Genesis 2 has been interpreted from many angles, but rarely through the lens of disability studies. Such a reading, however, provides a necessary corrective to interpretations that import into the text idealistic notions of bodily perfection and thereby inadvertently disenfranchise those with disabilities. By attending to the range of bodily experiences and the fluidity of embodied existence, this article seeks to shed new light on Genesis 2 and on the wider task of theological anthropology. More specifically, reading Genesis 2 with and for those with disabilities lifts up three essential themes in the text that all express human limitation as a good aspect of God’s creation: embodiment, imperfection, and relationship.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Nyasha Junior and Jeremy Schipper, “Disability Studies and the Bible,” in New Meaning for Ancient Texts, eds. Steven L. McKenzie and John Kaltner (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013), 21. See also the important recent treatments on disability studies and the Bible they cite on p. 37, and the collection of essays in Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper, eds., Disability Studies and Biblical Literature (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).
E.g., Jeremy Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story (New York/London: T & T Clark, 2006).
E.g., Adela Yarbro Collins, “Paul’s Disability: The Thorn in His Flesh,” in Disability Studies and Biblical Literature, eds. Candida R. Moss and Jeremy Schipper (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 165-83.
Ibid., 31.
Ibid., 31-32.
Ibid., 109.
Creamer, Disability and Christian Theology, 18. Also, see my discussion in section i (“Embodiment”) below.
See, e.g., Moltman-Wendel, I am My Body, 1. For more examples of recent scholarly works on the body, see Creamer, Disability and Christian Theology, 4 and the sources she cites there.
Ibid., 56.
Fretheim, God and World, 55; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall / Temptation: Two Biblical Studies (New York: Touchstone, 1997), 52.
M. D. Johnson, trans., “Life of Adam and Eve,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 281.
H. E. Gaylord, Jr., trans., “3 (Greek Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 669.
Ibid., 56. In Christian theology, this “dynamic” view of creation is developed further by, e.g., Wolfhart Pannenberg, who interprets the “image of God” (from Gen. 1:26-28) teleologically. That is, the “image of God” is not an “original state” but “a human destination to communion with God” (Anthropology in Theological Perspective, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985], 74; for his entire discussion on this topic, see 43-79). For Pannenberg, “a disposition for the likeness to God exists in factors in the initial human state” but “the essence of a human being is seen as a destiny that will be achieved only in the future” (ibid., 58). Although this teleological view of human nature differs from some traditional formulations of humankind’s original perfection, it is not a modern invention. Indeed, it dates back to the first great theologian of the church, Irenaeus, who taught that humans originally possessed the image of God, but not the likeness of God. In other words, for Irenaeus, “perfection” was not an initial state but an end goal (Adv. Haer.iv, 38, 2ff.).
Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972), 230.
Jean Vanier, Becoming Human (New York: Paulist Press, 1998), 45.
Ibid., 46.
Jürgen Moltmann, “Liberate Yourselves by Accepting One Another,” in Human Disability and the Service of God: Reassessing Religious Practice, eds. Nancy L. Eiesland and Don E. Saliers (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 110.
Stanley Hauerwas, “Timeful Friends: Living with the Handicapped,” in Sanctify Them in the Truth: Holiness Exemplified (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 147.
Fretheim, God and World, 54. For more on this theme, see Ellen F. Davis, Getting Involved with God: Rediscovering the Old Testament (Cambridge, ma: Cowley, 2001), 191-95; ibid., Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), esp. 28-31.
Jean Vanier, Becoming Human, 28. Cf. John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminar/London: dlt, 1985), 17.
Ibid., 66.
Moltmann, “Liberate Yourselves by Accepting One Another,” 122.
Ibid., 32.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 509 | 90 | 28 |
Full Text Views | 313 | 12 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 229 | 31 | 3 |
Genesis 2 has been interpreted from many angles, but rarely through the lens of disability studies. Such a reading, however, provides a necessary corrective to interpretations that import into the text idealistic notions of bodily perfection and thereby inadvertently disenfranchise those with disabilities. By attending to the range of bodily experiences and the fluidity of embodied existence, this article seeks to shed new light on Genesis 2 and on the wider task of theological anthropology. More specifically, reading Genesis 2 with and for those with disabilities lifts up three essential themes in the text that all express human limitation as a good aspect of God’s creation: embodiment, imperfection, and relationship.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 509 | 90 | 28 |
Full Text Views | 313 | 12 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 229 | 31 | 3 |