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

Dick Fischer wrote:
>
> George wrote:
>
> Peter wrote:
> > > That "the many died by the trespass of the one man" (v.15) refers back to
> > > "just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and
> > > in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (v.12): "in this
> > way"
> > > (houtos) = "in the same way", i.e. by also sinning _themselves_, and not
> > > because of someone else's (e.g. a first man's) trespass. Paul explicitely
> > > emphasizes this. Similarly, "just as the result of one trespass was
> > > condemnation for all men" (v.18, NIV, di'henos paraptomatos) must be
> > > interpreted on the basis of what Paul had specified initially in v.12:
> > > although different people may sin in many different ways, the _type_ of
> > > their trespass is always the same, namely turning away from trusting
> > God, it
> > > is _one trespass_ by all, and as a result of this there is condemnation for
> > > all. I think this is the "condition of 'original sin'" you mention, but it
> > > is not "original" in the sense of being caused by some first man. The
> > > unbiblical term "original" is really misleading. Nothing changes
> > > theologically if the type-man illustrating this view is not the temporally
> > > first man................
> >
> > This is simply an attempt to evades the thrust of Paul's
> > argument. The
> >statement that "one man's trespass led to condemnation for all [people]"
> >(di' henos
> >paraptomatos eis pantas anthropous eis katakrima) clearly means that that
> >"one man's
> >trespass" had some kind of causal role in bringing about a condition
> >deserving of
> >condemnation for all.
>
> This sounds like an argument coming from one who believes there was a flesh
> and blood human being - Adam. Someone "trespassed." We agree. When do
> you think he lived?

        No, it sounds like someone trying to understand what Paul was getting at. He
was operating with a picture of a flesh & blood Adam in Gen.2 & 3. What he was using
that picture for was (among other things) to say that the sin of humanity in its origin
brought about a condition of sinfulness & condemnation for all humans.

..............................

> During World War II, the Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler, was responsible for
> the senseless and tragic eradication of 6 million innocent Jewish
> civilians. Were the Jews sinners? Of course, "there is none righteous, no
> not one" (Rom 3:10). Was the Nazi dictator, by his insane decree, directly
> responsible for the death of those Jews? Yes, he was. Is it accurate to
> say that death passed upon all of them due to the sin of one man? Yes, it
> is. Were those 6 million who died descendants of the Nazi
> dictator? Obviously not.

        1st, Hitler wasn't responsible for the fact that the Jews for whose death he was
responsible were, qua sinners, under condemnation. & 2d, how did the action of Adam, in
your scenario, bring about the condemnation of his Mesoamerican contemporaries?

        Please see my parallel post to Peter & the list for more on these issues.

                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George
                

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Mar 5 20:57:09 2004