Mmm... Mornings

The warmth of a down comforter as I slowly stretch under the covers...

...the smell of coffee brewing as I step out of the shower...

...leisurely contemplating some Pauline literature...

...eggs rising to golden, fluffy perfection in my breakfast casserole...

...a phone call from a dear friend...

...the golden rays dancing on my face through the window...

There's just something about Saturday mornings.

Emotional Release

There's something about writing which, for me, provides an intense emotional release. 

I began writing "Elsa" over the summer.  It was, at that time, not exactly about me and most certainly not intended to be a story.  It was a sketch; the tale of an hour of time, of an experience supremely significant yet hardly memorable (this was true for both the reader and Elsa, the character). 

When I received the assignment to write a short story, I immediately thought of Elsa.  Could I write anything better?  But it was not a short story.

With the things I've learned about short story in class and through additional dialogue with the professor, I began to see the potential to alter "Elsa" from sketch to short story.  But could I do this without compromising the effect which it was written for?

So I began to write... And "Elsa" is becoming more and more about me; a picture of my life.  And, although I am still not finished, I am drained.  To commit myself to paper is exhausting.  It is vulnerable and intimidating.  It is also both beautiful and spiritually beautiful.

Final Thoughts to Ponder (at least on this topic...)

This is a final portion of my thoughts on a dilemma (previously posted here (the dilemma) and here (initial response)) grounded in Milton's Paradise Lost.  Reading the previous posts will be essential to understanding what I share in this post...

 

ADAM’S FAITHFULNESS

                In Adam’s final plea, he entreats Eve to “leave not the faithful side that gave thee being, still shades thee and protects!” (Milton, Book 9, 265-266).  In this appeal, we see Adam asserting his faithfulness to Eve.  He had been ever-present with her and desires for her to return the sentiment.  It seems that Adam fears physical separation to be synonymous with unfaithfulness (this idea is fully presented in this article).  Second, Adam asserts his ability to provide defense for Eve.  He sees himself as a shield between her and the enemy. 

Adam’s final line in this portion of the dialogue is telling of events to come.  Adam asserts that he is the one “who guards her or with her the worst endures” (Milton, Book 9, 269).  This reiterates Adam’s faithfulness to Eve and claims that, even if she does not allow him to be her guard, he will still remain true to her, enduring whatever may come her way.  CS Lewis provides a precise term for this commitment which Adam expresses: uxorious.  Adam sees that he will not be able to sway Eve from her decision, so he takes an inferior status in their relationship.  He allows her to make the decision and he willingly obliges to her whim.  Since Adam’s loneliness prior to Eve’s creation was so severe, he determines that company with her in death is superior to life without her, though he remain in Paradise. 

This is further emphasized by Eve’s words to Adam at the conclusion of the chapter:

Being as I am, why didst not thou, the head,

Command me absolutely not to go,

Going into such danger as thou saidst?

Too facile then thou didst not much gainsay,

Nay, didst permit, approve, and fair dismiss! (Milton, Book 9, 1155-1159)

Here, Eve points the blame at Adam.  He was “the head” and therefore had the responsibility of leading her, not permitting or approving of her own resolutions.  Yet, Adam did not choose to assert his authority and instead, as Lewis rightly terms it, behaves in uxoriousness.

                When Eve tells Adam of her “fatal trespass” (Book 9, 889), Adam responds with another statement of faithfulness.  “We are one, one flesh: to lose thee were to lose myself” (Book 9, 958-959).  Adam understands that it may be possible for God to create another woman for him, but he determines that he wants only Eve, understanding that they were “one flesh.” 

After both Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit, their first action is to have sex – to partake in the action which epitomizes their union as one flesh.  Adam had feared being alone forever, so he eats of the fruit offered by Eve, thus ensuring their eternal union and then he immediately requests that they “play” due to his intense lusting (Book 9, 1027-1033).  While Lewis’ interpretation of these lines are a mark of the fall,[1] it can also be seen as telling of Adam’s motivation.  He wants to remain “one flesh” with Eve and so he executes two actions.  First, he eats of the fruit, ensuring that they will not be separated by death.  Second, he leads her to have “their fill of love and love’s disport” until they are “wearied with their am’rous play” (Milton, Book 9, 1042, 1045).

