Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

David-

I think you may have hit upon an important concept here- identification.

In my limited experience, I've found Romans 5:12-21 to be some of the most
difficult verses in Scripture to understand, especially if we try to inject
concepts like evolution into the mix.

And to be honest, I haven't what I'm about to suggest out much (I need
to)...like you said, it is just an idea that has been banging around in my
head. I've been wondering if part of the key to understanding this section
of Scripture (even possibly an aspect of the atonement) is
identification...or possibly a "domino effect" theology. In 5:18-19 Paul
writes:

"Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one
transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness
leading to life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the
one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man
many will be made righteous."

It seems to me that Paul didn't have in mind sin being "transmitted" through
human genes or blood from Adam all the way down the line to you and I. The
reason for this is because he obviously didn't have in mind that Christ's
righteousness was "transmitted" to us (verse 19) by blood, because as you
sorta noted, we aren't biologically related to Christ, and also because
righteousness can't be carried through blood :). It seems to me more like we
are sinful or righteous based upon either a spiritual identification with
the first Adam or the second Adam (Christ)...or perhaps a spiritual chain of
events where the sin of one man led to a downward spiral for humanity, but
the righteousness of Christ has led to an upward spiral for those who
believe in Him (identify with Him). I'm not sure how clear all that
was...but yeah, I was kinda thinking along the same lines as you, I believe.

