Eden's Gifts

© 2009, by Catherine Taylor

I am one of those people who thinks in pictures and visualizes what I read and hear, coloring the gaps between words. In my work as a therapist specializing in psychological trauma, I listen to and help my clients learn to bear the stories of painful and horrific events. In my off-work hours something shifts. I cry at commercials. There are newspaper articles I won’t finish. Friends and family put Post-it® notes on book pages telling me to skip reading about some act of pain caused to an animal and then resume reading two paragraphs later.

There are also chapters in the Bible I want to avoid. When Matthew notes the dream of Pilate’s wife, I always find myself whispering to the Roman governor, “Listen to your wife, Pilate! Listen!” The same thing happens when I read Genesis 3. I call out across time to Eve, “Trust the Holy One, Eve! Run from the evil one who has filled the body of the beautiful serpent!” She never listens and the story again unfolds. For me the scenario is heart-breaking each time I read it. I ache because of the pain of knowing what will happen. I also ache for the love of a God who will go to such extremes to rescue us.

Despite my visceral responses, I have spent my life learning the remarkable lessons sent to us from the Garden of Eden. A pattern that struck me recently is that several changes have happened as a result of the sin of our first parents, of the ways that Adam and Eve violated the intentions and principles laid out as creation unfolded. Some of these changes are condemned in the Bible; some are not, even though they do not meet the original ideal or God’s intent.

This paper is meant to initiate and encourage a discussion. I look forward to hearing your questions and responses.

In the Biblical text there are clear descriptions of what will destroy our relationship with God. Eve’s desire to “be like God,” to have the power, knowledge, and immortality without understanding that “the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self sacrificing love” (Desire of Ages, p. 19) replicated the fall of Lucifer because of that angel’s aspirations to selfish power and honor. Adam’s inability to “trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding” led him to mistrust the character of God and God’s plan for what would happen to fallen Eve. He ate the forbidden fruit because he chose not to trust God’s love. One of the first relational results of sin was a pattern of blame and the inability to take responsibility for personal choices that have caused rifts in humans’ interactions with each other and, indeed, with all of creation for millennia. The Bible story provides detailed results of this shift in our nature.

There are, however, some results of sin, changes in our enzymes, brain structure, and neurons for which no condemnation are mentioned. Our digestive enzymes changed. The Edenic plan was for us to eat food (seeds, grains, nuts, legumes, and fruit) for which no plants would die. Adam was given “the plants of the field” to eat. Green leafy vegetables were added to our diet to meet our needs. The synapses and neurons of our brains began to grapple with the emotional and physiological effects of grief, something for which we were not originally programmed. Psychological trauma causes a change in the structure of the brain and is responsible for our inability to manage emotionally intimate relationships. We lost our garment of light.

Human beings in the Bible and post Biblical writings have never been condemned because we had to find clothing constructed of fibers other than light molecules. Nor have we been condemned for grieving or for being traumatized. Other questions might arise: what were the skin tones of the original pair? Are other skin colors the result of our fall? Perhaps the need to adapt to different climates or intensity of sunlight might not have been present if we had stayed in Eden. Why weren’t these changes condemned? What about the differences in brain function that have some people right- or left-handed? Which brain dominance would have been God’s original intent? Why were these variations not condemned? What was God’s original intent for when Earth was fully populated? Would our reproductive systems have retired? Were there other options in the mind of the Omniscient One?

Becoming Berea: Bible Study Methods
As we study the complicated issues faced by fallen humanity, I believe it is important to struggle for an understanding of which effects of sin will keep us from the Heavenly kingdom and which are non-condemned results of sin or loss of God’s original intent. One of the qualities of the Bible that has confused many of its students for centuries is apparent inconsistencies in a variety of contexts. Sometimes one behavior is allowed. Sometimes it is condemned. As a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it is imperative to find those answers inside the Sacred Text. I also believe that the supposed inconsistencies become clear if we utilize the following foundational methods of Bible study:

1. Have an understanding of the difference between

   a. Biblical principles, which are never-changing and eternal.

   b. Biblical policies that have shifted depending on the time in history and context in which the policies were developed.

   c. Biblical practices that are the ways followers of God have lived their lives. Some of these are condemned. Some are not, even though they did not appear to follow God’s original intent.

   d. Biblical present truth. Each age seems to have a specific testing focus, lesson, or truth that faces believers.

