But here's the wrinkle. We commonly read these words as though God meant "It is not good for the man to be lonely." The biblical translators steer us here by substituting the word "man" where the text originally says "him." Hearing it that way justifies our pursuit of friendships and partners to quell our loneliness. And in a sense, we're right. We were not created for a solitary existence. I wonder if the translators haven't done us a disservice in their translation that causes us to miss part of the impact of what God said. What if what God meant was that it was not good for him, for God himself, for the man to be the only one. It does not suit God's purposes for a person to exist in isolation from others.
How might this alternate interpretation change how we view relationships and relational learning environments? What is your gut response to what you learned on Sunday?
2 comments:
I was always the kind of person who "overdid" the "teachable moments/relational learning" thing...to the point that my kids begged for mercy, and even my mom would say "Can't the boys just play in the mud without you asking if it feels 'warm or cold' or 'wet or dry'???" With that confessed, it does feel good to know that, while admittedly a bit "overboard" on my part, at least it was something Jesus also did!
And if God didn't want us alone/isolated not only in OUR best interest, but also because us being solitary wasn't good for HIM, that gives the relationship concept even more credibility!
So all in all - I came away Sunday feeling joyously justified in my tendencies toward being over-the-top-relational! I guess my boys better watch out...I'll be asking them if the grass is green or purple the next time I talk to them!
Awesome! Glad I can lend support to your "over-the-top" child-rearing approach!
Post a Comment