Travis

>From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
>CC: glennmorton@entouch.net, "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@verizon.net>,
> ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?
>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:21:16 +0200
>
>The discussion about "accomodation" and Adam as an historical person
>puzzles
>me a bit. As I understand it, contemporary genetic science renders
>unlikely
>the claim that every person living today can trace their genes to a single
>pair living in the Neolithic -- or living a hundred thousand years ago for
>that matter. But, at the same time, current studies of individual
>geneology
>strongly suggest that every person living today probably can trace his or
>her ancestry back to a common ancestor in the recent past, even though not
>every person living today carries that ancestor's genes (this was discussed
>in a post a while back by Peter Reust, citing an article in Nature). As
>Peter Reust explained to me at one point, there is a difference between the
>lineage of a gene and the lineage of a person.
>
>
>
>It seems to me, then, that a concept of "accomodation" can help us with
>regard to Adam without necessarily rejecting Adam as an historical
>person. Certainly
>the Bible writers had no concept of modern genetics. So when the Bible
>speaks of Eve as the "mother of all the living" (Gen. 3:20) or of Adam as
>the "first man" (I. Cor. 15), we are not thinking like the Bible writers if
>we think in terms of modern genetics.
>
>
>
>How did the Bible writers think about lineages? Maybe some clues are in
>God's covenant with Abraham, by which Abraham was made the "father of many
>nations" (Gen. 17), in how the Israelite community refers to the patriarchs
>and those who left Egypt as their "fathers" (e.g., Psalm 44:2), and in how
>God is sometimes referred to as the "God of our Fathers" (2 Chron.
>20:6). Clearly,
>these references have nothing to do with modern genetics or the lineages of
>genes. It seems that these references are to the spiritual heritage of
>real
>individuals whose direct and indirect descendants eventually formed the
>core
>of an existing community, where the community generally could trace its
>lineage to the patriarchs in that some, if not most, of the individuals in
>the community ultimately could trace a family relationship back to the
>patriarchs.
>
>
>
>I doubt that anyone today would conclude that a Jew living in Israel at the
>time of the Psalms who didn't carry any of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob's
>genes,
>or who also carried other genetic lineages, wasn't entitled to identify
>with
>the reference to "fathers" in Psalm 44:2. Similarly, though perhaps most
>of us today couldn't trace our genes directly back to Adam and Eve, there
>seems to be no reason we all can't claim them as our "father" and "mother"
>in the sense that heritage and lineage plays in scripture. In fact, given
>the conclusions of the MRCA studies published in Nature, the claim that
>everyone living today can trace a family relationship to a historical Adam
>and Eve does not seem falsified or even outlandish. Given all this, it
>seems to me that the Biblical texts can be understood through ancient eyes
>without discarding the historicity of Adam and Eve completely.
>
>
>
>Of course, none of this answers the very difficult suggestion from genetic
>science that there were other hominids / humans living at the same time as
>Adam & Eve, unless Adam & Eve lived millions of years ago. This in turn
>raises some difficult questions about what it means to be "human" and to be
>made "in the image of God." Again, perhaps a way to look at this is
>through
>the lens of what it meant for Abraham to be the "father of many
>nations." Abraham
>was the first of the nation of Israel, but of course he had "fathers"
>before
>him. After Abraham, however, there is a new, spiritual significance to the
>family of Abraham based on God's covenant with Abraham. The break between
>Terah and Abraham, in terms of Abraham being the "father" of many nations
>and not Terah, is spiritual, covenantal and relational, not biological.
>
>
>
>Whether God separately created Adam & Eve or not, perhaps we can view the
>"break" in human nature before and after Adam as similarly spiritual,
>covenantal and relational, rather than primarily biological. Perhaps this
>is a way, again, to appreciate how God accommodated the Adam & Eve
>narrative
>to the spiritual significance of geneology in ANE thought without rendering
>the text a-historical.
>
>
>
>These are all thoughts that have been banging around in my head, so I
>should
>offer the caveat that I'm not putting this forward necessarily as "my"
>theory of things. Also, I'm sure I'm getting these ideas from various
>scattered places, and if anyone is aware of books / articles along these
>lines, I'd appreciate references.
>
>
>On 6/11/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sure. This is standard procedure among historical
>>harmonizers/concordists - to construct a "could have been" scenario & then
>>claim that the problem has been solved.
>>But the "problem" stems from assumptions about the nature of scripture.
>>
>>See the footnote reference to the comment of John Lightfoot, who knew a
>>bit about ancient Jewish practice, on p.91 of NPNF, 2d Series, Vol.1,
>>where this explanation by Eusebius begins: "There is neither reason for
>>it,
>>nor, indeed, any foundation at all."
>>
>>Shalom
>>George
>>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>*From:* glennmorton@entouch.net
>>*To:* 'Dick Fischer' <dickfischer@verizon.net> ; 'ASA' <asa@calvin.edu> ;
>>'George
>>Murphy' <gmurphy@raex.com>
>>*Sent:* Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:17 PM
>>*Subject:* Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?
>>
>>
>>
>>I often find that when people don't think there is an explanation, they
>>don't go look for one. Here is what Eusebius says about those
>>genealogies.
>>And, George, they both make Jesus to be Joseph's son.
>>
>>
>>Eusebius says that both are genealogies of Joseph but due to
>>Jewish law of who can raise up children for a dead childless
>>brother, a genealogy of law is not equal to genealogy of biology
>>
>>...Solomon......................Nathan
>>.....|.............................|
>>...Mattan--------Estha----------- Melchi
>>...dies first |...........|
>>............Jacob---?---- Eli
>>....................|
>>.................Joseph
>>
>>Eli dies Jacob marries Eli's Widow raises Joseph as Eli's seed
>>according to Law
>>~~Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
>>House, 1955), p.33
>>
>>Why that wouldn't satisfy everyone, I don't know. Luke following biology,
>>Matthew follwoing Jewish law. But it does show that one doesn't have to
>>accommodate everything. And thus, Dick may be right, they both may have
>>consulted the records.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>*On Sun Jun 11 14:46 , "George Murphy" sent:
>>
>>*
>>
>>Of course there were traditional genealogies - you can find them in the
>>1st chapters of I Chronicles e.g. But the claim that there were actual
>>records going back to an historical Adam that had the same kind of
>>historical value as the records we can get today at the couty courthoue is
>>fantasy. & of course one wonders why if Luke & presumably Matthew
>>consulted
>>the temple records their genealogies back to David are so different.
>>Yeah,
>>I know, one was Mary's & the other Joseph's (or maybe the other way
>>around!)
>>- in spite of the fact that both are explicitly said to be Joseph's. Or
>>some other dodge. Spare me.
>>
>>Shalom
>>George
>>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>*From:* Dick Fischer
>>*To:* ASA
>>*Sent:* Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:04 PM
>>*Subject:* RE: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Paul, you wrote:
>>
>> >>But George also claims that even though Paul thought of Adam as a
>>historical
>>
>>figure, there is no reason for us to do so.<<
>>
>>What about Luke tracing the ancestry of Christ to Adam? Up until 70 AD
>>when Jerusalem was destroyed, the genealogies of all the Jews was a matter
>>of record in the temple. Luke didn't dream up Christ's ancestry, and it
>>wasn't dictated to him from on high. All he had to do was trot down to
>>the temple and look up the records. Adam was a man of record in the
>>temple. The only hard part began with the twelve tribes of Israel.
>>
>>http://members.aol.com/Wisdomway/twelvetribes.htm
>>
>>Up until that point it was fairly easy.
>>
>>Dick Fischer
>>
>>Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
>>
>>Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>>
>>www.genesisproclaimed.org
>>
>>
>>
Received on Sun Jun 11 20:11:12 2006