Genesis reliable for faith?

[1Lord1Faith]

The New Testament letters say some questionable things about women. I’ve heard that those things were written because the letters were based in the culture of the time. But the letters themselves indicate that the reasoning comes from the book of Genesis, or even personal experiences that the letter writers may have had with women. For example:

women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

But exclude younger widows, for when their sensuality estranges them from Christ, they want to marry and will incur condemnation for breaking their first pledge. And furthermore, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers but gossips and busybodies as well, talking about things that ought not to be mentioned. So I would like younger widows to marry, have children, and manage a home, so as to give the adversary no pretext for maligning us.

A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

The justification for these things seems to come from Genesis:

A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

There is even a specific nod to childbearing which seems to be referring, again, to Genesis.

Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

I’ve never heard anything but excuses being made for these NT verses. Excuses like - these are just cultural reflections, or these are just misunderstandings of his meaning. It seems pretty clear that the basis for these verses is in Genesis. So, if the NT verses aren’t taken seriously, why not also that which they are based on - Genesis chapter 3, mostly.

Several assumptions that are based in Genesis have fallen: flat earth, geocentrism, subordinating women, and creationism.

If the writers of these NT letters took Genesis’ Adam and Eve story literally, and so came up with all sorts of reasons to make women subordinate to men, what about the other doctrines that are based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, like Original Sin?

 

[Gorgias]

But the letters themselves indicate that the reasoning comes from the book of Genesis

So, let me ask you a question from the perspective of the Catholic understanding of the infallibility of magisterial teaching: does the teaching of a single bishop imply ‘infallibility’? Could a single bishop (other than the pope) be mistaken in his doctrinal assertions, and if so, would his mistaken interpretation be proof against infallibility?

Let’s take it a step further: if the Bible is impeccable, would a mistaken utterance be thereby inoculated and considered “valid doctrine”, merely by being relayed in the Bible?

I think I would answer that, if Paul were conveying a teaching that was relevant to that time and place, then its presence in the Bible wouldn’t give it the patina of “irreformable doctrine for all times and places.” And, if his interpretation of Genesis – utilized in service of this promulgation of discipline (i.e., not doctrine, but merely discipline!) – weren’t correct in the general case, then it wouldn’t be a problem… right? It would be an instance of merely relaying what Paul intended to relay. God’s Word would still hold – it tells the story that God intends (not what any particular person intends).

 

[Magnanimity]

The New Testament letters say some questionable things about women.

Yes. And some doctors of the church continued in this questionable line of reasoning. One of my personal heroes (Aquinas) uses the “pauline ban” as a basis for why women cannot receive holy orders. He writes, “Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.” Yet, what Catholic cardinals or prominent theologians today would reason this way?

Moreover, the OT says some ‘questionable things’ about God. Taken at face value, the OT asserts that God can walk around (Genesis 1-3, or God “passing by” Moses and only letting him see his “back.”). It claims that he can regret having made man in the first place (Noah and the Flood). The OT can portray God as capricious and unjust (as in the story where Uzzah touching the Ark to steady it after the animal lost its footing. God reacts with anger and strikes him dead). It portrays God as fearful of the capabilities of man (Genesis 3 and 11). The motif of Yahweh as the warrior-god is all through the OT. And on and on it goes.

But, we can’t stop with the OT or the NT. The church herself has altered her views on usury, slavery, marriage, capital punishment (recently), etc.

My question would be–is this really a problem? If so, why so? Supposing one has a certain image of the Bible (or the church) as only possessing and promulgating immutable truths. On that image, then yes, perhaps all these things are problems. However, from very early on in the church’s self-understanding, she took to the way of Philo of Alexandria. That is to say, one can know (by conscience) that the only God that might exist would be pure Being and Goodness itself. With that as the starting point, then much of the OT scriptures will be read allegorically (especially those early chapters of Genesis). I believe it was Origen of Alexandria who said that anyone who tries to read Genesis 1-11 as if it’s plain history is a fool.