Adam’s fear of renewed solitude outweighs his fear of any other consequence.  This includes both death and separation from God.  Adam had God’s presence prior to Eve’s creation, yet he still had an awareness of a keen need which was not fulfilled by God’s presence[2].  This need was fulfilled by Eve, therefore Adam chooses Eve and the fulfillment which he derives from her presence over Paradise.  Adam’s sin is, then, rooted in his creation: he has a need for companionship and chooses to fulfill that need when he eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

---

[1] The distinction between Adam and Eve’s sexual interaction before the fall in comparison with their sexual interaction after the eating of the fruit is indeed notable, though Waldock argues against this distinction being as notable as Lewis or I give Milton credit.

[2] It is important to note that this need was not necessarily sex; it is not explicitly defined as such by Milton.  Additionally, from a Biblical perspective, it is important to note that God does not fault Adam for desiring companionship.  Contrastly, God affirms this desire by stating “it is not good for man to be alone.”  Therefore, it can be inferred that there was something about God’s relationship to Adam on earth which was unsatisfying and was meant to be unsatisfying.

More Thoughts to Ponder

In a recent post I posed a question raised by my reading of Milton's Paradise Lost.  In essence, the question was: why would Adam choose Eve over God?  (For a full disclosure of the dilemma, read the post).

Here are further thoughts which lead towards a potential solution to this problem:

In Book 9 of Paradise Lost we discover Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden on the morning of the renowned fall.  Eve asks leave of Adam and a conversation ensues.  In this conversation we hear Adam at variance with the notion that Eve be separated from him.  The reasons he presents are clear: Eve is not strong enough to withstand the foe without his assistance and security.  Eve is indignant at the suggestion that she is, while alone, unable to resist temptation.  Thus, Adam’s reasoning simply serves to fortify Eve’s resolve. 

                

The motives for Adam’s fear of separation seem to stem from his desire that he not be left alone.  It is significant that Adam never expresses his own susceptibility to temptation in his discussion with Eve.  If Eve is liable to temptation while she is alone, why is Adam not similarly vulnerable?  I believe this idea of Eve’s susceptibility being greater than Adam’s vulnerability is supported textually by Milton.  As Milton depicts Satan’s monologue of viewing the garden and the first man and wife within the garden, Satan is excited not by seeing Adam alone, but in seeing Eve by herself. 

               

One way to view this move is simple and straight forward: As Satan wanders within the garden, he first sees Eve.  In seeing Eve, he sees a vulnerable human (regardless of name, personality, or gender) and makes his move.  Eve is susceptible enough that Satan does not need to look for any other options of vulnerability (namely, Adam).  He has one door open and has no need to seek additional open doors.  Another way to view this move is to see a greater vulnerability in Eve than that which exists within the character of Adam.  This would be supported by Adam’s lack of mentioning his own frailty. 

DIFFERING VIEWS OF SOLITUDE

                 

Background to Book 9 reveals to us two very different experiences of solitude.  On the one hand, we have Adam experiencing solitude prior to the creation of Eve.  His solitude leaves him feeling highly dissatisfied.  After naming the beasts, he expresses his disappointment to God: “In solitude what happiness, who can enjoy alone?” (Milton, Book 8, 364-365).  Despite the happiness available to him, Adam clearly states that he does not believe that he can enjoy Paradise without a companion with which to enjoy Paradise with.  As Mary Beth Long points out, “Adam’s first use of the term ‘solitude’ is to indicate a lack” (Long, 3).  In this, it seems that Adam notices a lack and determines that this lack is caused by his being alone.  God responds to Adam’s complaint by demonstrating that happiness is available to Adam; Adam is simply refusing experience this pleasure until he has a companion (Milton, Book 8, 399-402).

                 

Although God seems to find a fault in Adam’s stubbornness in these lines, he still recognizes Adam’s request for a mate as something that is good[1].  As a response, God creates Eve.  Since Eve’s creation is a solution to Adam’s solitude, Eve’s purpose for existence (in Adam’s mind) becomes the relief of Adam’s forced loneliness (Long, 4).  Therefore, when Eve desires to leave, Adam is once again experiencing an involuntary solitude.  So, in Adam’s mind Eve is forsaking her God-given purpose for existence.

