{N}1,{/}1 "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth..." The traditional expression: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." is not the precise meaning of the original Hebrew. The most accurate would be, "When God began his creating work of the heavens and the earth..." The Hebrew verb "to create" is an activity proper to God, however, it does not signify "to make from nothing." The sense may be either "to make" or "to form". Therefore, the author was not stressing, that "God made...the heavens, the earth, and all that is in it...from nothing..." as the author of 2 Maccabees states (2Mac 7,28). Rather, the Hebrew author is saying that no order or harmony was ever or will ever be possible unless God brings it about. The author deliberately avoided the philosophical questions that had no interest for the Jews, about the relations between the time and the universe. 

{N}1,{/}3 {N}GOD SPEAKS{/}
We said in the commentary that this first chapter was something like a preface to the first nucleus of biblical books which Ezra assembled, that is, the Books of Moses and the Prophets (Ne 8; 2 Mac 2,13).
We discover something very distinct about Genesis 1, if we compare its contents to the cosmologies and myths of ancient peoples. By {C}cosmologies{/} we mean their ancient writings about the formation of the universe, and by the {C}myths {/}we understand the legendary stories relating ostensibly to historical events as their way of conveying their traditional cultural beliefs about order in the world. When we compare these to the Genesis story, we discover that Genesis states things that the others do not. One of the most important of these is its emphasis on the words: "God said."
{N}A GOD WHO SPEAKS{/}
To present the Bible simply as a divine teaching would seriously reduce our understanding of revelation. Of course there are teachings, but more important is the fact that God speaks. What a decisive revelation this is about the Who or the What which is Eternity Itself! Without hesitation we dismiss such secondary questions as: Is he a conscious being? Does he know us? Can he communicate with his creation? Does he expect something from us? Very few philosophers have dared to give positive answers to these questions.
Namely, God communicates Himself and expects an answer from us. Beyond the universe, its immenseness, its mysteries, its shadows, and its lights, Someone exists who unleashed an adventure of incalculable consequences. And the greatest risk of this adventure is that He started a dialogue with his creatures. To start a conversation might mean several things for us. It might be to give an order or to ask for something. However, by speaking I am figuratively knocking at someone's door to let him know that I exist, or to provoke that person to investigate if he or she really exists. And when that person listens to me, I also know that I exist and count for something.
Christian revelation is not primarily a law from Heaven for us to follow under penalty of failure or punishment. God is "the Other" who awakens in us our own consciousness and leads us out of our solitude. This is the point of departure for understanding God's call to numerous prophets: to Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah and many more. Any call from God awakens in the recipient a new awareness of himself, while giving him the capacity to fulfill the mission he received. In this sense, the entire biblical story can be seen as the work of prophets. 
God is a God who speaks. He did not wait to do so until there were creatures capable of hearing him, rather he spoke first to himself. The Word is in God from the beginning. It is his own Wisdom, and He does not know it except by giving it life within his own being, and later bringing it back to Himself in order to share its own fullness. This mystery of the God-who-speaks-to-Himself, or of the Father, who expresses Himself in his Son, is at the origin of creation, and for this reason our world is a world in which God speaks.

{N}1,{/}29 "I have given you every seed-bearing plant." God distributes to each one the food that corresponds to them. One way humans differ from animals is in consuming the grains that they themselves cultivate. This calls to mind the great economic and cultural revolution that took place when humans settled on the land to cultivate it and raise animals, marking the beginning of what we call the Neolithic Era.
Why doesn't it mention meat? Neither does the Bible at any time praise a vegetarian diet, except for those who "ate vegetables" (2Mac 5,27; Dan 1,12) in order not to defile themselves with the "unclean meats" of sacrificed animals. Another motive for not mentioning meat might be to indicate that God's plan excludes all violence, even the killing of animals. In this case, God is presented as the sole owner of the soul and blood (life), even of animals (Lev 17,4), and only He can authorize humans to kill, both for divine worship and for their own nourishment. He will grant this authorization after the Flood, when He proclaims his covenant with all the peoples of the earth. On the other hand, the Hebrew author could not have mentioned this subject without also distinguishing between pure and impure animals, which goes beyond the perimeters of his chapter.

