� notice the similarity to what was happening in John 8.

In John 8 the religion that Moses had established was being wrongly used. It was being misinterpreted by the scribes and Pharisees (the practitioners of the religion of the day). Jesus exonerates the religion Moses set up but condemns the way it was being practiced and interpreted. In Galatians we start of the same thing - that is: misinterpretation and misuse were starting to take hold in the young church.

Paul moves quickly and with exasperation - to try and nip this thing in the bud. Let us update the language a bit.

�I ask only one thing of you: Did you receive the Spirit [of God} as a result of your works of the law? Or was it by faith which opened your ears {gave you understanding]? Are you so foolish that what began in the Spirit, you would now think to be made perfect through acts of the flesh? Did the one who gave you the spirit (which ever apostle they heard) and worked miracle among you - did he do it by works of the law or by his own faith?� in other words did he perform rites and ceremonies to produce mirlces -or did the miracles just seem to 'happen' spontaniously around them?

The answer to that is clear when you read acts. The apostles did not perform eleborate ceremonies not rites and such in order to coax from God - miracles. Infact, in most cases, the apostles themselves were were at first surprised by miracles taking place around them - and later - got used to it.

Now others will take issue with me but Paul says it clearly - that the ceremonies and rites of religion (neither Moses nor the emerging Christians) do not produce holiness nor miracles nor faith. It is the other way around - faith produces both holiness and miracles. And Jesus had made the same clear to the obsessively observant Jews in his own day. Let us go no further here for now.

One should not expect a more �purified� or �better� practice of the things of the church (or his particulalr church) to produce in oneself a better holiness. (So much � for the arguments between churches of East and West huh?)

The earliest Councils back this up with the pronouncements that the rites and ceremonies of the church - are not - magic.

For such a use of the church (her theology, rites, and ceremonies) leads to an emotional �love� of God (a love bases upon the love and animal nature has) as such a display we now have example of in some Muslim areas where they compete in trying to display great love for God - by rioting and murder and destruction of the innocent - in a public display of love for Mohammed. Yes� the cartoons.

This - emotionalism - is a substitute for real love of God.

Faith is a gift freely extended to all� but we can try to steal it for ourselves. We can try to produce it in ourselves - to build it up ourselves - and in this way we imagines that what we do in our lower nature (animal nature) produces something in our higher spiritual nature.

These things (rites and ceremonies and the words of theology) must be. They are an expression for our animal nature (our senses). Both the sinful and the sinless can do them. But holiness (faith) is not contingent upon them.

Over and over, in early councils, this is ratified. No matter the sacrament involved - it is only effective contingent upon the clean condition of - conscience. The pre-requisite to the reception of the Eucharist is - confession - the cleaning of conscience and rededication to it. Now some will jump to assumptions that Ray is saying these rites and ceremonies are worthless at all. And I am not saying that.

Back to Galatians�

Paul now goes for the core. Which is faith. He heads right to explaining about faith by presenting its archetype (present in every human) Abraham.

Abraham appears in Genesis.

Genesis is the cosmogony of Moses. And so it is described by even the earliest councils as: the cosmogony of Moses. Now you will have to look up what a cosmogony is to know what a cosmogony is. But it is not - a literal history. It makes use of some items of historical reality to narrate itself. And Moses presented it to the Hebrews as a common history - to a people who had no common history. The word Hebrew itself means �immigrant worker�. A people with no common history, ancestry, or even language - give one by Moses. It is rather a common - spiritual history. Something of a spiritual nature (the psyche) that is common to all humans.

And so Paul often spoke of the types (archetypes) of the book of Genesis. An - inscape - of human nature. A common procession into creation. A procession which has its reflection within historical time and events but its primary meaning outside of time and historical events.

Now Paul goes on for some time making proof from Genesis (by using Abraham) that there is nothing about the law (neither rites nor ceremonies nor intellect nor theology) that produces holiness in a man. Neither in the law of Moses, nor the law of �the members� (as he said in other places).

To the Jew, the �law� was what we today would call �the way something works�. It is - how it - operates. It is �by what laws of reality it works� and responds and acts. The �law of the members� is what we would call today the automatic nature of our bodies (in other words the instincts and tendencies of our animal nature).

We have two created natures.
1) created spiritual nature (we call psychological mind)
2) created physiological nature (we call body).

