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

Dick Fischer wrote:
>Peter wrote:...
>>Dick Fischer wrote:
>>> 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.

I don't know what the author or redactor of Genesis intended. More important
is what God intended. Jesus talked virtually exclusively to Jews, but I
believe his and his Father didn't have just the Jews in mind, but us all who
read his words in the gospels. Now, if Mat. 19:4-5 is meant for us, it looks
rather improbable to me that Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, which Jesus quotes as God's
Word, should not be intended for us, as well.

>>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.

Humanity had a beginning (as for me, you may omit the millions - I think
that's a power of ten too high). And human marriage under God had a
beginning. I understand these "two beginnings" to refer to an event which
occurred at exactly the same time (although Gen. 2:24 need not have been
written at the same time as 1:27), thus the singular in Mat. 19:5. And this
original divine disposition about human marriage, of course, is valid not
just for the humans of Gen. 1:27, but for all others, as well, including
Adam, the typical representative of humanity, and us. I'm not putting
Christ's references "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.

This is your explanation. In the context of 1 Cor. 15, the parallel (and
contrast) between Adam and Christ is the body - the natural, perishable,
earthly one versus the spiritual, imperishable, heavenly one. And on both
sides of the comparison, the one person named is the representative of a
great plurality, namely "those who are of the earth" vs. "those who are of
heaven".

> Both were intended for
>salvation. Cain doesn't fit at all.

Of course, Cain doesn't fit. This is what I implied. That's why Adam being
the "first man" cannot be meant biologically in 1 Cor. 15:45,47.

> 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.

The first humans (in the biblical sense) had natural parents and were, at
the same time, the first who were "created in God's image". And they all
sinned (Rom. 3:23). And Adam, who lived much later, in the Neolithic of
southern Mesopotamia, had natural parents. And he sinned, as well. But it
wasn't he who "ushered in the era of accountability". This era began with
the first humans created in God's image. Of course, there are different
levels of accountability, as seen in Rom. 5:12-14. From time to time (when
He saw fit), God made a new beginning, with an additional revelation, a new
assignment and mission, and with it, a higher level of accountability: Adam,
Abraham, Moses,... With Adam, what was new, I suppose, was a specific
forming or imprinting of conscience by divine Words in a conscious personal
relationship. This is where he failed and where Jesus was faithful. And this
characterizes all of old humanity, and all of new humanity, respectively.
Therefore, Adam and Christ are the typical representatives of these two
humanities (of course, Christ is much more, in addition).

>>> 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!

I don't believe God made a distinction between the guilt of murdering an
Adamite and the guilt of murdering an Australian, even in Noah's time. In
Abraham, all nations of the earth will be blessed (Gen. 18:18); would this
refer to the time after Christ only? And how about Melchizedek, the Gentile
who blessed Abraham (Gen. 14), and who had the honour of serving as a type
for Christ (Ps. 110; Heb. 5-7)? In the New Testament, which clearly was
written for Jews and all Gentiles, I find only one term and concept for
murder, not two. In Mat. 25:40, "whatever you did for one of the least of
these brothers of mine, you did for me", Jesus does not apply the term
"brothers" to his Jewish compatriots only, but to all humans - or, at least,
to all believers from all nations. In Rom. 5:12-21, Paul knows only two
humanities, those who were "made sinners" and those who were "made
righteous" (v.19), not three.

>>...
>>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.

If Adam was an historical person living 7000 years ago, it is arbitrary not
to attribute accountability to Australians living 7001 years ago but to
those living 6999 years ago. Would you call the former animals, but the
latter genuine humans? Adam did not sin for us all. We "all have sinned"
(Rom. 5:12).

>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.

Above, I have given my tentative assumption of how Adam may have differed
from earlier humans. I don't understand what you want to say about Christ in
your statement above, nor what inference you think the Bible makes.

>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.

Adam represented God on earth by reason of God's choice. Many others chosen
by God for specific tasks did so, too. Christ, of course, represents God on
earth because he is uniquely His Son, unlike Adam. In the few parallels
scripture draws between Adam and Christ, the context has to be taken into
account. We cannot just extent the parallelism to anything without specific
textual warrant.

>> 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."

I don't think you can infer that from Mat. 23:15. A proselyte apparently is
a Gentile who converted to the Jewish faith. If he is subjected to perverse
teaching by the Pharisees, he probably is not brought to a saving faith in
God, but he may be sort of immunized against it, so that his chance of being
brought into a right relationship with God may even be decreased. This is
how I could understand what Jesus says in Mat. 23:15. I don't see what this
has to do with the Gentiles' being "outside the realm of accountability".

>When one outside the Jewish faith was brought to the knowledge of God, he
>became accountable. Because of false teaching, he was condemned.

Becoming accountable is not an all-or-none thing. One's accountability is
presumably scaled by one's understanding of God's will. It increases by
means of good teaching, which would bring the one taught to a knowledge of
God. But false teaching would hardly bring one to a knowledge of God.
Condemnation can only be a consequence of knowledgeable refusal of God (or
at least of the conscience He gave into all humans' hearts).

> This
>unique status for Israel as God's chosen people was rescinded, or at least
>modified, at the cross.

I don't think so, see Paul's defense of the salvation of "all Israel" (Rom.
11:26), although I don't know what exactly is meant by this. But the unique
status of Israel as God's chosen people was certainly not rescinded. The
only way it was modified at the cross was that the basis of this election
was now plainly realized and visible, rather than a promise to be realized
sometime.

> 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.

The term "image of God" is applied to the first humans created by God in
Gen. 1:26-27, to all humans in Gen. 9:6, to Christ in 2 Cor. 4:4 and Col.
1:15, and to Christians in 1 Cor. 11:7. These 4 cases are obviously not
identical, and how you can restrict the application to humans to Adamites is
not at all clear.

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)