{N}1,{/}31{N} GOD'S REFLECTION{/}
"God saw that it was good." Here, "good" means primarily: well done, coherent, ordered according to importance, prepared to receive humanity and to support human life. The Hebrew author shows no appreciation for the beauty of creation, or at least he doesn't mention it. Outside of the Song of Songs, the Book of Job, and some Psalms, we find little emotion expressed in the Bible about the beauty of creatures. But then, the Christian world didn't demonstrate much appreciation for creation's beauty as a revelation of God for many centuries either.
The development of a scientific culture in recent centuries motivated commentators of Gen 1 to consider the universe as an immense machine. They expressed wonder at the many laws of nature in marvelous order that manifested the great wisdom of their author (cf. Rom 1,18-20). He was its inventor, architect, or supreme engineer. But perhaps the artists got closer to the essence of God with their concepts of beauty: God the artist, dancer, lover, and father. Creation is a reflection of God who is an infinitely munificent being. After expressing Himself in Himself as the Word or the Son of God, He projects his image in numberless beings that are spirits, as He is Spirit. They are free and creators of beauty, somewhat as He is freedom that continually creates new, beautiful, and unexpected things, situations, and persons. And from reflection to reflection, from spirits to matter, the beauty and creativity become stars, living beings, and human hearts.
As soon as we perceive creation as a participation and a reflection of what God is, it isn't difficult to go a step higher to believe in the creation of a spiritual world that the visible universe depends upon, as the Bible insinuates. But are they two separate creations, one visible, the other spiritual, or is the universe one, as the Bible indicates? The Israelites viewed the spirits as messengers and bearers of God's decrees (Is 37,36; Dan 9,21; Zech 1-2; Heb 1,7). In that tradition we can view them as givers of intelligence and beauty in all aspects of the world during the first six days. The fact that Genesis 1 places such emphasis on God the Creator, should not stop us from giving the spirits an essential role in creation. They prepared the material agents that shaped our planet. They became the artists and inspirers of the deeply mysterious evolution of living beings. The Fathers of the Church with their platonic formation shared this vision of the spirits, and just a century ago Cardinal John Newman also defended it.