   Some believers have not been able to delineate the difference between these aspects of Bible teachings. That confusion has led to decisions and behaviors that have been hurtful to other living beings.

2. Understand the context in which a message, policy, or story was written and the people to whom it was written.
3. Consider the meaning of a word or phrase in the original language and in the context of the Biblical passage in which it is found.
4. Study the object lesson or story illustrating the principle. The Bible uses people, events, places, and rituals to represent spiritual principles. Hebrew is a language that uses concrete words to represent philosophical concepts. It is a culture that clearly understood the meaning of metaphor. One of the great gifts the Hebrew Scriptures give us is the opportunity to gather many levels of truth from structures, events, lives, stories, ceremonies, and holidays.

Biblical Policies
While there were some policies put in place before our fall in Eden, it is easier to track policy shifts once the plan of salvation was activated. Immediately upon leaving Eden, our diet was changed to include the plants of the field, green vegetables. After Noah’s exit from the ark, humanity’s diet was expanded to include clean animals killed in a humane fashion. During the time of Paul, the discussion expanded to consider whether or not to eat food offered to idols.

In Eden the most intimate relationship between mortals was one between two recently created human beings and was designed to last throughout eternity. Immediately after the Fall it was permissible, and indeed imperative, to marry siblings; and the relationship was to last until death. At the time of Abraham it was permissible to marry a half sibling. In Levitical times policy was shifted to forbid intermarriage between siblings. Then it became an abomination to marry even a half sibling. In Levitical times divorce was permitted. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reiterated principles of life-long marital relationships and later noted that in Heaven there would be no marriages at all. While the principle of relational importance has remained sacred, the policies around it have shifted depending on context.

Throughout Biblical history there have been various policies put into place regarding the Sabbath: harvest manna in the previous six days, pick up sticks in the previous six days, care for animals and the vulnerable encouraged, close the gates of the city, etc. Among Seventh-day Adventists today the principle of the Sabbath is sacred, but the policies around that principle are culturally based. In some places children are allowed to go swimming. In some places believers are not allowed to ride bicycles. In some places you can take a bath or shower during the sacred hours. In some places you cannot.

Biblical policies about how the children of God exercised their dominion have included the killing of animals for clothing and for food, the taking of slaves, the expectation that approximately 25% of one’s profit was to be used to alleviate the suffering of the poor, the encouragement of hospitality to the stranger and foreigner, rest for animals on the Sabbath, rest of the land in the seventh year, usury forbidden, freedom from debt in the Jubilee, etc. God met people and nations where they were in their spiritual development and instituted policies that would help those people in that time learn the eternal principles at a pace they could bear.

There were, of course, other policy changes. In Eden we were clothed in light. After the Fall, God made coverings of animal skins. Later textiles were developed. In Levitical times it was forbidden to use clothing made of two different materials. After the Exodus a policy was put in place in which a non-Israelite could not be part of the Hebrew congregation for several generations. After the idolatrous debacle on the borders of Canaan, Moabites (heretofore seen as extended family) were proscribed and made an abomination. During Paul’s ministry, Christian women in Corinth were told to cover their heads to differentiate them from pagan priestesses.

Biblical Practices
For many students of the Bible, some of the most difficult situations or stories described in its pages portray practices or behaviors of God’s followers that do not seem to follow God’s policies but are not condemned in the text. In Genesis 25, Abraham is described as being married to Keturah but still having concubines.

