Last week I had the privilege of, once again, joining the fellows from the Reformed Forum on Christ the Center. This week we discussed whether Adam was a real historical person and whether it matters for our understanding of Scripture and theology as a whole. In particular, we discussed a video clip recently posted by Tremper Longman (posted below). You can find the audio clip here. Pay particular attention to the comments on this one. They are very interesting.Monday, March 29, 2010
The Historical Adam
Last week I had the privilege of, once again, joining the fellows from the Reformed Forum on Christ the Center. This week we discussed whether Adam was a real historical person and whether it matters for our understanding of Scripture and theology as a whole. In particular, we discussed a video clip recently posted by Tremper Longman (posted below). You can find the audio clip here. Pay particular attention to the comments on this one. They are very interesting.
Sad, just sad. Hopefully you guys came up with something much more biblical.
ReplyDeleteFusion (if that is your real name),
ReplyDeleteOne thing, after listening to the program, that you cannot say is that we were not being biblical. We quoted numerous passages from the Bible. Would you like to offer a counted exegesis of the passages we cited?
"Adam" means "mankind". But that in itself says nothing about whether he was an individual. Israel is called "Jacob" all the time, and it's called that as a collective precisely because it originated from the historical individual Jacob.
ReplyDeleteHowever literally you take Genesis 1-2 as a whole, I don't see any way around Adam being intended as an individual within the context of the narrative itself.
I'm surprised how little nuance he brings to the discussion here.
ReplyDelete1) Genesis 1–2 doesn't preclude the basic veracity of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, since it probably doesn't have material creation in view anyway.
2) It's not quite right to suggest that taking Adam and Eve to be historical persons only results from reading the text in a "highly literal" fashion (code word for YEC, I gather). One can easily see all the mythical and archetypal elements of the narrative but nonetheless recognize the historicity of the first pair, as D Hoff writes above.
3) Gen 1–2 might not "insist on the idea that there is one, historical, literal Adam," but other portions of Scripture absolutely do. To quote the words of He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named:
"Paul clearly believed that there had been a single first pair, whose male, Adam, had been give a commandment and had broke it. Paul was, we may be sure, aware of what we would call mythical or metaphorical dimensions to the story, but he would not have regarded these as throwing doubt on the existence, and primal sin, of the first historical pair. …Each time another very early skull is dug up the newspapers exclaim over the discovery of the first human beings; we have consigned Adam and Eve entirely to the world of mythology, but we are still looking for their replacements" (NIB p. 526).
Chris,
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for posting. It is great when Bring the Books is graced by your presence!
Second, a few clarifications. When you say "I'm surprised how little nuance he brings to the discussion here," who is the "he"? Also, what are "the basic veracity of the neo-Darwinian synthesis."
Third, as I understand neo-Darwinism (which I am open to be corrected on because science is not my field of study), it seem that Gen 1-2 does preclude it. The text indicates that each kind will produce its own kind. However, neo-Darwinism postulates that kinds can (and do) produce different kinds.
Fourth, I made your third point during the program. Gen 1-2 are narrative and as such they can hardily "insist" (in the way Longman is suing it) on anything. However, the NT does insist on a historical Adam.
"Third, as I understand neo-Darwinism (which I am open to be corrected on because science is not my field of study), it seem that Gen 1-2 does preclude it. The text indicates that each kind will produce its own kind. However, neo-Darwinism postulates that kinds can (and do) produce different kinds."
ReplyDeleteNot addressed to me, but Im'a take a shot on this. And, I don't mean to defend evolution here, but I want to look at things honestly. I don't think "after its kind" is in necessary conflict with what evolution postulates. Evolution would have populations of a species splitting apart and adapting to their respective environments such that over time, through survival of the fittest, etc, advantageous traits would stick around and after a long long time you'd have two distinct species no longer capable on interbreeding. But in any particular birth or generation, animals would be bearing according to their kind. There would be no point where a bird hatches from a dinosaur egg, for example.
I do think evolution as a whole is goofy. But we do need to be careful about making the text say more than it does. According to evolution as well as Genesis, man came from the dust of the ground. Of course, the details may not be nearly so compatible (and I don't think they are). Christians can read into the text as easily as naturalistic scientists can read into the evidence.
As always, Josh, thanks for the warm welcome.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: By "he" I meant "Longman." Longman was surprisingly lacking in the nuance I'd expect from a scholar like him.
Question 2: The basic veracity of the neo-Darwinian synthesis rests on natural selection and genetic mutation (which further points to a billions-old universe and common descent), which, of course, leads to your third point.
Point 3: Regarding “according to their kind,” first, let me state emphatically that I don’t think Scripture favors any scientific theory of origins—God is the creator. Period. But note that with respect to Gen 1:11, 24, the subject is not “animals” “bringing forth” (verb) “animals” (object); rather, the “land” is the subject. I’m not saying this teaches anything scientific, but I am pretty convinced it can’t bear the weight your point presupposes.
