PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
> Mark wrote,
> << Are there other thoughts and ideas on how Adam and the garden
> coincide with current human evolutionary theory? I would be
> interested in hearing any. >>
>
> I fundamentally agree with Keith. However, just to be clear: There are two
> issues. One is how did a hominid become a human being in the modern sense of
> homo sapiens, which is at least a part of being made in the image of God? I
> don't think Gen 1-3 was written to reveal the answer to this question. Any
> hominid chosen would already have life and spirit since all animals in the
> biblical view have life and spirit, eg. Gen 7:22. Although Morton posits a
> still-born ape or the like to be the object into which God breathes the
> spirit of life, I think this is an unnecessary addition to the probable
> actual historical sequence. Gen 1-11 is composed of stories of the time
> employed by God to reveal theology. There is no way the actual historical
> events are going to line up tit for tat with those stories. (I illustrate
> this, incidentally, with the story of the Tower of Babel in a paper coming
> out in the next Westminster Theological Journal.)
>
> The second question, that of original sin, is the real issue: How did sin
> enter the world? All that is necessary theologically is that there actually
> was a first man and woman who sinned. this presumes that there was a first
> man and woman who became aware of God and of their responsibility to do his
> will (which may also relate to being made in the image of God). Thus at some
> point God revealed himself to a pair of human beings for the first time, that
> pair was ADAM (Gen 1:26, let us make ADAM in our image and let _them_ have
> dominion). The actual date, place, and circumstances of this event are beyond
> our present knowledge. Nor does Gen 1-3 give us the answer to this historical
> question.
>
> Those supposedly committed to a literal view of Gen 2-3, often cite Paul's
> parallel in Rom 5 of the man named Adam with Christ as evidence that Gen 2-3
> was historically literally accurate. This argument is not logically valid for
> several reasons, but I will only point out here that Paul's point is
> theological, not historical. He is not committed to an absolutely literal
> interpretation of Gen 2-3 for he says in 5:12, "as through one man sin
> entered the world...and vv. 14 and 15 imply that he is referring to the male
> of the pair, the man named Adam. But in Gen 3:6 it is the woman who first
> eats the forbidden fruit. Thus a truly literal interpretation would demand
> that a person say "through one _woman_ sin entered the world." Some early
> Jewish writings make a point of this fact. We should learn from Romans 5:12,
> therefore, that it is not the historical details of Gen 1-3 which are the
> revelation, but the theology. The issue is original sin, and that is an issue
> of representation: "Adam" whoever he may have been, represented all of us.
>
> You will find one of the best expositions on this subject in John J.
> Jefferson's paper in the book, Inerrancy and Common Sense, edited by Roger
> R. Nicole & J. Ramsey Michaels, Baker, 1980.
While watching last night's program I was struck by the fact that most of
the Christians seemed to be making several very common, but debatable,
assumptions.
1) What it means to be human - "image of God" &c - is to be learned from
the way the human race began.
2) Sin & the need for salvation assume the existence of an historical
fall.
3) Christ came only as a sacrifice for sin.
Concerning these -
1) If this were true then we'd have little guidance because paleontology
tells us almost nothing about the spiritual state of the first humans, & more
importantly, the Bible tells us very little about them either! But in fact it is
Christ, not Adam & Eve, who define genuine humanity for us.
2) The universal sinfulness of humankind does not require the doctrine
of original sin in its traditional form. (By saying this I by no means want to
deny that doctrine!) In Romans Paul speaks of sin as a basic problem affecting
all people in Chapters 1-3 before he gets to any mention of Adam in Chapter 5.
3) This view has been held by many theologians but others - Irenaeus,
Duns Scotus, Barth, e.g., have argued that the Incarnation was God's intention
for creation even apart from sin, & that idea has some support from, e.g.,
Eph.1:10.
Issues having to do with the relationship of the first humans with God
and the historical origins of sin are important & I don't suggest that they be
ignored. They should, however, be dealt with in the light of the points I make
above. The idea that historicity of Adam & Eve & their sin is "the article by
which the church stands and falls" puts undue stress on a lot of Christians, as
the comments of some of the Wheaton students on the program brought out.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 15:22:13 EDT