Despite the policy excluding Moabites from Israel until the tenth generation, Ruth, a Moabite woman, marries an Israelite (twice) and becomes a member of the people of Israel. Within three generations, one of her descendants becomes Israel’s most beloved king. Following Biblical policies, David should not have even been a member of the tribe.

I personally have the most difficulty with having Jephthah listed in the Faith Hall of Fame in Hebrews 11. It looks to me like he sacrificed his daughter in some way as part of gaining a military victory.

Esther chooses to enter a polygamous harem relationship with an idolatrous king but is lifted up as a deliverer of her people, risking her life to protect their very existence. In the cases of both Ruth and Esther, the courageous and selfless actions of these women, while not following Biblical policies, are described in language that could make them object lessons of the Messiah. Tamar sets up a situation in which she has sex with her father-in-law, conceives a child, and, instead of being condemned, becomes an ancestor of Jesus.

One of the similarities among all of these people is their willingness to trust Yahweh and follow wherever He leads. Their intent and motive was to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God. In their own time of history, from their own cultures, with their own human flaws, these people chose to follow the principles of Eden, to trust God, to have no others before the Deity. I wonder if these people are an example of mortals who “look on the outward appearance but the Lord looks upon the heart.”

These uncondemned ones are lifted up as heroes of the Bible. It seems that the commitment to build and maintain a relationship with God, the decision to follow wherever God led, and the commitment to the principles of Eden took precedence over the policies, even good policies, of the time.

Present Truth
Despite the fact that God’s character and love, the Great Controversy, and the plan of salvation have remained consistent, there appear to be decision points at various junctures of Biblical history that are tests of faith upon which the future religious experience of God’s people are predicated.

*Do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The principle involved was trust in God and an understanding of our place in dominion. The test was unique for that time period because it was the decision about who would rule Earth.

*Enter the Ark. Was God’s creation willing to accept the object lesson of the plan of salvation for that time?

*Leave Ur and follow Me where I lead you. Are you willing to be the object lesson of following God’s lead on the way back to Eden?

*Have faith that the promised child (to Abraham and Sarah) will be a miracle child conceived only by the intervention of God. Are you willing to trust in God’s word so you can be the object lesson for this time period, based on the needs of this time period, of the miraculous birth of the promised One?

*Separate yourselves from the practices of the heathen people around you. Israel’s incorporation was the intended object lesson of a Heavenly people whose trust in God’s method of sacrifice and power, understanding of God’s dominion and care for others, diet that protected physical, mental, and spiritual health, and observance of the principles of the Sabbath would make them an enticement to the people around them to follow a loving God.

*Christ is the Divine Son of God. Are you willing to accept as the Master of the universe, One who will not free you from the politics of Rome or the tyranny of the rich? Do you want the god of power, or will you understand that God’s power is the power that will serve by washing the feet of others and will focus on protecting the vulnerable?

*Jesus will come again soon. Are we willing to accept that we are not immortal? To accept that our future life rests on Another? Are we willing to worship Him on the same day as Heaven does, in preparation for living there? Are we willing to trust His word? Are we willing to acknowledge His form of dominion and to understand that our place in it is not to use our power against others but to show such nurturing love that they will be drawn to being ready for heaven?

I believe that the concept of working with Biblical principles, policies, practices, and lessons of present truth is vital to the study of any spiritual issue. They help us understand God’s priorities. However, in this paper, I have taken your time and your thought to lay a foundation for discussion of how Bible-believing Seventh-day Adventists can look at four of the Biblical texts used to condemn people who are in same-sex, monogamous relationships. In what ways do our policies reflect the primary principles given to us in Eden? In what ways do they differ? What are the ways we can institute practices that carefully follow Eden’s principles? What is God’s bigger picture?