                 

Adam’s past experiences of solitude were negative.  Adam does not have any positive connotations to solitude from his own experiences.  With this perspective, it can be understood how Adam is unable to imagine that Eve would willingly desire solitude.  In Adam’s understanding the idea of contentment and solitude are as oil and water. 

                 

In contrast, Eve’s experience of solitude was cut short.  She hears a voice call to her, and in responding her solitude comes to an end.  In this, we can infer that Eve did not have a chance to experience enough solitude to see the loneliness of it.  Perhaps she would be on the same page as Adam if she had simply had more time in solitude prior to her introduction to Adam.  Instead, she does not sense a need for a companion prior to her receiving companionship. 

                

 Despite Eve’s eager and determined attitude toward separation from Adam in this scene, it can still be noted that her desire for solitude is as a temporary status.  Her suggestion to Adam that they work independently of one another is simply for one morning and she anticipates reuniting at noon (Milton, Book 9, 219).  Eve’s desire for solitude also seems to be self-focused.  Her self-focus is first seen in Book 4 (lines 449-471) as Eve sees a reflection of herself and seems content to gaze at her own beauty until she is distracted by “a Voice [which] warned” her (467).  Her self-focus is emphasized in this dialogue[2] as Eve expresses her determination to work with the rose bushes.  Contrastly[3], Eve does not express any care over Adam’s location or occupation for the morning.  She encourages Adam to go “where choice leads” him, and never asks him where he is going or what he will be doing (Milton, Book 9, 205f). 

                

Throughout their dialogue, “Adam manages to avoid admitting his unwillingness to let Eve work alone (and to be alone himself) by reminding Eve that Satan is on the loose” (Long, 8).  Perhaps Adam’s self-assurance is genuine and he truly feels that, by himself, he is strong enough to stand against the Fiend’s attack.  Or perhaps it his sense of obligation in protecting Eve which causes him to fear for her vulnerability without considering that he may be likewise susceptible. 

---

[1] Long explains this in describing that God has a different view of solitude and, once Adam grasps an understanding of different perspectives of solitude, God provides Adam with a reward: Eve.  Alternately, we can see that God clearly states that “it is not good for man to be alone” in the Biblical account of Genesis (although, at the end of creating every other thing God stated “it is good”).  While we should not confuse Milton’s depiction with the Genesis narration, the Genesis narration serves as a groundwork for Milton’s depiction and, therefore, we can see simply something that Milton expresses with detail and vividness.

[2] Book 9, 204-411

[3] This is a Deanna-ism meaning “in contrast”

A question to ponder...

I am currently reading Milton's Paradise Lost.  In Book 9, we receive the narration of the fall - the deception of Eve and Adam's decision to eat the forbidden fruit.  (I carefully craft that, for, according to Milton, Eve is deceived and Adam is not, but instead willingly chooses to partake of the fruit Eve offers).

It opens to me a pivotal question.  See, Adam was created by God from the dust of the ground and thereafter Adam sees God face to face and joins in dialogue with God (We are not informed of the frequency of this conversation, either in the Genesis narrative nor in Milton's depiction, at least not from the parts I have read for class.  Yet, we are informed that Adam had dialogue with God at least once in the naming of the animals). 

Yet, when he discovers that Eve has eaten of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he chooses Eve over God.  He chooses "death" (whatever that is, I'm not sure that either Adam or Eve would have been able to understand what death was at this point) with Eve over continuing in Eden with God.  How could he do this?

I think the answer lies in the type of relationship which Adam had with God.  I think the answer is quite simply that we have created a heaven out of Eden, painting a picture of Adam having complete and unhindered access to God.  Yet God is not present when the serpent comes to deceive Eve, nor when Adam discovers Eve's offense.  I think this requires us to re-imagine what Eden was like so that we can better understand why Adam chose Eve over God.

Paradigm shift (#2)

I just love the professors who stretch our thinking... 

One of my professors, Dr. Lubeck, is continuously encouraging us to search for the author's intended meaning as we read and study our Bibles... But then I come up with questions like...

In Ephesians 4, Paul quotes/references to Psalm 68... And then Paul provides an interpretation of what "he ascended" means.  Yet, this interpretation does not line up with the psalmist's intended meaning.  So how do we reconcile this?

