RE: The wrong horse in evolution education

Jon Tandy wrote (Apr 04 2006):
> Thanks Peter for your response. I won't comment much on your comments, but
> will continue to give them some thought.

Hi Jon,

thank you for your comments about Paul's statements regarding "Adam" and the
"one man" (first man). I agree with you that when he says "Adam" he means the
Adam of Gen. 2:7ff. And it may be that he meant this Adam to be identical with
the "one (first) man" of Gen. 1:27. And I agree with you that this is certainly
a reasonable interpretation of the biblical text if you don't know or care about
modern science. That implies that until not so long ago, this would probably
have been the natural interpretation. So I am not at all surprised that Luther,
Calvin etc. held this view.

But in fact, in such NT quotations from the OT, talking of the first man may
imply nothing more than the first man mentioned in the scriptures. Notice that
Gen. 1:27 is not talking of a defined single pair, but just generally of humans
(a collective singular of kind), classified into the two sexes ("male and
female", rather than "a man and a woman").

I am not sure about whether Paul thought Adam was the first man. Yet, I just
find it interesting that, nevertheless, a consistent interpretation of all of
Paul's sayings is possible which places the first man earlier than Adam. Below,
I'll just add a few remarks to the specific texts you quote.

> I will just say that I fully agree with you that "sin" can't be inherited
> (i.e. the actual guilt or condition of sinfulness itself). For instance, I
> don't believe that a baby who dies without baptism is going to hell because
> of "Adam's sin." We are sinners because we consciously commit sin. But I
> believe the Bible would have us understand that the consequences of Adam's
> sin (including death) and the nature of it (sinful nature) WAS inherited
> from Adam down to all present mankind.

Why? I don't know of any biblical text that talks of inheriting a sinful nature,
or even implies it. It is clearly said im various places that all humans (except
Jesus) have a sinful nature from birth. I understand this in the sense that
every child's capacity and disposition to sin grows with his/her growing
self-consciousness, capacity to personal relationships, responsibility and
maturity, and that every one falls into sin at a given point in time. But what
does this have to do with inheritance? Sin arises out of a sinful nature or
predisposition, but if this were an automatism, one would hardly be responsible
for sinning. Responsibility before God implies lack of genetic or other forcing.
And sin requires responsibility. Sin happens in the spiritual dimension, not in
the psychosomatic ones which are inherited. I don't understand how there could
be any heritability dependence from Adam. Genes are inherited, but even if all
humans descended from Adam, there is no guarantee at all of inheriting one
particular gene from him or a specific set of his genes.

> [1 Cor 15:22] For as in Adam **all** die, even so in Christ shall all be
> made alive.

What does "in Adam" mean? We are neither biologically nor timewise "in" Adam.
But Adam is typical, representative of all humans. Rom. 5:12-21 contrasts the
new humanity of all those who are redeemed through Christ and by their faith
brought into him, with the old humanity of the natural humans, all of whom fell
into sin like Adam and are lost unless they accept Christ. Now, Christ is the
head of the new humanity, but none of them physically descends from him, and
many of them even lived on earth before Christ (e.g. Abraham, David...). By
faith, by being born again, by becoming a new creation, they are "in" Christ,
who is their representative before God's throne. Similarly all humans by nature
lack faith, are dead in their sins, being fallen like Adam, after they had been
"created in the image of God", they are "in" Adam, who is their "federal head";
he represents them all, whether they lived before or after him historically.

The same expression "in Adam" also occurs in 1 Cor. 15:22, with the same
contrast made between the two humanities. And the same contrast is made again in
1 Cor. 15:45-49. There, Christ is called "the last Adam" and "the second man",
both expressions emphasizing the spiritual and typological use made of "the
first man Adam" and "the first man". Ideas of biological common descent and of
historical time lines are very far from what Paul is talking about in this
resurrection chapter.

> [Rom 5:14] Nevertheless, **death reigned from Adam** to Moses, even over
> them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who
> is the figure of him that was to come.

