At 08:09 AM 3/11/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> 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.
But neither does the argument work that Jesus paid a penalty for sin of
indeterminant origin. How do I know that the sin atoned for by Christ was
of Judaic theology or Hindu theology? Afterall, if the Judaic story of the
origin of sin is not really what happened, then clearly one can question
whose definition of sin is being atoned for. And that is very important. If
sin is not defined as disobeying God's desires but is defined in some other
way, then the entire edifice of Christian morality collapses like a house
of cards. Maybe sin is not engaging in a particular ritual; maybe sin is
not bowing 3 times before entering you house. The rejection of Genesis 3
has much signficance to what is being atoned for. We simply can't pick and
chose what we wish to accept in scripture without starting a new religion.
>
> 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.
So does this mean that we don't have to pay any attention at all to what
the OT says? AFterall, if we don't like what one part says, we can
subsume it into New TEstament events thus avoiding the need for the Old
Testament altogether. Jesus atoned for sins but it has little to do with
Adam and Eve. Indeed, neither of the two new testament temptation accounts
mention the primal parents. So I gues we can dispense with them also, as a
consequence of your views.
And I notice that you mention:
> 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.
How can Adam fail if the event describing the failing didn't happen? Since
Genesis 3 didn't happen, I can only conclude that Adam was successful
because nothing happened at all with him, Eve and the snake. I can now see
that theologians have really messed it up about Adam all these years. In
fact they have slandered him. He didn't fail.
To me, George this view is self-falsifying.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 11 2000 - 13:48:23 EST