So, the human race’s understanding of God and goodness has unfolded over time. It’s evolved, you might say. To my mind, Orthodox scholars are very good in these regards. I submit to you these two videos. This one by Brad Jersak is illuminating and highly recommended. And this one too by the incomparable DB Hart is also quite instructive.

Take heart, friend. Many of us have had to reconcile these issues too. I’m glad you’re not putting your head in the sand. I don’t know how you’ll resolve these issues to your own satisfaction, but I imagine your image of what the scriptures and the church are, may need to be modified. Peace be with you.

 

[Magnanimity]

Several assumptions that are based in Genesis have fallen: flat earth, geocentrism, subordinating women, and creationism.

I should also say, that a couple of these specifics you mention above are products of Modernity. The church, in her first 1500 years, had very little of anything to say about flat-earth or creationism. The early and medieval churches were readily engaged in looking for “true readings” in the OT–as in, spiritual truths applicable to all lives everywhere. If you ever have a moment, treat yourself to St Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses. I challenge that a reading of Exodus more spiritual and allegorical than this is nigh impossible to come by.

based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, like Original Sin?

The origin of this doctrine isn’t really directly attributable to Genesis, is it? St Augustine takes Romans 5:12 as his main verse for defending the dogma. At most, Genesis seems suggestive of concupiscence alone.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

does the teaching of a single bishop imply ‘infallibility’?

Thanks, I forgot about that. But, yeah, most bishops don’t have their writings in the Bible.

And, if his interpretation of Genesis – utilized in service of this promulgation of discipline (i.e., not doctrine, but merely discipline!) – weren’t correct in the general case, then it wouldn’t be a problem… right? It would be an instance of merely relaying what Paul intended to relay. God’s Word would still hold – it tells the story that God intends (not what any particular person intends).

What story does God intend to tell? If St. Paul didn’t know, what chance do we have - now 2K years removed? The Church simply calls the stories allegories, and is basically wishy washy on Genesis. Yet, there is Humani Generis, a modern encyclical evoking Adam as a reason for shutting down theories that don’t jive with Genesis. :man_shrugging:t3:

So, yeah, there’s a problem.

 

[Hodos]

If the writers of these NT letters took Genesis’ Adam and Eve story literally, and so came up with all sorts of reasons to make women subordinate to men, what about the other doctrines that are based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, like Original Sin?

In the verses you are quoting, Paul is not drawing his material from the Fall, but from creation. In the creation God created Man and Woman to be complementary, not identical. They each have roles that God designed for them in creation. This isn’t a punishment, and it isn’t degrading, it is for both their benefit. Man was to be head, and woman was to be helpmate (Genesis 2). Those are their natural roles. To be submissive, means to stop fighting, stop struggling with one another and to take up your role. In the verses you are quoting from Paul’s letters, he is showing that man is to be head over his wife, and in other passages over his family. This means instructing them, teaching them, guiding them. This is a great responsibility not to be taken lightly. Paul’s concern in Corinth is that the practices of some of the women in that Church, publicly throwing off the authority of their husbands, was casting aside the roles that God had set for them, and this is detrimental both to the family, and to our appearance before the world. It doesn’t look great when Christian couples get divorced because husband and wife can’t find ways to get along because they are fighting over headship in the family, or they resent one another because they either feel they are being crowded out of the roles to which they are uniquely suited, or because the other person is not fulfilling the roles to which they are uniquely suited. You can reject it if you like for modern sensibilities but things such as divorce rates, the incidence of children being raised in single parent homes (over 24% in the US), and other metrics seem to indicate you are doing so at the peril of your own family and society. But hey, what does God know, right? We bit that apple and we get to determine what is right and wrong now.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

My question would be–is this really a problem? If so, why so? Supposing one has a certain image of the Bible (or the church) as only possessing and promulgating immutable truths. On that image, then yes, perhaps all these things are problems. However, from very early on in the church’s self-understanding, she took to the way of Philo of Alexandria. That is to say, one can know (by conscience) that the only God that might exist would be pure Being and Goodness itself. With that as the starting point,

Hold on a minute though - that’s not the Church’s starting point. The starting point for theology is scripture, unless I’m missing something. I know Tradition is important too, but scripture is primary in theology, no?