Psyche and soma. These are Paul�s �law of the mind� and �law of the members�. A simple way to understand it is that we could say (for the sake of understanding only) that our soma has to itself its own way of processing that information which is appropriate to it. It knows about and automatically wants to respond to - things appropriate to sense experiences. Its purpose and goal (like any animal nature) is survival of its own animal nature. So too does our psychological nature have as its goal the survival of itself. Neither nature knows directly of the things which are appropriate to the other nature. What the spiritual nature is - the animal nature is also but in much less ability and more limitations. That is all I will say about this.

In the cosmogony of Moses Abraham represents the personification of - our capacity and act which we call - faith in God. Sarah represents what we call hope. Neither had any (when named Abram and Sara) until indicated by a name change (Abraham and Sarah). The change in name is a sign of a change in essence. A change done by God and not produced in anyway by Abram and Sara. In the language of the in-scape of Genesis� Abram personifies the intellect of any human and Sara personifies the faculty of the volitive will of any human. When Abram is without faith he is at the level of animal nature (Abram) and when Abram is raised to faith he is on the level of spiritual nature indicated by an extension added to his name (Abra-ham).


And so Jesus (in John 8) and Paul (in Galatians 3) tell us, in concert, that while religious observance is good - but not to the point of anyone believing that religious observances themselves produces any holiness in anyone. The things of the senses (animal nature be it sight, sound, action, response etc�) are things appropriate to animal nature. And those who place these things above conscience and as an obstacle to simple faith (a gift and not produced by anything of sense nature) have mis-understood Jesus and Paul and work against (intentionally or unintentionally) them to their own detriment and the detriment of others.

We all - stand convicted. I know I have.

We can now say �OK� FAITH � I got that. But � what the heck - IS it??�

And for that we need to go back to the simple narration of the Fall in the Garden. For we will find it - right where we last had it. And when we go there we shall go right back to the main themes that Jesus spoke of which is Providence and the procession of creation.

I will post again as soon as I can.

Please excuse all typos cause by my spell checker guessing for me the wrong word.

Peace be to you and your church.

-ray

Ray,
Thanks for the expositions. Your insight is fascinating!

