Dick Fischer wrote (Wed, 03 Apr 2002 13:27:21 -0500):
> Peter Ruest wrote:
> > Claeys, K. (1979), "Die Bibel bestätigt das Weltbild der
> > Naturwissenschaft" (Stein am Rhein, Switzerland: Christiana)
> > proposed that ... [skip some] ...
> > (5) in Gen. 1:27, the creation of the first humans in the image of
> > God is in view - it does not talk of Adam and Eve;
>
> I heartily disagree. Adam was created in God's image as an ambassador
> to the indigenous populations who were unaccountable at the time, and
> not in God's image. Who is the "man" in Genesis 1:27?
In Gen.1:26 "man" is used without an article, as a generic designation
indicating mankind. In v.27 the article is added, referring back to the
one mentioned in v.26. And at the end of v.27 a more detailed
specification of this "man" is given: "male and female he created them",
indicating that "man" consisted of an unspecified number (greater than
one) of individuals of the two sexes. Again, generic, not personal,
language is used.
> It has been
> argued that this verse applies to generic man, all Homo sapiens, and
> not exclusively to Adam and his following generations. But most Bible
> scholars believe this passage applies solely to Adam and Eve, and
> their descendants who came under the Adamic covenant. This is the
> preferred view,
They probably never read any genetics, anthropology, or archeology. ;-)
Seriously: Some of them may have written before the extensive human
fossil record was discovered. And most of them probably wrote before the
shared location of mobile genetic elements and the shared mutations in
pseudogenes were published, which clinched the argument for common
ancestry with chimps. For those who wrote recently: there are very few
Bible scholars who take the time (or who can take the time) to study the
natural science part of these questions in sufficient detail to be able
to deal with them. And often they take the easy
"Bible-no-textbook-of-science" way out.
> and implied in Genesis 5:1-3: "This is the book of the generations of Adam."
"Generations" is the Hebrew "toledoth". It is the colophon (a title
appended to, rather than preceding, the text to which it refers, as in
clay tablets of those times) appended to what went before, i.e. the part
of the story as it was told by Adam.
> "In the day that God
> created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female
> created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the
> day when they were created."
A literal word-by-word translation of the Hebrew from "The NIV(TM)
Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament", ed. J.R. Kohlenberger III
(Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1987) (- links English words translated
from a single Hebrew word; *** stands for Hebrew 'et, the definite
direct object indicator, which is never translated):
Gen.1:27-28: Gen.5:1-2:
in-day (opening parenthesis)
so-he-created God to-create God (beginning of quote)
*** the-man man
in-image-of-him
in-image-of God in-likeness-of God
he-created him he-made him
male and-female male and-female
he-created them he-created-them
and-he-blessed them and-he-blessed them (end of quote)
and-he-called (this was a quote about
*** name-of-them ... generic man)
man
in-day (closing parenthesis)
to-be-created-them
Gen.5:1-2 obviously refers back to Gen.1:27-28, basically repeating it
with similar expressions. Therefore, I would consider it as just as
generic. That God called "their" (not "his") name Adam confirms the
generic use.
> "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty
> years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and
> called his name Seth."
Now, of course, the individual Adam is in view. With Gen.5, the
"toledoth" of Noah begins (with its colophon in Gen.6:9). Noah begins
his report with a short, introductary, generic remark, giving the
generic "name-of-them man". The remark contains an opening parenthesis
"in-day", then the quote "to-create God man...", and finally a closing
parenthesis "in-day to-be-created-them" (v.1-2). Then, Noah continues
the story (v.3) where Adam left off.
> Who was created "in the likeness of God"? The man, Adam, who "lived
> an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son," "and called his name
> Seth." Who were not created "in the likeness of God"? Those who did
> not live "an hundred and thirty years," and did not "begat a son"
> called Seth - the indigenous populations.
>
> In Genesis 1:27, Adam represented God, having been "created in His own
> image." This status was passed through the godly line of Seth (Gen.
> 5:3).