I can basically agreed with the rest of what you posted though. And thanks for the links.

I should also say, that a couple of these specifics you mention above are products of Modernity. The church, in her first 1500 years, had very little of anything to say about flat-earth or creationism.

I wasn’t aware of that.

I remember seeing in a NAB from the 1980’s a drawing of the ‘flat earth’ model that is described in Genesis. You know, the dome over the earth and whatnot.

 

[po18guy]

Couple of things to consider: Perhaps it is as much the culture of that time as it is the culture of our time. Today, male-female roles are blurred, confused, murky. Masculinity has been under assault for decades. The “Women’s movement” desired to be thought of on an equal or better level, but the freedom gained has degenerated into licentious behavior, degrading women to worse than they were before! Look at what the (un)dress, behavior , language and subject matter of a woman named Madonna is teaching a new generation.

What was lost in all of this, or abandoned or jettisoned was woman’s amazing dignity.

But I’m just a curmudgeonly hate-filled racist sexist misogynistic homophobe.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

In the verses you are quoting

What you’ve described is not the entire makeup of the letters. You’ve picked out the nice parts and left the rest. And the nice parts you’ve picked out I don’t entirely agree with your interpretation anyway. You’ve made man and woman into a bit of a caricature, if you don’t mind me saying.

But hey, what does God know, right?

Yes, that what we’re on about - what does this and that from scripture mean.

 

[Vico]

…Yet, there is Humani Generis, a modern encyclical evoking Adam as a pretext for shutting down theories that don’t jive with Genesis…

So you claim it is not the real reason?

Oxford dictionary: pretext, noun

• a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason.

Humani Generis excerpt referring to Adam:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So you claim it is not the real reason?

No, I didn’t mean that. I meant ‘reason’. I’ll edit the post.

 

[Hodos]

What you’ve described is not the entire makeup of the letters. You’ve picked out the nice parts and left the rest. And the nice parts you’ve picked out I don’t entirely agree with your interpretation anyway. You’ve made man and woman into a bit of a caricature, if you don’t mind me saying.

I haven’t picked out the nice parts, I went back to Paul’s reference, which was the creation account. Maybe, if we actually carry out our roles in the home, Paul would not have to chastise us as he did the Corinthians. One of the issues I see in your response is you are only looking at the places where Paul chastises bad behavior, ascribing bad intentions to Paul. How about reading through Ephesians to see the positive example of what we are called to do to balance out your view of what Paul taught in his ministry? In other words, you need to read 1 Corinthians 11 in the context of all of Paul’s corpus of writing in order to understand what he is actually confessing with regard to the roles that we are to take in the home. Also, I haven’t created a caricature of man and woman, I simply stated the order that God created in the beginning. Whether man wants to fulfill his role, or woman wants to fulfill the role God laid out is irrelevant to what God’s will is.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Perhaps it is as much the culture of that time as it is the culture of our time.

I understand the culture of St. Paul’s time put women subservient to men. My point is that the story of Adam and Eve is used to justify it.

That has nothing to do with the culture of today which is simply the result of a freedom given to us by our own technological advances. No one is using the Bible to say that traditional male and female roles should be disregarded.

 

[Magnanimity]

I remember seeing in a NAB from the 1980’s a drawing of the ‘flat earth’ model that is described in Genesis. You know, the dome over the earth and whatnot.

Yikes! Sounds like something straight out of the Creation Research Society

Hold on a minute though - that’s not the Church’s starting point. The starting point for theology is scripture, unless I’m missing something. I know Tradition is important too, but scripture is primary in theology, no?