Dr. Eric

I think Ray leads back to what my impression was when I first read your request. If you look at Romans 4:1-13
1
1 What then can we say that Abraham found, our ancestor according to the flesh?
2
2 Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God.
3
For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 3
4
A worker's wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due.
5
But when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.
6
So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7
"Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered.
8
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record."
9
Does this blessedness 4 apply only to the circumcised, or to the uncircumcised as well? Now we assert that "faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness."
10
Under what circumstances was it credited? Was he circumcised or not? He was not circumcised, but uncircumcised.
11
And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so that to them (also) righteousness might be credited,
12
as well as the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but also follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked while still uncircumcised.
13
It was not through the law that the promise was made to Abraham and his descendants that he would inherit the world, but through the righteousness that comes from faith.
~~~~~~~

The bottom line to all of this is what helped Abraham to walk by faith, was God changing his name from Abram to Abraham - each time Abraham spoke his name he was litteraly saying "I am the father of nations". When his faith was able to coem into play then he was walking totally in faith. Doing the works of the Lord and all that God asks of him without fear or trepedation.

If we as Catholics and Orthodox will seriously enter into our Eucharistic Lord and the Word, by expressing what God's word says it will come to pass. We must bring our actions into agreement with God. It is not God bringing himself into agreement with us.

I have often heard of Fr. Corapi have the gift of apostolic exortaion. Well Fr. Corapi spends six - 6 - hours a day in prayer and the reading of Scripture. He puts into action what God's word says.

We can move through grace of the Holy Spirit with the power and authority of God if we will only enter into the faith of God as did Abraham.

Pani Rose

Very good Pani Rose!!! Thanks!!!

Than you must look at the exchange of Jesus with the scribes and Pharisees regarding Abraham. Re-read it several times and slowly and look for it to fit into human nature. Jesus was fully human.

Note that they are talking about the same thing (Abraham and being a son of Abraham) but the Pharisees are not understanding the way Jesus is using Abraham or to be a son of Abraham � and Jesus (fully aware of the way the scribes and Pharisees are using Abraham and son-ship) will have nothing to do with their interpretation. He simply will not engage them on their interpretation of either Abraham or son-ship to Abraham.

We have a hint. We had just witnesses Jesus using the term �death� as a spiritual death (not a corporal death) and the Pharisees using the term �death� as a literal (corporal like a corpse) like death.

That is followed by and entwined in the exchange about Abraham.

And that leads us to notice that the Pharisees are using Abraham and being a son of Abraham - in a historical, literal, and genetic sense � but Jesus will have nothing to do with that and uses Abraham in only a spiritual and archetype way. A way in which Abraham is the personification of faith that any man may have in any age.

Jesus did not say �Well - yes - it is true and you are the historical and genetic sons of Abraham but I want you to notice that you can also take Abraham in another way and so-on-so-forth�� in fact Jesus does not acknowledge their interpretation of Abraham - at all.

Jesus only takes Abraham in - one way and one way only (and so should we). And that is: to be like Abraham (faith) is to be a son of Abraham. And to not be like Abraham (faith) is to not be a son of Abraham. Period. Paul uses Abraham in the same way. The inescapable conclusion here is that a historical and literal meaning for Abraham - simply has no reality and no importance in the mind of Jesus. In fact - placing an importance on a historical and literal Abraham - even equal to the spiritual meaning of Abraham - is a danger and mis-use of the narration of Abraham (you would agree that in this exchange Jesus was using Abraham correctly and the scribes and Pharisees were incorrect).

�I am the truth (itself) and the light (real knowledge itself)�. So we must assume that Jesus knows Abraham better than anyone and note that he (himself) never used Abraham in a historical and literal way.

This all is in concert with the fact that the narrations of Genesis are - a cosmogony (as the Councils have claimed it to be). There fore it make liberal uses of selected historical facts for the sole purpose of framing its intended meaning and message. And in this case the message is - the procession of creation. And I tell you again - this procession is an �inside to outside� thing. In Pseudo-Dionysius it is called the �Celestial Hierarchy�. This �procession� in an in-scape. It is - immediate. Happening at every moment. From �inside� the mind of Good proceeding out into created nature - here and now. It is the movement of Providence from the eternal into the nature of time and history. It is what in-forms what we call reality. It is not bound by time by rather in-forms all time (past / present / and future) based upon the immediate (present) will of God. Now I do not mean to get theological. All that is important is that we see Abraham as Christ sees Abraham - and leave behind any �importance� to a historical and literal Abraham.

The pious opinions of early church fathers (as to any historical nature of Abraham as a person) should not overturn the definitions of the official Councils of the church. - which Councils define the books of Genesis as the - �cosmogony of Moses� which makes the figure of Abrham to be a figure, type, and archetype - just as Paul claims it to be.

At this point I see no value to explore the narration of the Fall in the garden - unless we can free ourselves from an attachment to a historical and literal interpretation of it and speak of it in the same way that Jesus and Paul spoke of it. And I do know how hard this can be. Believe me - I know. It takes time (and perhaps a leap faith to believe that perhaps the spirutal meaning of Genesis far outweighs and attempt at historical reality). For this particular narration speaks of events within the depth of each of us - here and now. It is the common origin of all sin - as it exists within each of us - now - and every man who ever lived and shared this single human nature we all share.