{N}3,{/}1 {N}INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE
FUNDAMENTALISM{/}
Our interpretation of chapters 1 to 3 of Genesis differs greatly from the literal interpretations of the last century, as if those biblical pages were describing how God created the world and especially human beings. And our interpretation of Adam's sin is also different. This development invites us to say something about distinct ways of interpreting Scripture and about the inspiration of the Bible.
Our changed perspective results from the different way in which we answer the following question: Is it possible that Scripture be the Word of God valid for all times, if it is proved that the human authors wrote that Word with all the personal and cultural limitations of their times? How can we sort out these seemingly contradictory components in order to discover the lasting message that is specifically valid for us now? Let's examine different responses to that question.
Let's hear first about the fundamentalist interpretation. A fundamentalist reads Scripture as he does the daily newspaper, as if it were something happening now. He doesn't ask what the ancient author himself was experiencing or what symbolic meaning his words might have had in that culture over two thousand years ago, nor how God might have been inspiring an even more profound message through what was being written. The fundamentalist focuses only on the page in front of him, myopically believing that each idea and each text was inspired by God exactly as the modern reader views them now. In so doing he overlooks two aspects of this same word:
First, the word does not communicate its message to anyone unwilling to hear how the author himself understood it.
Second, any page or particular book loses value as the Word of God if the reader separates it from the rest of Scripture. Why? Because each book has its own limited perspective and today's reader must have in mind the overall view so as not to be blinded by a limited viewpoint.
Anyone who does not situate particular texts in their specific time and circumstances misses the dimension that Scripture acquired through the gradual pedagogy of God. The Holy Spirit has been revealing the Holy Story incrementally since the very beginning, from the time of the Patriarchs and prophets until the coming of Jesus and the Apostles. And the Spirit revealed the Word through a myriad of human efforts and factors, nationally and internationally, in order to make the revelation destined for the world grow and mature in Israel. Anyone not recognizing this pedagogical process going on within the life of God's people, may indeed talk about the Holy Story, but only from the superficial perspective of wars and tests of the unfaithful Israelites and of God's manifestation of his justice and mercy. Such a shallow reading overlooks the time and circumstances in which each book was written as well as the specific focus that each author brought to his work, in addition to the contemporary level of religious maturity of his community. Each factor colors one's reading as much as daylight, shadows, and darkness influence one's sight.
A fundamentalist's interpretation distorts Scripture particularly when applied to the first chapters of Genesis. First, he ignores how much the ancient mythological stories of the Middle East influenced the story of Eden. They were written and extensively incorporated into those cultures centuries before the biblical story appeared. Later, the fundamentalist interprets these chapters literally as if God had dictated them to the holy author as an eyewitness account of what He had done in the beginning. As an example: He took clay (even though God has no hands) and He breathed (without a mouth). God spoke to the first man (even though languages did not exist then) and He named him Adam (a name that would have meaning only many centuries later when the Hebrew language was formed). And a talking serpent came to the woman (but she was not surprised that the serpent spoke to her)... 
Actually, we should not condemn fundamentalists too severely, since the Jews, Jesus himself, and the Apostles interpreted Scripture to a certain degree in the same way. Why? Because they did not have the scientific vision of history that we have today nor our understanding of the influences of each distinct culture on Scripture. For example, they were not aware that the so-called "Books of Moses" were written several centuries after him, and even after the books of the prophets. Jesus' contemporaries were also convinced that David had written all the Psalms. A moderating factor to this historical, scientific ignorance was that the same Hebrew culture that had produced these books provided continuity for later generations. Similarly, the tradition of the synagogue where Jews read and commented the Scriptures weekly limited possible excesses that might result from interpretations outside of the Jewish scriptural context. 
To illustrate how interpretation out of context can have disastrous effects, let's take another look at Adam and the Garden of Eden. The name, Adam, means both: Father of the race, as well as the race as a whole-humanity, as was customary among nomadic people. Nomads claimed to be direct descendants from a specific mythical founder of their tribe, e.g., Abraham, as well as to be of the tribe of Abraham. 
Another example of how interpretation out of context distorts the original story is the fifth century theologizing of Adam's Original Sin. Though writers of Jesus' time and Paul himself comment the relation between Adam's sin and death, they did not consider Adam's disobedience any differently than any other collective action. In fact it is impossible to find in the gospels any allusion to this individual sin. However, Christian theologians who had forgotten how to read Hebrew stories as Jews did, interpreted Adam's story literally as do fundamentalists today. Theologians began to teach that the punishment of death and hell for all humanity resulted from a single sin of a certain Adam. That interpretation made out of its original cultural context has had disastrous consequences.
However, we may dare to infer that Jesus and the Apostles suffered from a certain degree of fundamentalism that did not permit them to recognize many aspects of God's pedagogy in the biblical texts. For them the damage was not great because they lived in times in which God's pedagogy through historical changes did not affect religious culture or the values of daily life. And the Law directed as much the relationships between the believers with non-Jews, as the rules of conduct in all the different areas of existence. It was of less importance for the believers whether they saw history as a pedagogy of God and that they also read about the lived experiences and events as if they were set out by God to guide and instruct us (see however Mt 16,2).
Their faith that had been transmitted to them through their community and their family imposed before anything else the absolute observance of a detailed code of conduct. The options were simple: Follow the Law or be outcast as a rebel. The Law determined as much the relationships between believers and non-Jews, as the minute conduct of Jews at every moment of daily life. At that time it was not necessary for the believers to see history as a pedagogy of God and to read his will through the events and national or worldwide cultural changes (See however Mt 16,2).
The cultural revolutions of our century, specifically the second half of it, have put us back on the path of questioning things. Whether we try to separate church teaching that is transitory from what cannot change, or whether we try to understand rapid developments within church communities, we have to return to the process of change evident in Scripture where we witness faith that has been actually lived. And this is where a fundamentalist vision can paralyze us if we attempt to reconcile the many diverse and often contradictory testimonies within Scripture into a religion codified by God Himself. That would turn the Word of God into a catechism supported by Scripture, but no longer a Word capable of giving life.

