glenn morton wrote:
>
> At 07:43 PM 3/10/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> > You previously said that there was a connection between Christ & the
> historicity
> >of Gen.3 because if that text couldn't be understood in terms of an
> historical fall then
> >the work of Christ was unnecessary. That isn't the case. OTOH I have no
> interest in
> >dismissing Genesis 3 & realize of course that it was written B.C.
>
> There is a connection. That is not what I am denying. I am denying the
> direction you implied (or I inferred) in your last sentence of your last
> post. Christ's atonement for sin is predicated upon the Fall and thus the
> need for an atoner.
Christ's atonement for sin is predicated upon sin.
While some NT texts concerning the work of Christ (specifically Rom.5 & I
Cor.15) speak of this in connection with Adam, others (e.g., Hebrews, I Peter) don't.
Most theories of the atonement can be expressed, some with minor modifications, without
the assumption that Gen.3 describes an historical fall of the first pair of humans.
Of course we both agree that Genesis 3 was written before the NT. But you seem
to be arguing that _logically_ the NT claim that Christ atoned for sin requires that
sin be understood as having originated historically as described in Gen.3, & thus that
we can conclude that if Christ really atoned for sin then Gen.3 must have really
happened that way. & that argument doesn't work.
Let me try to state _positively_ how one might make a connection between the
work of Christ & Gen.2-3, beginning with part of the gospel for this coming Sunday,
Mk.1:12-13.
"The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the
wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and angels
ministered to him."
Jesus was "with the wild beasts" as Adam was (Gen.2) & tempted as Adam & Eve
were (Gen.3). What seems to be happening here is that Jesus recapitulates the story of
Adam & Eve - except he does it right & doesn't yield to the temptation.
(& if that seems a stretch to anyone, note that the corresponding temptation
story in Mt. is quite obviously a recapitulation, but of the testing of Israel in the
wilderness - as is made clear by the citations from Dt.)
The primary historical event is the testing/temptation of Jesus. The
significance of that is described in terms of the Old Testament - the testing (&
failing) of Israel, the temptation (& failing) of Adam. The 2d is more global than the
1st - it refers to all humanity & not just Israel. The Matthaen theme of recapitulating
the testing of Israel is, however, more closely tied to the OT imagery in the location
& the nature of the tests. The Marcan connection with the Adam story is much looser -
no garden & no tree. The basic point - that Christ goes back to the very beginnings of
humanity to repair what went wrong - can be (& is here) expressed without any insistence
on the historical accuracy of Gen.3.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 11 2000 - 08:09:03 EST