Peace be to you and your church.

-ray

I definitely agree with you on this point, Our Lord never called anyone who had physically died dead. He said that they were sleeping, in the John 11 the Apostles and Disciples were confused about the status of Lazarus. Also I am reminded of the verse that I use after communion "Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness and still died. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever." They died because of their sins and were damned it would seem.

Quote

At this point I see no value to explore the narration of the Fall in the garden - unless we can free ourselves from an attachment to a historical and literal interpretation of it and speak of it in the same way that Jesus and Paul spoke of it. And I do know how hard this can be. Believe me - I know. It takes time (and perhaps a leap faith to believe that perhaps the spirutal meaning of Genesis far outweighs and attempt at historical reality). For this particular narration speaks of events within the depth of each of us - here and now. It is the common origin of all sin - as it exists within each of us - now - and every man who ever lived and shared this single human nature we all share.

I am for learning the cosmognomic and spiritual interpretation of Genesis 3, and I bet there are many out there on the Forum who would be too!!!

Quote

Peace be to you and your church.

-ray

And to you and yours too!

Dr. Eric

In reality it is upsetting to some for it shakes what they had always believed about such things (a literal interpretation) and so it threatens thier concept of faith.

That is certainly not my intention.

My exposition is not for all. Some find it useful and some do not. My stuff is not easy to read.

Yes. That too would seem to be the way of it.

�Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness and still died (spiritual death). Anyone who eats this bread will live forever (spiritual life).�

One can be corporally alive yet spiritually dead and this compares with other portions (in the prophets I believe) in which it is said �Our fathers ate manna in the desert yet still rebelled�. And so that rebellion against God is counted as spiritual death. That these in the wilderness also came to corporal death is ancillary. And John�s Apocalypse speaks of the �first death� and �second death� in like fashion.

So there should be no doubt that the Hebrews originally had two words for �death� - one meaning a spiritual death and the other meaning a corporal death. There being a slight difference in the pronunciation yet sharing the same root.

In case I screwed up my words (I have not written on this subject in some time)�

A cosmogony : is an account of how the universe (cosmos) came into be-ing (gonia gegona = I have become). This is what Moses wrote and it is the books of Genesis.

A cosmology : is the science (knowledge) of the universe. It is physics and historical (time bound events) and Moses used this form as a veneer for his cosmogony� hence the reason for confusion. But very useful to draw the Hebrews (an Egyptian word meaning wandering immigrants) together into a nation by supplying a common history to those who had no common history and no common language except the Egyptian of their employers.

Let us assume no further than what I have said about Moses and his reasons.

Now I have looked over the net to find the early Council documents that speak of �the cosmogony of Moses� and I can not find it any more. I found it and posted it here, once, but that was years ago. The task of the Council it appears in was dealing with the cosmogonies of the Gentiles. And the result was a pronouncement that the cosmogony of Moses was divinely revealed. St. Basil often refers to Genesis as the �cosmogony� of the Hebrews (or Moses - I forget which).

Please accept this quote as confirmation that Genesis is indeed a cosmogony�

Having now put that too bed (the narrations of Genesis are a cosmogony) we can more on.

St Augustine was the first main-stream to write about the imagery of Adam and Eve as a symbolic representation of the human faculties of � intellect and the will. I believe that is in City of God. He was not alone in reading this in this way. He is just significant in that he occupied the top chair of Catholic theology at the time.

And so the importance of the narrations (I will deal with just the fall from the garden) is kind of like cracking the human head wide open and looking down into it to witness the internal events. And so the event and narration of the garden should be thought of as a spiritual (psyche - an experience of the mind) event.

Some of the imagery we are already aware of because many early fathers talked about it. For example � the image of a tree is a representation of knowledge. �The tree of the knowledge of good and evil�.

The image of a tree is fitting because knowledge branches off from itself in many directions to new knowledge. Knowledge grows.

We still speak of �the fruit of knowledge�.

Everyone is aware that the mythology of the Greeks reflects our own psychology. We name human tendencies and obsessions and such after Greek myths.

The narrations of Genesis are similar to this reflection of interior psychology. Please assume no further than that.

Now I will not be able here to supply to you all the background which justifies my interpretation of items. But trust me - most of them come from early church farther, doctors of the church, and sources which the church has considered classical and reliable for research and study.

The mystery play begins with Adam (a name which means both all-humans and each individual human being) and �the woman� (she is not changed into Eve yet) are in the garden of Eden (a state or condition that is paradise). It is paradise because they experience God face to face (metaphoric because God does not have a face) while in the garden and God provides everything for them. God plants and God grows all their food (a Hebrew word from which the further word �bread� comes).

The Hebrew words for �meat� and �bread� and solid food - are related and at times interchangeable. I will go no further because this is not a Hebrew lesson.

This �garden� in which all is provided with no labor on human part - may be called All-Providence. Man experiences that all his needs and all his good is provided by God himself and directly and immediately.

In the midst of the garden (this should not be mistaken for the �middle� or center) is the tree (knowledge) of good and evil.

Now the word �midst� should be thought of as � if you dropped one drop of food coloring into a glass of clear water. What happens? The color disperses through out all the water. Or if you walk in the woods in the early morning and see the low lying fog dispersed through out the woods.