{N}3,{/}22 We said in the commentary, that this sentence and God's anger regarding the knowledge that Adam had acquired, came directly from the Babylonian myths whose mythological images the Hebrew author had borrowed. Do we necessarily have to conclude then, that these are inaccurate expressions resulting from the human author's own limitations and which God Himself respects, just as He respects our freedom? Possibly. 
However, Jn 10,35 quotes Jesus stating firmly, "Scripture is always true." It may be that this ingenuous expression, "you are gods," kept by a learned man at the time of Solomon is there to invite us to go deeper into the mystery of our freedom. We said in the commentary that the knowledge prohibited to Adam is the questionable art of living by which believers search for guidance where the law of God is ignored. The knowledge and happiness found there are no more than an illusion, with the result that humans become aware of nothing more than their own nakedness and subsequent death. All of this is implied in Scripture. However, there is another way to understand the text. As long as we see no more that the imperative command of God, this text seems to deal only with God's authority and Adam's obedience, not with the totality of our freedom and our destiny. However it is sure that God sees and expects from us much more than obedience, as Jesus tells us in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
We would seriously limit our concept of God if we confined Him to moralizing, since human nature is infinitely richer and God's view of and passionate love for us embrace far more than what mere categories of right and wrong define. All that has been said regarding obedience to the law remains valid, because discipline (the law) is a necessary condition for attaining freedom. But beyond that, God acts as the very source of our freedom, awakening our curiosity to know, to discover, to act with independence, to experience love, and even to break the rules. 
In this second interpretation of "you are gods," which does not discount the first, God allows humans to experience freedom, warning them that they would be playing a dangerous game: The more you learn, the more you suffer (Qo 1,18). Man wanted to acquire knowledge equal to the immortals. God disapproved this as a contradiction to the pedagogy of the Law and human nature, although He rejoiced that Adam wanted to challenge his own limitations. "You will be like gods", said the serpent, and this was partially true. God welcomed the sight of humans in a tension between two freedoms (Gen 32, 29). In practice, however, their thirst for freedom would be paid with death in a world governed by the evil spirit, according to John's Gospel. Consequently, the liturgy ironically calls human guilt a "happy fault," and Jesus warns that "scandals will necessarily come" (Lk 17,1).
God's perspective of human nature, according to the parable of the merciful father (prodigal son), is not like a policeman's vigilance, keeping track of good and bad actions. Such a distortion disfigures the fantasy filled, risking, and liberty loving God of the Bible who alone in the perspective of eternity makes sense out of this disconcerting, painful world of ours.

{N}3,{/}24 In Mesopotamia, the cherubim were guards of the gods' residences. Statues of these divine guardians, positioned at the entrance of Assyrian temples, contained the mixed features of a lion and a bull, a human face with a beard and miter, and two wings. These sacred animals inspired the vision in Ez 1. The symbol of the flaming sword was based on the posts positioned at the entrance to Babylonian cities, whose function it was to fire out curses against possible attackers. 

{N}4,{/}9 {N}AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER?{/}
The Bible incorporates a legendary figure here that in its original version describes Cain as the stronger of two brothers and the founder of a people. That legend follows the law of nature and lets the stronger one triumph, unimpeded by any desire for justice. There have always been tranquil societies and aggressive races, vegetarians and predators. The barbarian invasions that history tells us about were carried out by conquering races that still dominate the world. And these same "barbarians," after their conversion to Christianity, spread the Gospel and extended their dominating spirit into all areas of life, including sports and science. The liberalism that they imposed accelerated the unification of the world, which fits very well into God's plan. However, they generally accomplished this by irrevocably destroying the cultures and civilization that their victims had patiently constructed.   
The weakness of welfare systems is as evident as how often they have been misused. But that does not legitimize the ever increasing inequality between the rich minority and the vast multitude of the poor which demonstrates how legitimate systems can be abused by unbridled liberty. The prophets confronted these same injustices in the Kingdom of Israel where the rich expropriated the lands of the poor even by legal means (Is 10,1-4; Mi 2,1-10). In today's complex society it is even more difficult to distinguish good people from evildoers, especially if the latter call themselves Christians, asking the same question that Cain did: "Am I my brother's keeper?" 
In the complexity of today's global economy, it is even more difficult to formulate a solution. Certainly, we can expect that wherever believers respond to the proclamation of the Gospel, whether publicly or in secret, prophets will arise and moral revolutions will occur. 

