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

Peter wrote:

>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.

You are correct. Man and woman is 'ish and 'ishah. I mixed the
references. (I need to take an extra dose of Aricept when I mix it up with
you guys.)

> > 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.

Well, you assume Gen. 1:27 is about all humanity, and I assume Moses (if it
was Moses) handed Genesis to the Israelites and never intended for you or I
to read it, never mind our trying to read our ancestors into it.

>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?

Humanity had a beginning. Adam had a beginning. They were separated by
tens of thousands, maybe millions of years. In your scenario, Genesis 1 is
about the first creation (through evolution), and Genesis 2 is about Adam,
Eve's husband, father to Seth and the rest. Yet Matt. 19:5 says
"beginning" in the singular, and borrows text from both Genesis 1 and
Genesis 2. That which Christ has joined together (Adam in Gen. 1 and Adam
in Gen. 2) let no man put asunder.

> > 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.

Ah, what is the parallel that makes Adam the first and Christ the
second? Neither had a natural father. Both were intended for
salvation. Cain doesn't fit at all. Even your "Adam" of antiquity had
natural parents, unless you believe humans were created out of the
dust. And what did an "Adam" of antiquity do to cause sin to enter the
world? So there is no question that the Adam who sinned, and was "of the
dust," was neolithic Adam of southern Mesopotamia. It was he who ushered
in the era of accountability.

> > 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.

Uh, no. What it says is a warning to those outside the covenant race who
think they can knuckle the heads of God's chosen people. Whoever sheds the
blood of an Adamite ('adam), by an Adamite ('adam) shall his blood be shed,
because Adamites are representatives of God. And you guys are not!

>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?

God differentiates in no way that I know of. We are all accountable. Adam
sinned for us all. And accountability began with Adam. Christ died for
all. And any one of us can be saved.

The muddle comes if you assume all humans are in the image of God before
Adam was created. How are generic humans differentiated from Adam being
created in the image or even Christ for that matter. And it is the Bible
that makes the inference, not I.

If all human beings are in the image then it really means nothing at all to
say Adam was and Christ was. It would be like saying Adam was a mammalian
biped. Why would the Bible writer bother at all? Adam was different, and
Christ was different precisely because they were in God's image in a way
mankind was not. They each represented God on earth. Generic man did 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.

The Israelites were "in the image" being descendants of Adam and
accountable. 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."

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.

I can't see how this doesn't make perfectly good sense.

Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Fri Mar 5 11:58:22 2004