Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

Dick Fischer wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> >I believe Adam was a true historical figure who lived around 7000 years ago.
> >But I don't think he was created in the sense of being the first
> >theologically genuine human. I take Gen 1:27 to refer to this creation,
> >creation of a spiritual dimension in humans having evolved as far as their
> >physical and psychological dimensions are concerned (the psychological
> >dimension having been created according to Gen 1:21 in some animals having
> >evolved before that). I take Gen 2:7 to refer to the call of Adam to a
> >special task in God's plan of salvation. That means Gen 2:7 describes
> >something that happened many thousands of years after what Gen 1:27 refers
> >to.
> >
> >Of course, in another sense, Adam was created, just as every human is
> >according to Isa 43:6-7 "... Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from
> >the ends of the earth - everyone who is called by my name, whom I created
> >for my glory, whom I formed and made."
>
> George has problems with one Adam and Peter has two. I sort of fall in
> between. No Adams at all I see as too sparse - who was the "Adam, son of
> God" in Luke 3:38? Two Adams seems one too many in my estimation. But
> then, if we advocate for two, maybe we can at least persuade some people to
> believe in one. Not a bad ploy ...
>
> Are Adam in Gen. 1:27 and Adam in Gen. 2:15-24 one and the same, or are
> they two entirely different individuals separated by tens of thousands, or
> maybe hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years? The mind boggles!
>
> Let me advocate for one Adam who lived 7,000 years ago. That would mean
> that Gen.1:27 and Gen. 2:15-24 refer to the same man.
>
> There are a few reasons why this would make sense.

Dick, I am happy to agree with you on your general approach of insisting
that the first (say 11) Genesis chapters cannot be emptied of all historical
reference. Like you, I try to find an interpretation harmonizing this text
(taking into account its particular shape, genre, language, transmission
history etc.) with scientific and historical reality (taking into account
its particular epistemological problems etc.) - without supposing that God
wanted to "teach us science" in Genesis, or that biblical authors "knew
modern science". We just occasionally differ about how to do this. "Finding
Harmony in Bible, Science, and History" is my aim, too. So let me look at
your objections to my interpretation - which of course is tentative.
 
> First let's look at the verses:
>
> Gen. 1:27: "So God created man ('adam) in his own image, in the image of
> God created he him; male ('ish) and female ('ishah) created he them."

No, Gen. 1:27 has "male (zakar) and female (n:qevah)", while Gen. 2:23 has
"woman ('ishah), for she was taken out of man ('iysh)". "Male" and "female"
emphasizes the generic or collective aspect, while "woman" and "man"
designate particular individuals. The generic, collective terms are never
used in Gen.2-4. There is a striking difference of viewpoint between these
chapters and Gen.1.

> Gen. 2:15: "And the LORD God took the man ('adam), and put him into the
> garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
> Gen. 2:16: "And the LORD God commanded the man ('adam) ..."
> Gen. 2:18: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man ('adam)
> should be alone ..."
> Gen. 2.19: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
> field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam ('adam) to see
> what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam ('adam) called every living
> creature, that was the name thereof.
> Gen. 2:20: "And Adam ('adam) gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of
> the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam ('adam) there was
> not found an help meet for him."
> Gen. 2:21: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam
> ('adam) ..."
> Gen. 2:22: "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man ('adam),
> made he a woman, and brought her unto the man ('adam).
> Gen. 2 23: "And Adam ('adam) said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh
> of my flesh: she shall be called Woman ('ishah), because she was taken out
> of Man ('ish)."
> Gen. 2:24: "Therefore shall a man ('ish) leave his father and his mother,
> and shall cleave unto his wife ('ishah): and they shall be one flesh."
>
> A small note: "Man" and "Adam" both are 'adam in these verses, whereas
> "man" in conjunction with "woman" is always 'ish and 'ishah in Hebrew.