{N}4,{/}15 {N}JUSTICE IS MINE{/} 
The Bible, from beginning to end, frequently denounces violence. In every age, those wanting to avenge the Cains of society do so unaware that violence is inbred in human nature and permeates their own desire for justice. Today's victim will be tomorrow's malefactor (Is 14,1-2; Ps 137,9). Repeatedly the Bible reminds us that God indeed is a just God, but one who administers justice differently than we do. Consequently, it would be better to translate the frequent text, "He avenges Himself," with, "God vindicates Himself" (Is 61,2). Vengeance normally implies taking revenge to satisfy one's thirst to dominate and to be right. God never imposes Himself nor needs to be right. How could our evilness, pride, or blasphemy bother him (Mk 3,28)? In no way is He in competition with us.
Justice is God's main quality, speaking in human terms. Divine justice fulfills an order that cannot fail, since it expresses in the world and in time the eternal order that is in God Himself. The dominant character of God's Justice does not, however, nullify his infinite mercy. Rather, it reminds us that his forgiveness is never a blanket amnesty (Ex 32,33-35) or weakness of heart. Scripture tells us a number of times that although God forgives us, He makes us pay in some way (Ex 20,5). God's forgiveness erases all anger in Him and works for the good of the sinner. Nevertheless, a price must be paid for this rehabilitation as well as to reestablish charity and the giving of self in the world.
In this text God condemns vengeance and, more exactly, tribal and family vendettas unrelated to his justice or to ways leading to its realization. But it is not enough to say this. All of our efforts to avenge ourselves, that is, to take into our own hands the settling of a score, only prevent God from intervening in our favor. The only way to facilitate God's intervention is to give up our own cause (1Sam 24,14 (12). This doesn't mean that we cannot or should not use legal means. But our duty to fight against injustice is no more urgent than our duty to listen to the small warning in the Gospel: "From the one who takes your coat, do not keep back your shirt" (Lk 6,29). Once again we encounter the mystery of God. Caught in the tension between these two obligations, we must choose according to the circumstances of the moment and to one's own charisma the path that best expresses the will of God for us. Letting God decide how to defend us is like throwing Him a challenge, and He loves it!
The story of Cain marks the first step on the road leading to the Sermon on the Mount, which leads us to true knowledge of God and his justice.

{N}4,{/}26 {N}ORIGINS{/}
"At that time people began to call on the name of Yahweh." This is a very interesting fact, because different authors contributed to the writing of Genesis. Both the earlier authors of the more ancient traditions as well as the priests writing the later parts agree that the name of Yahweh was given by God to Moses. This most intimate name that God taught his people to invoke was Israel's exclusive treasure (Ex 3,15). Priests in the fifth century stressed that this name had not been revealed to the earlier patriarchs (Ex 6,3). Nevertheless, they conserved ancient traditions intimating that Moses had been influenced by Midianite religious traditions. That is a conclusion from the reference of Moses' relationship with Jethro, priest of Midian (Ex 2; 18). Moreover, traces of worship before Moses to a god named Yahweh have been found in certain parts of the Sinai, which does not diminish in the least God's revelation to him. In fact, it doesn't matter whether or not the name existed earlier in some corner of the world, since only with Moses does it designate the God of gods who chose Israel.
Genesis' first author recognized the antiquity of the worship of Yahweh by having the patriarchs invoke his name throughout the entire patriarchal story. But it is here in Genesis where the worship of Yahweh explicitly begins, and it is Adam's grandson who initiates it. Possibly this text infers that God was present in the history of humankind from its very beginnings. The same thing will be expressed again in Yahweh's pact with Noah in chapter 8,20-22.

{N}5,{/}1 {N}GENEALOGIES{/}
A first reading reveals two very different hands in the genealogies of 4,17-26 and 5,1-30. Variations can be found in Noah's descendants and in the genealogies in 9,28; 10,1-7; 11,10-25.
The older author was responsible for the first pattern, which develops more extensive stories about Cain and Abel, Noah and the tower of Babel, forming with them a single design. These genealogies should not be understood as a list of specific ancestors, but rather as a human chain linking this ancient people with present day humankind. The names refer not to individuals, but to tribes and cities that Israel dealt with or heard about. The author does not distinguish between religious and cultural events, but rather shows God acting in the whole life of the world thereby giving it continuity and meaning. It does, in some way, what we ourselves tried to do in the present edition of the Bible with our Introduction, "Before the Bible." 
The later genealogies are the work of priests who were not concerned about the cultural factors we noticed in the earlier ones. They limited themselves to recalling names, the length of each one's life, and their descendants. Their intention was to document an unbroken chain linking the first father to contemporary times. They also indicated that human life span was decreasing with each generation.