In the time between Adam and Moses, there were people who "had not sinned after
the similitude of Adam's transgression". What does this imply? Among these
people, there were believers and unbelievers, people "after God's heart" like
Enoch, Noah, Abraham etc. as well as unrepentants, criminals, or "unholy like
Esau". And there were many who never heard anything of Yahwe, let alone of his
will. But they all died alike. How about after Moses? Same situation. There now
was the torah, but most humans didn't even know about it. Yet all of them were
sinners, having ignored God's law written within their hearts and therefore
fallen, until they somehow turned to God, and were proleptically saved by
Christ. How about after Christ? Same situation. Yet all of them are sinners,
having ignored God's law written within their hearts, and are therefore fallen,
until they come to Christ. Most people still don't know about Christ and God's
will. How about before Adam? Same situation. All of them are mortal. The point
Paul is making in v.14 is that responsibility, sin and death are universal among
humans, independent of their knowing the law given through Moses or any other
divine law. He mentions Adam as the first human explicitly named in scripture.
He certainly is not limiting the reign of death to the time from Adam to Moses.
He just doesn't mention those after Moses, nor any possibly having existed
before Adam.

> -->I don't believe that this can be taken to say that there were those
> before Adam who were guilty of sin, because two verses before it says:
> [Rom 5:12] Wherefore, as **by one man sin entered into the world**, and
> death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned;

Ok, now we pass from "Adam" references to "man" references. The "world",
/kosmos/, here refers to humanity. Rom. 5:12 clearly refers to the first human
being "created in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27), and Paul doesn't name Adam. The
crucial thing here is the universality of responsibility, fall, sin, and death
for all humans since there first appearance, whenever that occurred. It may be
that Paul equated this with Adam. We don't know. But even if he did, the
alternative interpretation is not excluded.

> --> and later verses state:
> [Rom 5:16] ...it was by one that sinned...
> [Rom 5:17] For if by one man's offense death reigned by one...
> [Rom 5:18] Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to
> condemnation...

The same possibilities of interpretation apply as in v.12. On the other hand,
whether the "one" refers to Adam or the first human here doesn't make any
difference to Paul's argument. Paul contrasts the plight and perdition of
natural humans from the very beginning with the bliss and eternal life of those
who come to Christ.

> [Rom 5:19] For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners...
> --> If the "one man" isn't Adam, I don't know who it was. Paul seems
> clearly to be making that assertion here.

In v.19, Paul again contrasts the many who are represented by the disobedient
first human with the many who are represented by the fully obedient Christ. The
fallen are "made" sinners, and the saved are "made" righteous. "Made" is
/katestáthêsan/ and /katastathésontai/, meaning "placed in a position of". The
saved are (in God's judgement) counted as righeous because they are "in Christ"
the righteous, and all unregenerated humans are (in the judgement) counted as
sinners, because they are in the same condition as the first humans. Why does
Paul repeatedly emphasize *one* man? It stylistically belongs to the form of the
contrast argument. But even if we take it as indicating real singularity, there
is nothing wrong, because there must have been a single human being the first to
sin, even if that happened much earlier than Adam's time.

> --> And the "law" referred to in Rom 5:13,20, to me clearly refers to the
> Law of Moses not some law at or before Adam's time, since Moses is
> referenced in vs. 14, and "the Law" was referencing the 1st century "hot
> topic" of law versus grace.

I agree with you that this is the primary reference of "the law" - the technical
term, the Jewish torah. But God has given many other laws, and all these are
logically included here, even if it is only as further references. The first
ones mentioned in the Bible are the ones given to the first humans in Gen. 1:28
and to Adam in 2:16f. Jesus called his law of love a "new law" to emphasize its
centrality, although it was not altogether new. And Paul talks about the law
written on the gentiles' hearts and consciences (Rom. 2:13-16), which makes them
responsible before God's judgement - and therefore in need of coming to Christ.
This also applies to all humans before Christ, before Moses, before Abraham,
before Adam.

> Also just a comment on the tree of life: I guess this is a view I hold that
> perhaps not many others do. Genesis says there were two special trees
> created in the midst of the garden, but God commanded them not to eat of one
> (tree of knowledge of good and evil). I realize it's an inference to say
> that they therefore DID eat of the tree of life, but why not? God said they
> could eat of *every* tree except that other one. Just something to think
> about.
> Jon Tandy

Shalom!
Peter Ruest

-- 
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)