I wasn't the only one with questions.  How do we explain foreshadowing in the Old Testament?  For example, Abraham's sacrificing of Isaac is often seen as a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice...  Can we honestly say that was Abraham's intent?  And here is where things get exciting...

Who is the author of Genesis?  Its not Abraham.  So we're not after Abraham's intended meaning (his thoughts), but the author's.  And the author was Moses (this is debatable by some, but that is not central to this argument...).

So what was Moses' intended meaning?

Genesis is not only a recording of historical facts, it is much more.  Genesis opens with "In the beginning"or in the very first days and concludes with "in the days to come" (Genesis 49, NASB) or at the very end.  So Moses understands that what he is recording is both history and prophecy.

But Genesis is just one book of a much larger book.  And when we look at the Bible in its entirety, we discover in Hebrews that Abraham believed that God could raise his son from the dead.  And if he believed that God could raise Isaac his son from the dead, is not possible that he could have believed that God could raise one of his sons from the dead?

As we study, the intended meaning of the author becomes more and more clear...

(This is a very rough description, so if it doesn't make sense... comment with your questions and I'll do my best to explain better!)

Great Conversation

I love how God uses others to shape me.

For weeks, I have been praying (and I continue to pray!) that God will open my eyes and understanding so that I see Him as I study Ezra.  A 21-page term paper which includes a 15-page commentary seems like a really good start!  But my prayer has not been for knowledge only.  I want understanding.  I want God.

I want to see His heart and what He sees.  I want to pursue God as I study Ezra.

Amazing things have been happening as an answer to my prayer.  Really, there are two things, but these two things are happening over and over again and I see each separate event as "another amazing thing!"  (Perhaps miracle, but "miracle" has such a stigma....)

First, excitement.

Typically, whatever I am studying for school is, well, academic.  And when it comes to my devotions, I look for something non-academic so that I can get something which will give me personal application.  When I was in Pentateuch for school, I read John.  When I was in Gospels and Jonah for school, I read Chronicles.  But I am so excited about what I'm learning in Ezra that I find myself reading passages that relate to Ezra in my personal devotion time.

Second, conversation.

Sometimes I bring up what I'm studying (because of the excitement I just mentioned).  Other times, the other person I'm speaking with has actually moved the conversation to Ezra or an idea within Ezra.  And most of those conversations are confirming and sharpening the things I've been seeing.  I walk away from these conversations with confidence that I'm on the right path, and sometimes a little refining of the path as well.

I am so thankful for God's answering of my prayers.  And for the tools (people) He is using in my life to help answer those prayers!  My God is truly amazing.  He deserves my praise!

Beowulf - envy and jealousy

Beowulf has some interesting things to say about envy and jealousy.  On the one hand, it presents jealousy as a socially acceptable motive for violence.  When a death-price isn't paid, the family member has a right to avenge the death of their loved one (which ties to the jealousy they have of that relationship).  But yet, in action, we see Beowulf standing against this type of vengeance.

Similarly, when the dragon has a cup stolen from him Beowulf stands against the dragon's attempts to restore the cup to himself.  This is not quite presented as an acceptable motive, but there is a link between his motive and the motive of Grendel's mother.

At the end of the story, a big question looms: Was it okay for Grendel’s mother and the dragon to seek to avenge the wrongs done to them?  As pointed out previously, when a wrongful death occurred, a death price was supposed to be paid.  It is this very point which is held against Grendel: “he would never make parley… nor pay the death-price” (154-156).  In Seamus Heaney’s translation edited by Daniel Donoghue, a footnote provides insight to this line by explaining, “According to Anglo-Saxon law, a murder or any unlawful killing could be resolved by the payment of a substantial fine to the family of the victim.  It was the society’s means of preventing the cycles of feuds from the beginning” (Donoghue, 7). 

                If this can be held against Grendel, it can be held against Beowulf.  On the one hand, Beowulf’s killing of Grendel is not unlawful, for King Hrothgar has requested it.  On the other hand, the nature of the killing does not give way to being lawful.  There is no mention of a court hearing where Grendel is present.  It is granted that Grendel would likely not have shown up, should a court hearing have been scheduled.  Still, from his mother’s point of view the death would have been unlawful. 