{N}6,{/}9 The paragraphs in Italics indicate texts inserted by priests into the primitive stories in the times of the Exile in Babylon. They do not use "Yahweh," the holy name revealed to Israel, when referring to God. Neither do they attribute typically human emotions to God (cf. 6,6). Violence, more than anything else is the cause of corruption in the world. God's vision of the universe goes beyond the limited one of the first writers at the time of Solomon. This time, major importance is not given to the distinction between what is pure and impure: God wants to save at least "a rest" of the world He has created it.

{N}9,{/}24 The paragraph dedicated to Ham does not point as much to him as to Canaan, which here represents the people of the earth conquered by Israel. Ham's other children: Cush, Mizraim, the tribes from southern Arabia (10,6-7), are not criticized by the Bible, even when they are enemies that the Lord must defeat and punish. In the case of Canaan, on the other hand, devout Israelites saw nothing but sexual license, infanticide of the newborn, and sacred prostitution in their culture and their worship (Dt 12,30; 18,9). These peoples should be vomited up by the land they occupied (Lev 18,28), and in fact they did disappear.

{N}11,{/}7(1) "Let us go down and confuse their language. "Few places in the Bible show us so clearly as here the two faces of the sacred Book namely, as a human work and as the Word of God. The author doesn't hesitate to impute to Yahweh the same emotions that the gods of the ancient myths had. Those gods were frightened by the shouting of daring men that threatened to rise to the heights of their celestial dwellings and disturb their peace: "Enough of this; tomorrow it will be too late to stop them!" In his deepest self, the author manifested how profoundly his thinking was being influenced by nomadic traditions that were still alive in Israel. He detested any change that would restrict the freedom of the father of a family or of a clan. A case in point was the growing centralization of politics by Solomon's government, which was setting a long lasting precedent for others.
The total humanness of this sentence does not prevent its dimension as the Word of God. For example, God does not support plans for unification when their objective is to dominate others. There is a double warning here. The first one is for those bent on building a great civilization and a planetary economy at the expense of others. The second one serves to warn the Church when it promotes its pyramidal structure at the expense of collegiality.

{N}11,{/}10 In the following paragraphs we find a short, ancient genealogy (verses 26-29) inserted into a more recent writing of priestly origin. This newer one has the same function as the genealogy in chapter five, namely to bridge some three thousand years between the supposed origin of humanity and the time of the patriarchs. Again we notice that it progressively shortened the ancestors' life span, passing from mythical heroes and giants to real persons closer to ourselves such as the patriarchs.