Now since man already knew the good (God and his All-Providence) the new knowledge here would be the - evil.

Man did not yet know - evil - into himself.

Man (intellect and will) already had natural faith (faith that God would supply All-providence). This - God gave him (built into him) and man lived by it - he did not have to work for that faith nor labor - it was a gift - given into his very make-up.

Now the serpent (leviathan sometimes given as a dragon, a whale, an elephant - any large beast) was there. He is a serpent here because that represented to wandering wilderness people (which the Hebrew were when this was written and given to them) a hidden life. An animal nature which can �swallow up� their spiritual nature into the darkness (of their interior).

Now God warned adam (intellect) �Do not eat from the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden - for on that day (at the moment you do) you shall surly - die a death. And the Hebrew word here used for death is - spiritual death.

The serpent says to the woman (suggests or inclines to our faculty of will) �Did God really say to you that you shall die?� if you eat you will not die the death.� and the word used here is the Hebrew word meaning corporal death.

(note: I paraphrase all this assuming that you are familiar with the trend of the narration).

You see - as the serpent (the symbol of hidden life force of the created natural world of the senses) heard God - but was not capable of - understanding God. Just in the same way as our nature of the body (law of the members) is not capable of understanding God. For God (spirit) is an experience only to our mind (spirit) and not an experience had or knowable to our body.

So - the serpent (which could not understand the meaning of God�s words) made effort to convince the woman (our will) that God had meant only what the serpent himself could make of the meaning. � corporal death.

All this is fairly natural so far. Next - adam follows the woman (the intellect follows the inclinations of the will which is following the inclinations of animal nature). In other words the intellect is swayed by the emotions.

This is all very simple. The narration is indeed much more detailed and comprehensive - but this is all we need to understand at this point.

The faculty of will (the woman) savors the results of doing evil (eats the apple) and presents that enjoyment to the intellect (the man) and the intellect disregards conscience (where God had spoken the command and warning) as does as the will bids.

All this simply breaks down (in modern terms) into a physiological profile of how it is that we go against our conscience. For this particular �exhibition� of this spot in the narration - it need be nothing more. And what we need to do is look inside ourselves and say �Yes - this is what happens when I sin!!�

We have given in to the inclination - to sin.

The sin itself (the item that makes any sin - sin) is that we leave All-Providence - and provide for ourselves.

We �plant� and we �labor� through a manipulation of the truth and the natural way things work in the word (when taken out of reference to the will of God) and become our own god (�for God knows that in that day you will become like God�) in order to provide for ourselves what we think is for the benefit of our survival and enjoyment. Of course - we are following the reasoning that is inherent to our animal nature (in capable of knowing God) when we do this.

And so the origin of all sin - that which makes sin a sin - is a substitution of self-providence instead of God�s All-Providence.

In the Hebrew of the narration - all these events (laid out as if following each other in time sequence) happen - simultaneously. It is a �one act� mystery play in which it is to be understood that each event is contained in the other and all rolled up into one - immediate and simultaneous - act. At the moment the apple is eaten - they are already - out of the garden (in the Hebrew version). This is done through a particular use of the Hebrew verbs which - from the start of the narration - indicate that the sin is already done - even before we come to the serpent and tree.

Within this narration faith (the virtues signified as rivers flowing from God to water the garden) is a natural gift to our spiritual nature. In our animal nature - it is barren - has no fruit - as the animal nature (the law of our members) has no capacity for it. In our animal nature it remains childless and impotent. Unable to conceive. So too hope (Sara) barren and incapable to bear fruit.

Only faith (a virtue appropriate to the spiritual part of man) and hope (appropriate only to the spiritual part of man) bear fruit. Hence the name change to signify that God placed faith (in the intellect) and hope (to enjoy in the will) into our spiritual nature (mind).

So as you can now see� faith and hope can not be built up by us. We can not produce it ourselves. Providence supplies it (the river that flows into the garden). Our part is to simply tend the garden (pick out the weeds - remove the hindrances). God plants the faith - God grows the faith - God harvests the faith - and we are not to put our own labor into it.

In the West this is all wrapped up in the doctrine of the doctors of the Church in the doctrine called �Providence� the means to sanctification of which most of them write about (how God imparts the virtues into us - this is not something we can produce ourselves).

In the theology of the East it is all wrapped up in the doctrine of Uncreated Energies (the imparting of virtue to us - this is not something we can produce ourselves).

The doctrine of Providence and the doctrine of Uncreated Energies (originally called The Virtues) are one and the same coin - two sides. Two ways to look at the same thing. You would do well to read one and then the other and then fit them together.

In hind sight (of course the narration is what it is and has its purpose) Adam and Eve should have immediately come out from behind the trees (symbolic for hiding behinnd reasons and excuses and false justifications) when they heard God walking in the garden - and faced him and admitted what they did - instead of blaming it all down the line (�the woman did it� - �the serpent did it�), We should not hide behind excuses of reasoning-logic and justifications (the logic of our animal nature) and we should come face to face with God in our conscience and by the light of conscience we will see our error of intellect and will.

This has been quite a fascinating look into human nature.

Please do not assume of me more than what I said here. Some would read me and assume of me positions on other subject that I do not note here. They would conjecture of me positions and beliefs which I do not hold. Take my meaning in the context it is meant and go no further.

I am done.

Peace be to you and your church.

-ray