I agree as far as 'adam is concerned, insofar as it is used for both the
generic term "human" and the individual name of the person Adam. But for
'ish and 'ishah see above. Since my mothertongue is German, I have no
difficulties distinguishing "man" in the sense of "human" (Mensch, 'adam)
and in the sense of a "male human" (Mann, 'ish).

> When questioned about divorce, Jesus referred to Genesis 1:27, "Have ye not
> read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female"
> (Matt. 19:4). Then Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, "For this cause shall a man
> leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and the twain shall
> be one flesh" (Matt. 19:5). Linking these verses is one reason the "man"
> created in the first chapter of Genesis is not simply "mankind," but Adam
> of Genesis 2, first of the covenant, Eve's husband and Seth's father.

This doesn't follow. God's generic creation order for humans, connected with
Gen. 1:27, is of course valid for all humans of all times, including Adam
and Eve, whenever they came. Gen. 2:24 appears to be the narrator's comment
on the experience of the individual couple Adam and Eve. In Mat. 19:5, Jesus
apparently attributes this explanatory comment to God who had already given
his generic creation order. It doesn't specify how much time elapsed between
the creation of the first humans and this particular explanatory comment.
God said many things about his order for humans much later.
 
> What would constitute the "beginning" if there were two beginnings?

The "beginning" in Mat. 19:4 refers to the creation of the first humans in
Gen. 1:27. What's the problem here?
 
> And Paul refers to Christ as the "second Adam," who would actually be the
> first Adam if there was no Adam, and the third Adam in the two Adams scenario.

I never talked about or implied "two Adams" in the sense of two such
individuals. But of course, there were and are plenty of "'adam" in the
sense of humans. 1 Cor. 15:45,47: "So it is written: 'The first man Adam
became a living being'; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit... The first man
was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." If Adam was the
biologically first man, who was the second man? Cain of course, not Jesus.
Thus, Jesus being the "second man" cannot be meant biologically or
genealogically, but must be taken in a spiritual sense, namely that Jesus
originated a new humanity comprising the believers (including Old Testament
ones, by the way, cf. John 8:56). He is also called the "last Adam", but
this might mean about the same thing in this context. In 1 Cor. 15:45, Paul
quotes Gen. 2:7. What is meant by "living being"? Paul uses this term to
characterize Adam, and "life-giving spirit" to characterize Jesus Christ, in
particular perhaps after his resurrection, when he sent the Holy Spirit into
the hearts of the believers. Paul again contrasts natural, unregenerated
humanity with the new humanity of the born-again believers. Again, I don't
think he wants to imply anything about biological genealogy.
 
> In the New Testament, only Christ bears the image, and followers of Christ.
>
> Quoting II Cor. 4:4: "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds
> of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
> who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
>
> If all mankind is in the image of God, and Christ is in the image of God,
> then what does that tell us about the uniqueness of Christ? Nothing. Paul
> would be saying nothing at all about Christ. He would be no different from
> any human being. If it is only Adam who is in the image, however, meaning
> he is a representative of God, and Christ is a representative of God, then
> that tells us something.
>
> So in my belief, generic man is not in the image. Adam was the first
> created in the image of God. The image passed to Noah, then Abraham, then
> the children of Israel, and to Christ. We are in the image of God when we
> conform to the image of Christ not by any birthright.

Gen. 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God has God made man." Here, the same expression "in the
image of God" (b:tselem 'elohim) is used as in Gen. 1:27, but is applied to
any humans who might be murdered. Of course, God's image in man has
deteriorated by sin. It is therefore found in its pure form in Jesus Christ
only - and in his followers as a promise to be aimed at in sanctification
and to be completed in eternity. In this sense of a pure image of God, I
agree with you. But the original image of God given to humans applies to all
biblically genuine humans.

Here is the Achilles' heel of your theory: we certainly must not
differentiate, in this respect, between any humans living today. Yet we may
be pretty sure that not all of them can be descendents of Adam and Eve. So
what do you believe about those who are not? Jesus told his disciples to
evangelize all humans, all over the world. All of them are spiritually
capable of responding to his call. And this, it seems to me, is the essence
of being created in the image of God.
 
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)