It’s always difficult to identify the cart and the horse in these issues. But since anything said in scripture must (in some way) correspond to the content of the conscience, it would seem that our internal selves are ever in dialogue with Scripture and Tradition. I think this is actually spelled out in Vatican 2’s dei verbum. The people of God ponder things in their hearts and advance the unfolding of understanding of God’s revelation. The CCC quotes Saint JH Newman in affirming that “The conscience is the primordial vicar of Christ.”

I firmly believe that if we Catholics get back to the interpretive framework of the church’s first millennium and a half, we will be more settled on all these issues. After all, encountering God is the end-goal, right? Beatitude is what we were made for and our reading of the scripture should assist in this. if we are going to the Scriptures thinking that we are going to get good history lessons, something is majorly wrong in our approach. If we go to the Scriptures wondering how science and whatever is affirmed in genesis conflict, something is terribly wrong with our starting point. After all, the Scriptures predate the scientific revolution by centuries in some cases and millennia in other cases.

 

[po18guy]

Human nature has not changed. Culture has. Culture does. Culture always will. If we are slaves to culture, we will never be free.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

So you claim it is not the real reason?

No, I didn’t mean that. I meant ‘reason’. I’ll edit the post.

OK. Now the Catholic Church is actually boldly speaking to the issue (not wishy washy) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So is Adam a real individual as is stated in Humani Generis , or is he “the whole human race” as is stated in the CCC? And does St. Paul believe Adam was real or symbolic?

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.

 

[Gorgias]

What story does God intend to tell? If St. Paul didn’t know, what chance do we have - now 2K years removed?

We – and by that, I mean “the magisterium” – has all the help necessary: the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium from teaching error in their statements of doctrine. So, if there were to be a teaching about the issues that St Paul raises here, in the context of these passages of Scripture, then we have every confidence that they’d get it right!

Yet, there is Humani Generis , a modern encyclical evoking Adam as a reason for shutting down theories that don’t jive with Genesis. :man_shrugging:t3:

So, yeah, there’s a problem.

I disagree, for a few reasons:

• The Church isn’t “wishy washy” on the existence of our first two truly human parents, nor does it call them mere “allegories”.
• So, talking about Adam in an encyclical is actually in concert with Church teachings, and not in conflict with them.
• It’s not “theories that don’t jive with Genesis”, as if we merely look at the text and demand theories that agree with the text as it appears on the page. Rather, it’s “theories that don’t jive with the theological lessons in Genesis”, and that’s precisely what we see in Humani generis – Pius is pointing out what the meaning of these narratives is, and how to apply it to various theological questions.

The starting point for theology is scripture, unless I’m missing something. I know Tradition is important too, but scripture is primary in theology, no?

Nope. From the catechism:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

 

[Gorgias]

So is Adam a real individual as is stated in Humani Generis , or is he “the whole human race” as is stated in the CCC?

I think you’re mischaracterizing what the catechism is attempting to say at #404. Aquinas made the statement you’re keying in on, but the catechism is merely asserting that, due to the “unity of the human race” – and not because Adam is an allegorical figure who represents all humans – “all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.”

So… no! The catechism isn’t saying something that conflicts with Humani generis !

 

[1Lord1Faith]

attempting to say

I’m just quoting it’s plain language. Is it speaking metaphorically? It doesn’t say. The paragraph ends without an explanation, just an acknowledgement of mystery. So, I’m sticking with wishy washy.

So, if there were to be a teaching

Why not just say that you don’t know.

Rather, it’s “theories that don’t jive with the theological lessons in Genesis”, and that’s precisely what we see in Humani generis – Pius is pointing out what the meaning of these narratives is,

“theological lessons” - yes, I didn’t think I had to point that out. But thanks for bringing that up.

And…what is the meaning of those narratives?

Nope. From the catechism:

Those paragraphs from the CCC don’t mention theology. I’m pretty sure that Scripture has primacy in theology.