I would like to note that these thoughts are part of a conversation of many different students of the Bible. Different thoughtful students come to different opinions. This speaks to the complexity of the issue and of the textual nuances.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
Both of these texts are part of the Holiness Code given when Israel was inaugurated into nationhood. Leviticus 17:26 describes a set of policies designed to make certain the Hebrew people would be distinctly different from the pagan cultures around them. In dress, in understanding the meaning of the temple and the sacrificial system, in ceremonial times such as Yom Kippur and the year of Jubilee, in diet, in relationships with each other and with non-Israelites, in the way Israel expressed their trust in God as they observed Sabbath, in the way they learned about dominion as they cared for the earth, animals, and each other, Israel was to stand apart from the violent, self-adsorbed, child-sacrificing, power-hungry nations at their borders. They were to grow from a people inoculated with the superstitions and values of Egypt to citizens of their own nation, living Heaven’s principles.

Israel was to be an object lesson of separateness: nothing co-mingled, no reminders of pagan practices. Prohibitions included: no mingling of seed in the field, no mingling of materials in the cloth, no practices connected with fertility rites.

Sexual intercourse between assumedly heterosexual men was forbidden on several counts:

1. It was a normal part of the forbidden fertility rites. Sexuality was used to gain power, satisfy the local gods, and manipulate life outcomes by pacifying selfish deities. Its precepts assumed a lack of trust in a benevolent God and a desire for power instead of service as a focus of dominion.
2. The Canaanite practice of the anal rape of conquered or subjugated peoples violated God’s principles of care for the vulnerable and replicated the violence and denigration abhorred by God.
3. The seed contained in semen was to be used for procreation, needed at a time when Israel was a small nation still commanded to populate the earth. As part of the separateness code, it was not to be co-mingled with other seed or to be spilled on the ground in an act of selfishness. People who could not produce children were considered cursed.

In this particular policy it is interesting to note that there is no mention of long-term committed sexual relationships between men and nothing at all about same-sex relationships between women.

Seventh-day Adventists are called to be a people who live out Heaven’s principles. As I have said several times, we are a people who want to follow the teaching of the Bible seriously. However, in our studies of the sacred texts we have come to understand that some policies given to Israel in the time of Moses are not applicable to us today. Meat-eating Adventists are not commanded to eat meat flesh killed in the Levitical fashion. Adventist men do not leave the sides of their head unshaved. Adventists are not told to wear clothing made of only one fiber. We have not been commanded to avoid companion planting crops. We do not make slaves of neighboring nations (as far as I know). We do not stone those who either do not keep Sabbath or keep it differently than we deem appropriate (as far as I know).

Today, the means by which followers of Yahweh are differentiated are based on non-Levitical criteria. Ellen White has mentioned that the two worst sins in the church are self-righteous self-sufficiency and back-biting. We are to be set apart and noted for avoiding those behaviors. She has suggested that, as a relationship practice, “not until you feel that you could sacrifice your own self-dignity, and even lay down your life in order to save an erring one…are you prepared to help your brother” (Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 128.) We have been commanded to follow the practices described in Isaiah 58 and I Corinthians 13 as well as to learn and follow the meaning of Sabbath rest, trusting in God, eating a diet healthy for us, understanding that only God is immortal, and knowing that it is Jesus who, by returning, will rescue the world from the mess we have created. While Ellen White repeatedly mentions the sanctity of marriage, no where does she say it is only between a man and a woman; nowhere in her writings does she condemn long-term committed same sex relationships.

Ellen White does condemn the “strange sin of Sodom.” If we follow her practice and see how the Bible describes that strange sin, we will find in Ezekiel 16:49: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom. She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things.” This certainly fits with God’s focus on our mandates of protective and nurturing dominion.

Ellen White wrote extensively on sexual morays, but did not specifically address homosexual behavior or orientation. What is interesting about her choice not to address the issue is that the concept was well-known in her lifetime. The first papers on sexual orientation came out of Europe in the 1840s and the term was in common usage in America by the 1890s. For many years, some writings of Ellen White were used to justify the church position against homosexuality, but these references had to be withdrawn when further review showed that Ellen White was addressing inhospitality rather than condemning gays and lesbians. In the latest 1999 Policies adopted by the Annual Council of the Seventh-day Adventist Church you will find no reference to Ellen White as a footnote or supporting comment.