{N}11,{/}32 {N}THE THREE SAYINGS OF GOD{/}
In the first chapter of Genesis, God said, and we have Creation.
Again in chapter 9, God said, and it is to give blessing to all humanity.
In chapter 12, God said a third time, and it is the beginning of God's people.
These are very uneven steps in the Bible since the revelation made to God's people fills the rest of the Sacred Scriptures. What we read from here on concerns all humanity, but it will he what God has said and done in his own people.
If we enter deeply into the spirit of the Bible, we will discover that these three facets of the divine work - creation, blessing to humanity and God's people - form a whole and they are interrelated in thousands of ways. But let us beware! If we have not really understood the meaning of these three steps which come from the mouth of God, there will come a time when we will no longer be able to accept the testimony of the Bible; and even the meaning of Jesus will be lost for us. Because these three "words" are contrary to some preconceptions which deeply mark our time.
In the first "God said" this word created the universe with its natural laws. The Bible recalls that these laws are permanent. It will also add that the universe is always at God's service and that it obeys God's word. To say that God put the world on automatic pilot is mostly true: God does not constantly pull strings. However, we would be a long way from biblical revelation if we said that God fixed everything at the beginning and did not allow to have other forces interfere with these laws or make them incidental (from our point of view). On the seventh day, God is said to have rested from the work done 2:4), but the opposite is also true: "the Father goes on working (Jn 5:17)." God is always expressing Self through works, and creation continues to live and exist in God. Nature's laws are the shadow of a superior justice that is in God, but in nature, starting with its richness and its splendor, we find much more than just physical laws. Its ongoing creativity, one of its most mysterious capacities, is a reflection of God's creative freedom which is never shackled.
This is enough to startle all those who theorize about absolute truth, such as the following: laws are inflexible and nothing exists outside of what is measurable. There would be no scientific research without such theories, but that does not mean they present the whole reality of the world, or even what is essential. Yet, it is this preconception which prevents many Christians from admitting any intervention whats ever by God in the natural order of the world. In the Gospels, they will reject first the multiplication of the loaves, Mary's virginity, the Transfiguration... or they will make the texts mean the opposite of what they actually say. They will reject all the actual testimonies of those who have experienced similar interventions by God. Going further they will reject any direct intervention by God in our inner world, and very logically, they will deny that prayer makes sense. This rationalism will give rise to many books and discussions, but in the end, it is fruitless. It will not arouse faith and it never brings joy.
The second "God said" in Noah's story is equally filled with meaning. God inaugurates the postflood days by making a pact with all the nations and religions, since all are Noah's children. If God blesses them, it means that God is offering them a path to salvation: they will find God through their many cultures and religions (Acts 17:27).
In their search for wisdom in the words of their sacred books, when God's Word or Wisdom becomes present, it merely continues its creative work: through this God arranged the stages of creation (Heb 1:2). Therefore, the whole course of history will continue the plan of God the Creator; and for their part, religions will always be connected with a discovery of God or of "the divine" in nature (Rom 1:20; Acts 17:27).
What more do we need? Doesn't humanity have all it needs to complete creation and to reach its goal? That would mean forgetting thal "Noah's children are still Adam's children." Worldwide conflicts may turn us back quickly from our dreams into a reality which is not very pretty.
But let us not dwell on the failures and limitations of human wisdom, because what matters is found else where.
Creation was God's way of expressing the Godself. Even if God could bestow the richness of the universe on a humanity having become somewhat rational, nothing of what is more extraordinary in God would appear - the dynamism and the excesses of a love whose initiatives God alone can fathom. And God could not go beyond all the forms of benevolence that we commonly call Providence without breaking the circle of a seemingly perfect happy world. Such a relationship between God and God's creation would still be alien to the holiness of God. And so, God calls individuals and groups to share in this unique history. They would embark on new and untrodden paths which often run counter to common experience. The call of Abraham was the first branching off, the first break.
This third "God said" marks the start of God's people, different from all other peoples; and this contrast, or simply the duality between those who are chosen and those who are not, causes a great deal of uneasiness in many Christians' consciences (see note p. 755).
Why this double-standard? Are we sure thal biblical revelation is more than just another religion among others? We may be tempted to renounce our richness out of false humility: why would I have the truth more than others? At this point again, an act of faith is required of us. Now is the time to accept or reject the God of the Bible, the God who is "predilection and fidelity." God calls whom she wants and gives to one person what she does not give to another. God gives more so that we produce more and so that everyone may benefit from it, but God gives definitely what she wants. Often, without admitting it, we consider God as an unjust boss facing all the workers, and not treating them all in the same way.
This has nothing to do with reality. Workers did not wait for the boss to exist. It is the opposite with God: we are not ready-made before God, waiting for what God will give us. Instead, God made us all different and out of nothing. And at the same time as God makes us what we are, our Creator places us on a path merging with our needs, our hopes and our longing for happiness.
From the outset, Christians must accept the unique aspect of their vocation: it is both their treasure and their service to the world. It would make no sense for them to go back to the ranks of non-believers since others are not after their places. Fear alone can cause such panic: the fear of being different, or perhaps another fear which is a lack of faith: are not God's great promises an illusion?

{N}15,{/}6 This sentence will be extensively commented on in the New Testament. A very precise translation of the Hebrew text could be: "and Yahweh considered this as justice" or "Yahweh credited him with acting like a just man." In other words, the Lord is evaluating Abraham, and his response of faith convinces God. "Yahweh held him to be an upright man".
Paul refers to this text in chapter four of his letter to the Romans where he wants to show how God justifies a human person through the gift of his Son, and later, through his faith in God's forgiveness. Paul points to Abraham's faith in God's promise, which equated him with being a just man. Paul will develop a much more precise and richer concept of justice in chapters 5-6 of the letter. 

{N}31,{/}45 This whole story, which concludes with the pact between Jacob and Laban the Aramean (31,24), calls to mind the ancient conflicts between the Israelites and the Aramean groups to the north. The territory of Galaad, on the other side of the Jordan, was claimed by both the Israelites and the Arameans during the whole time of the kings.