                The dragon had similarly been wronged.  While he slept, an intruder had crept into his howe and selected the dragon’s prized gold-plated cup for himself.  He carried it away and did not leave payment to reconcile the loss.  The dragon in turn begins to search for the stolen cup. 

                Despite the justification which might be provided for both Grendel’s mother and the dragon, Beowulf still steps in to fight both monsters.  More than stepping in to fight them, Beowulf pursues them.  He travels to their homes (or closely nearby) and initiates the battles.  In both cases, it seems that Beowulf is stepping in to preserve the kingdoms and communities which are suffering the consequences of the vengeance of the monsters. 

                When the dragon searches for his cup, he creates a path of destruction.  Homes and lands burst into flame as the dragon breathes fire from the sky.  The bard paints a picture of fire stretching acre upon acre; the Geat land had become a lake of fire.  The dragon’s vengeance is not restrained to the intruder and recovering the stolen cup.  Instead, the dragon’s vengeance reaches “far and near” (2317).

                Similarly, when Grendel’s mother seeks to avenge the loss of her son, she should have been after Beowulf alone.  Instead, she takes the life of Aeschere.  Her vengeance is not restrained to the man who took the life of her son.  Instead, her vengeance reaches into the home of Aeschere, his family, and his friends. 

                When Beowulf attacks and kills Grendel’s mother, the “cycle of feuds” (Donoghue) is put to an end.  The deaths of the Danes were avenged with the death of Grendel and the death of Aeschere was avenged with the death of his mother.  Similarly, when Beowulf attacks and kills the dragon, another cycle of feud is put to an end.  With the death of the dragon comes an end to his harrowing of the land of the Geats.  Beowulf stands up for the nations under attack.  In essence, Beowulf says vengeance is not acceptable, for when it remains unchecked it will destroy a nation.

Beowulf - envy and jealousy

This first post will not be truly about Beowulf the text, but, Lord willing, it will come full-circle in future postings...  Instead, this first post will be primarily about envy and jealousy, a theme which I see within the text Beowulf.

DISTINCTIONS OF ENVY AND JEALOUSY

                What is the difference between envy and jealousy?  This can be particularly difficult for American English speakers.  In American English, we often use the term “jealous” to refer to feelings of both envy and jealousy.  In an article by Stepanova and Coley, where they examined the linguistic differences of these two terms in both English and Russian, they pointed out that American English speakers will express their emotions of envy with the word or term of being jealous. The example Stepanova and Coley use was that of expressing envy over another’s purchase of a new car: “You have a nice car.  I’m so jealous!” (Stepanova & Coley, pg. 5).  In contrast, in Russian, the expression would utilize the Russian equivalent for envy rather than the equivalent for jealousy. 

                Although in American English, the expression of being jealous can refer to a feeling of either jealousy or envy, when we define these two terms we can determine two distinct differences for these emotions.  First, the feeling of jealousy is an emotion which encompasses something that the individual has while the feeling of envy is an emotion which encompasses something that the individual does not have and wants.  Second, the feeling of jealousy typically encompasses a relationship while the feeling of envy typically encompasses an object (Aanderson, 1).  The second of these two distinctions is typical, though not a necessity in defining these terms.

                 The primary distinction is truly that of having and not having... More to come!

Paradigm shift

A piece of what I'm learning in Advanced Bible Study Methods...

Every genre type in the Bible has a specific format which it follows.  Epistles have an opening where the author and receiver are identified, followed by a greeting.  Next comes either a note of thanksgiving or a prayer before the body comes.

The body is characterized by two aspects: an exposition and an exhortation.  In concluding letters, we first see travel information (sending someone, making plans to come, or a wish to come soon) before greetings and/or a blessing.

Look at the epistles in the Bible, you'll see the pattern.

Then, look at 1 John.  Where's the introduction of the author?  Of the receiver?  Hmm.... missing.  Well, where's the greeting?  The prayer?  How about a note of thanksgiving instead?  Hmm... missing.  Since the entire introduction seems to be missing, let's look for the typical conclusion...

Travel information?  Gone.  A greeting or a blessing?  Also absent.  So is this an epistle?

Nope.  Its not.  Its poetry.  And we start looking at all the parallelism (which is the main structure of Hebrew poetry), the "epistle" becomes alive!  Wow, a whole new way to study the book of 1 John.