Like the children of Israel, Adventists are to be a people set apart, a people noted for their love, belief in the mortality of humankind, healthy diet, belief in the Sabbath, and an expectation of the soon return of Christ. Do our policies and our practices demonstrate the principles that have been set before us?

Romans 1
…is a holy diatribe, a remarkable and riveting denunciation of those who have refused to follow Yahweh. Paul begins his epistle by sharing his eagerness to “preach the gospel…. I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God” (vs. 15, 16). With that statement he proclaims his focus and intent to compel his listeners to understand the import of his message. The good news or “present truth” of his day was that the creating, covenant-keeping, selfless, redeeming Deity had appeared in the flesh as Jesus. Paul’s proclamation of this gospel underlined the love of God for all created beings and delineated the methods he had used to reach mortals. “For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. Men are without excuse” (vs. 20). The rocks have cried out. The lessons of creation have been available to anyone who would listen. The loving Master of the universe used that very universe to give, even to those who did not have access to the Hebrew Scriptures, lessons of salvation. The falling rain and mist rising to the clouds have been lessons of unselfishness. The care animals have for their young have demonstrated the way their Creator cares for us. They are a call to trust the teachings of that Creator, to partake of the character of the Yahweh.

Paul is speaking to a Christian congregation surrounded by a city where the cult of Aphrodite was one of the primary sources of worship. Like the Canaanite fertility practices, this cult used sexual intercourse as a way to gain power from the pagan gods to influence various aspects of their lives. Despite examples in nature of the way dominion was designed to be demonstrated and of the God of nature who could be trusted, those lusting after power or wealth or position would exchange “natural” relationships that would be normative in their lives, for cult prostitutes (either male or female). This focus on power was a perversion of the way Yahweh has always wanted to show God’s love to fragile humanity.

If we follow the Bible study practice of looking at the context, understanding the principles, being aware of the present truth for that time we can understand Paul’s concern and frustration with those who have had the gospel before them in nature and have refused to learn its lessons. The sexual acts Paul mentions are in the context of stubborn and condemned idolatry. It is a condemnation of an inappropriate use of power to “sway” the gods. In a rare tipping of the hat to a stereotype that women are pictured as being loving tenders of home and hearth, Paul notes that even women in Rome participated in idolatrous acts as part of their lust for power. The results are a clear description that is the antithesis of a loving God; indeed, a portrait of the evil ones. “They have become full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are slanderers, insolent, arrogant, boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless” (vs.29, 30).

Paul is not describing loving, long-term monogamous relationships. He is describing selfish, greedy, idolatrous worship practices performed with the goal of power reminiscent of fallen angels. No wonder he is concerned, forceful, and vocal.

When we attempt, in order to meet our own agendas, to convince believers that Paul had another focus, we are diminishing the power of his call to follow Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God. We are diminishing Paul’s plea to turn away from all that is a lust for power and to begin to follow a God who chose to be dulos (lowest of the house slaves) in order to reach all of us (Philippians 2:6). We are distracting others from the prime message of the gospel.

I Corinthians 6:9
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor male prostitutes nor malakoi nor arsenokoitai nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Malakoi carries the connotation of softness, those who live luxuriously in palaces where soft living was the mark of the oppressor. Arsenokoitai is composed of two words, arsen (male) and koite (the term for bed or, euphemistically, sexual behavior). The use of the term seems to indicate sexual behavior that was self-centered or used to exploit others, much like the Greek male tradition of having young boys as sexual objects. Today we would call that behavior sexual abuse or rape.

These terms, along with the other descriptors of those who cause harm, parallel Old Testament texts describing why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom. She and her daughters were overfed and unconcerned. They did not help the poor and the needy” (Ezekiel 16:49). This focus is reflected in Isaiah 58: “Is this not the fast I have chosen: to lose the chains of injustice…to set the oppressed free…to share your food with the hungry, to provide the poor wanderer with shelter (vs. 6, 7); and in the teachings of Jesus who quoted it. The people described in I Corinthians 6:9 are violating God’s principle of dominion. They are living for self. They offer a cup of cold water to no one. Indeed, they cause harm to the vulnerable.