{N}34,{/}1 This story surely draws on the memory of a bloody conflict between tribal members of Levi and of Simeon at the time of the conquest. Possibly, Dinah is the name of a territory or of a clan that was the reason for the conflict. The biblical story tries to justify Simeon's and Levi's vengeance and the rapes and abductions that they committed, but it did not praise them. Here Jacob disapproves of them for merely opportunistic reasons (v. 30). In chapter 49,5-7, we find an explicit condemnation of their actions, especially since Levi's tribe was held in great stature and privilege, whereas Simeon's would disappear a few years later. The violence that was denounced in an earlier chapter about Cain goes unmentioned throughout the conflicts between Israel and its neighbors. God's people had to survive, and to survive in a way different from the rest. The only thing that counted was being the strongest or the most astute. Only the revolution announced by the Gospel and the Son of God, who voluntarily submitted to humiliation, could open minds to reconciliation and forgiveness.

{N}49,{/}3 {N}THE DIVERSE DESTINIES OF THE TRIBES{/}
Reuben's tribe, on the other side of the Jordan, did not prosper. He did not take part in the conquest of Canaan (cf. the verse on Deborah in Jdg 5,15). None of those mentioned in the Bible came from this tribe. The misdeed attributed to the ancestor surely recalls an action by this tribe that appeared to the others like a betrayal.
With respect to Simeon and Levi, see what is said in Gen 34,1. Simeon, to the south of Judah, had only a small population and was absorbed by its neighbor. Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah were the four children of Leah, the oldest of Jacob's wives (cf. commentary on Gen 35,23). It appears that these four tribes had lived a long time in Kadesh when Moses and his companions arrived there and told them about the revelation at Horeb. These latter would become the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, being considered as children of Rachel, another wife of Jacob Israel.
Although Simeon disappeared, Levi remained as a privileged caste by the fact of being the only priests recognized by the Law, even though they were actually dispersed among the tribes. Moses belonged to the tribe of Levi (Ex 2,1) which possibly was why they supported him unconditionally on the subject of the golden calf (Ex 32,26). In this account the Levites received a blessing which was in fact their consecration as priests (Ex 32,29). The text uses the precise term characteristic of priestly consecration, "your hands are consecrated to Yahweh." The later blessings of Moses make no mention of Simeon or of Levi's punishment, but emphasizes Levi's privilege (Dt 33,8). The two stories told in Jdg 18 and 19 give evidence that Jerusalem's Temple with its clergy of levite-priests ruling by the laws of David did not yet exist (1Chron 23-28). At the time of the story, Levites were poor and without a common land, so they wandered from place to place hoping to offer some service in a temple for which the people would reward them with something to eat.
Very possibly Judah was formed by integrating diverse clans located in southern Palestine among whom the Kenizzites were important. This would explain the importance of Caleb, the Kenizzite, in the stories of the conquest (Num 13,6; 32,12). According to Moses' later blessings (Dt 33,7), Judah remained apart in its hills of southern Palestine until the reign of King David.
Judah's obvious preeminence in verses 9-12 may be due to the fact that this paragraph was written and inserted when David's dynasty had already become the only center of Israel. Notwithstanding, the paragraph referring to the tribes of the north, those called "the house of Joseph", was not changed. Whoever wrote the story of Joseph, the common patron of both Ephraim and Manasseh, did not ignore the fact that they, together with Benjamin, were the group of Moses, more than the others. They were the heirs of his message for several generations until, by an unfathomable decision of God, they almost disappeared. Their formation of the Kingdom of Jeroboam in Shechem, instead of uniting with David, was a sin of blindness to God's plan. And two centuries later, their kingdom collapsed without there being any group capable of saving Israel's inheritance or of bringing it back to life, as happened in Judah. Therefore, the blessing that refers to them here goes back to the time when they were still the heart of the people of God.
The name, Issachar, is a play on the word, "salaried," which is pronounced exactly the same. This tribe showed no enthusiasm for joining the others. Their only ambition seemed to have been to live in peace among the Canaanites, putting themselves at their service.
We said with respect to Gen 35,23 that even though all the tribes were recognized as a brotherhood, they did not share the same past or dignity. It cannot be doubted that the daughters of the "servants," Bila and Zelfa, joined the rest later without having shared with them the traditions from Moses nor the years in Kadesh.

