Mark wrote,
<< Are there other thoughts and ideas on how Adam and the garden
coincide with current human evolutionary theory? I would be
interested in hearing any. >>
I fundamentally agree with Keith. However, just to be clear: There are two
issues. One is how did a hominid become a human being in the modern sense of
homo sapiens, which is at least a part of being made in the image of God? I
don't think Gen 1-3 was written to reveal the answer to this question. Any
hominid chosen would already have life and spirit since all animals in the
biblical view have life and spirit, eg. Gen 7:22. Although Morton posits a
still-born ape or the like to be the object into which God breathes the
spirit of life, I think this is an unnecessary addition to the probable
actual historical sequence. Gen 1-11 is composed of stories of the time
employed by God to reveal theology. There is no way the actual historical
events are going to line up tit for tat with those stories. (I illustrate
this, incidentally, with the story of the Tower of Babel in a paper coming
out in the next Westminster Theological Journal.)
The second question, that of original sin, is the real issue: How did sin
enter the world? All that is necessary theologically is that there actually
was a first man and woman who sinned. this presumes that there was a first
man and woman who became aware of God and of their responsibility to do his
will (which may also relate to being made in the image of God). Thus at some
point God revealed himself to a pair of human beings for the first time, that
pair was ADAM (Gen 1:26, let us make ADAM in our image and let _them_ have
dominion). The actual date, place, and circumstances of this event are beyond
our present knowledge. Nor does Gen 1-3 give us the answer to this historical
question.
Those supposedly committed to a literal view of Gen 2-3, often cite Paul's
parallel in Rom 5 of the man named Adam with Christ as evidence that Gen 2-3
was historically literally accurate. This argument is not logically valid for
several reasons, but I will only point out here that Paul's point is
theological, not historical. He is not committed to an absolutely literal
interpretation of Gen 2-3 for he says in 5:12, "as through one man sin
entered the world...and vv. 14 and 15 imply that he is referring to the male
of the pair, the man named Adam. But in Gen 3:6 it is the woman who first
eats the forbidden fruit. Thus a truly literal interpretation would demand
that a person say "through one _woman_ sin entered the world." Some early
Jewish writings make a point of this fact. We should learn from Romans 5:12,
therefore, that it is not the historical details of Gen 1-3 which are the
revelation, but the theology. The issue is original sin, and that is an issue
of representation: "Adam" whoever he may have been, represented all of us.
You will find one of the best expositions on this subject in John J.
Jefferson's paper in the book, Inerrancy and Common Sense, edited by Roger
R. Nicole & J. Ramsey Michaels, Baker, 1980.
Best wishes,
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 13:43:45 EDT