The soft-living motif of malakoi is in direct contrast to the spiritual goals of Paul. He famously compares the practice of the Christian walk to athletic training and warfare preparation. Living a loving, selfless life calls for a well-honed spiritual constitution. Given the marked contrast between God’s principle of dominion—care for the vulnerable (human, animal, or planet)—and the selfishness listed here in this text, it would make sense that the people who insisted on opportunistic behaviors would not have a place in the kingdom of God.

Again, the textual discussion and condemnation is not about an orientation that leads to life-long, monogamous relationships. It is a call to return to the principles of Eden: Heaven-like dominion, selfless interactions between humanity, worship of the true God, and acknowledgement of His creatorship. The policies we have read over today are denunciations of idolatry or of the denigration of human beings, in several of its forms.

For Us Today
Ironically, the principles expressed in the verses often referred to as “the clobber texts” are focused on trusting God, understanding that dominion means service, and growing into the unselfish nature of our Loving Re-creator. When these texts are used to clobber others, they are doing the opposite of the intention of the writer and of the One who inspired the writers. They tear down a person’s sense of worth before God, they destroy the ability to have emotionally intimate and honest relationships, they create an environment of fear and mistrust, they twist the meaning of the Bible authors, and thereby, I believe, “bear false witness” against them. They misrepresent the character of God.

Some have used these verses to suggest gay and lesbian people should not have the same choice offered to heterosexual Seventh-day Adventists: to marry someone to whom they are attracted or to remain celibate. These people say that lesbian and gay people should seek their salvation by marrying heterosexual people or by being celibate. Imagine the harm to the self-esteem of a heterosexual mate wondering why he or she is not found sexually desirable. Imagine the effect of being forced to live a celibate life when all the research indicates that people in loving relationships live longer. To deliberately ask people to make choices that will shorten their life is a form of genocide. I cannot believe that a God who focused a desire for intimacy would promote these options. How can people grow to understand the relational object lesson given to us in Eden—the intimacy between members of the Deity—unless we can grow in a relationship with someone with whom we can share the deepest levels of emotional/sexual intimacy? It would be denying us the opportunity to learn one of the fundamental gifts of Eden.

One of the great gifts of our Seventh-day Adventist heritage is our history of corporate spiritual self-examination. We have pitted our policies and practices against Biblical principles and made changes through time. At one point Ellen White told her son not to focus on the work with black African-Americans in the American South. At one point in time we had pork at potlucks. When Ellen White sat for a portrait now hung in the General Conference office, she was wearing a coral necklace. We have ordained women pastors, not ordained them, and are now considering ordaining them again. We have been saddened by divorces. After Ellen White’s death we made a policy disfellowshipping people who remarried after a divorce. Today, in practice, many congregations ignore that policy, understanding the complicated possibilities for the break up of a relationship. We are not a church of creeds. Ellen White wrote that the truth will continue to dawn as the day approaches. We have a history and an encouragement to improve our policies, our corporate practices, and our personal behaviors as we better understand God’s priorities.

In a time when the children of Israel believed that all illness or variations from God’s original intent was caused by sin, a blind man came before Jesus. One of the disciples asked, “Who sinned, this man or his parents that he should be born blind?” Jesus replied, “Neither this man sinned or his parents. This happened so that the work of God can be manifested in his life” (John 9:1-3).

Could it be, in the issue of dealing with our lesbian, gay, transgender, and intersex Adventist “siblings,” that no one sinned? Could it be that “this happened so that the work of God can be made manifest”? Could it be that in following the counsel of Isaiah to lift the heavy burdens that we will develop new ways of interacting with and embracing our church family?

What think ye?

Special appreciation to Ben Kemena who continued to make me think deeper and write more clearly.