If I remember correctly, you date Adam somewhere between 6,000 and
10,000 years ago (as I do). Like you, I don't agree with Glenn Morton's
placing the first humans before the Mediterranean flood. Nor do I
automatically equate all fossils termed "Homo sapiens" with being
"created in the image of God". But I am puzzled that you seem to
consider "modern H.sapiens" who used very sophisticated tools, amazing
cave art, burials with flowers and beads, and cave bear offerings (the
preadamites, whose descendants you call "the indigenous populations") to
be less than genuinely human. I equate genuine humanness with being
created "in God's image". And I think those people should be accepted as
genuine humans, as they appear to show some indications of spirituality.
> Noah and his generations were God's chosen people, and thus
> were "in the image" (Gen. 9:6). This status as representatives of God
> was conferred upon the Israelites through the Abrahamic covenant (Gen.
> 17:1-8).
Many large-sample gene trees of today's humans coalesce at more than
100,000 years ago, which indicates that some human lines of descent
surviving today may have diverged at that time already, yet remained in
the same species. Furthermore, there were descendents of preadamites who
didn't perish in Noah's flood (because they didn't live in that "land"),
and Noah's descendents are interfertile with theirs, belonging to the
same biological species. And both populations are genuine humans, whose
shed blood will be avenged (Gen. 9:6). All of them belong to the "all
men" of Rom. 5:12, to whom spiritual death passed, because all of them
have sinned. They all are represented by Adam (whether of Adam's or
preadamite lines), just as all believers (of OT and NT times) are
represented by Christ.
Repeatedly, God chose a new representative or remnant when his
previously chosen people failed: Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Israel. But
never the people excluded from the particular choice were definitely
doomed or considered less than genuinely human, as God made clear in his
call of Abraham, when he promised to bless all nations through him. An
individual election implies a specific task.
> Apparently, those outside the nation of Israel were outside the realm of
> accountability. This can be inferred from Matthew 23:15, "Woe unto
> you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to
> make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the
> child of hell than yourselves."
Those outside of Israel were accountable according to the measure of
their knowledge of God, as many historical biblical notes show.
> When one outside the Jewish faith was brought to the knowledge of God,
> he became accountable. Because of false teaching, he was condemned.
> This unique status for Israel as God's chosen people was rescinded, or
> at least modified, at the cross. Christ was appointed by God as His
> representative. The second Adam, Christ, was in the "image of God"
> (II Cor. 4:4) just as the first Adam, and the mantle was passed to the
> followers of Christ.
>
> In I Corinthians 11:7, Paul's instructions were not to unregenerate
> men, but to the redeemed of the church at Corinth. According to Paul,
> they were in "the image and glory of God." They received this
> authority as believers in Christ, "who is the image of the invisible
> God, the firstborn of every creature" (Col. 1:15). Fallen man has no
> claim to God's image unless he receives it through redemption.
Of course, Paul there addresses the regenerate, and they, particularly,
are to reflect God's glory (I don't assume that from 1 Cor. 11:7 you
conclude that the women don't). But this certainly doesn't exclude other
humans from being created in God's image.
> Psalm 8 points to the coming Messiah. David affirms that Christ has
> dominion over all things. This was given to Adam at his creation
> (Gen. 1:28), and was intended for his generations, but it was clearly
> in Christ's hands after the Fall. "Thou madest Him to have dominion
> over the works of thy hands: thou hast put all things under His feet:
> all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the
> air, and the fish of the sea ..." (Psa. 8:6-8).
This does point to a special representation and dominion which passed
from man directly to Christ, but the reference is to generic man in Gen.
1:28, not specifically to Adam.
> Bible expositors have gone overboard postulating the marvelous
> similarities between us and our Creator.
>
> In what manner are we, his stumbling creatures, like the Most High
> God? Do we possess His holiness, or His righteousness? Can we boast
> of His wisdom? Are we omnipotent? Can we transcend time? Is it in
> our power to forgive sin? Can we grant immortality? No, we mere
> mortals presume too much.
>
> Our claim to being in His image rests upon the righteousness of
> Christ, not by any birth right, lest any man should boast. "For my
> thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith
> the Lord" (Isa. 55:8).
I agree with you in this, but the boasting claims you oppose cannot be
grounded in the creation "in God's image" anyhow. Neither do we have
anything to boast of in ourselves after having been born again.
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 11:16:34 EDT