Since the narrative arguably doesn't have material creation in view, then we're left to not put that weight upon it. What, then, could this manner of speaking mean? I think little else than the functions relative to each thing's kind (e.g., apples or cows) rather than functions relative to other things (e.g., oranges or people). And God's creation was given the function to reproduce (yes, according to their species) and fill the earth.
Nevertheless, the presupposition that the “kinds” in question are fixed (precluding genetic mutation of the kind the neo-Darwinists posit) is brought to the text; that meaning is not demanded by the text. This might be one of those instances where Plato’s concept of fixed kinds has infiltrated our thinking more than we know.
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
ReplyDeleteEvolution is based on death. Romans 5:12 says that the world was invaded by death at the sin of the one man. , (Adam). Dr. Longman has been teaching for a decades as a teacher of the Scriptures and yet he hasn't figured out 'this'!?
Does Romans 5:12 necessarily include animals? Maybe you can establish on other grounds that animals could not or did not die before the Fall, but I don't see it in Romans 5.
ReplyDeleteDo you have an scriptural evidence for animal death before the Fall?
ReplyDeleteSorry. That is supposed to be do you have 'any' scriptural evidence for animal death before the Fall?
ReplyDeleteI Corinthians says; "the last enemy that will be destroyed is death." If Death is an enemy how could it have been part of the pre-Fall created order?
Another question I would have is, If man is the product of evolution, wouldn't all animal death before the Fall include man?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html
Rob,
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is much scriptural evidence of animal death before the fall. I'm just saying that the passages like Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 have human death in view, and I want to be careful not to read more into it than it says. The same passage, 1 Corinthians 15:36, uses "death" to describe what happens to seeds - and surely seeds were always meant to go into the ground and "die". Adam was given plants for food. I understand the language in that verse is somewhat figurative, but it at least tells us that "death" can be an appropriate term for an experience that isn't necessarily connected to sin, when it comes to plants anyway. Why not animals also? Psalm 104 also speaks of lions and such seeking their food "from God", and that whole Psalm is about the goodness of creation. Were lions meant to be vegetarian? Apparently not.
Also, are we to believe that when creation is fully restored and increases in glory in the New Heavens and the New Earth, the marriage supper of the Lamb will be vegetarian? I certainly hope not.
None of that is conclusive, I know. I just want our creation/evolution efforts focused on what the text strictly necessitates. I don't think animal death or lack of it qualifies.
For your second question about man, the Bible does require us to believe that *man* didn't die before the Fall. Even if these missing links we keep hearing about are some kind of sub-human with a biological relation to Adam (which I seriously doubt), I don't see any possible way to disprove that there was a real historical Adam who was the first "man" in the biblical sense, made in the image of God and with an eternal soul who all of us today are descended from. That is an issue of special revelation that science can't really tell us anything about. Death as a curse would only apply to him and his offspring, not to whatever Lucy or Ape-man or Fred Flinstone came before.
ReplyDeletePS: "who all of us today are descended from. That is an issue of special revelation that science can't really tell us anything about"
ReplyDelete-Or can it? I don't know about genetics. Could they trace everyone back to an original Adam and Eve? That'd be interesting.
My point about finding animal death before the Fall was that there is no scriptural evidence at all. There are verses that talk about death as entering the world at the Fall and death being the final enemy that is destroyed by Christ. Death is seen both as an enemy to God as well as having a conclusion. I think we need to be careful to not go beyond the Bible when it comes to these kinds of conclusions. The Bible talks about Adam and Eve as being actual human beings, so why should we go past that and declare them to be other then they are represented. As for being vegetarians at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, I think you were being a little tongue and cheek but in case you weren't, I think the MSoTL is a little different then a meal.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"My point about finding animal death before the Fall was that there is no scriptural evidence at all."
ReplyDeleteOk, but I'm not convinced there is enough Scriptural said in Scripture to rule it out. In other words, if irrefutable evidence that animals did die before the Fall was given, by faith in the truth of Scripture wouldn't be hurt. It isn't a hill I would die on. I'd be perfectly happy to see solid defenses of literal six-day creation and the scientific accuracy of the Bible, but it doesn't help anyone to do it by way of eisegesis. Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 both explicitly deal with human death as the curse of sin. How would you show that animals are necessarily or implicitly included?
"The Bible talks about Adam and Eve as being actual human beings, so why should we go past that and declare them to be other then they are represented"
I didn't declare or suggest them to be other than that.
"As for being vegetarians at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, I think you were being a little tongue and cheek but in case you weren't, I think the MSoTL is a little different then a meal."
I am being a little tongue-in-cheek. But only a little. We will have bodies so we'll need food of some kind. The MSoTL is perhaps different than and way more than a meal, but I seriously doubt actual supper will be missing. Jesus ate fish (presumably a dead one) after his resurrection, after all.
*enough said in Scripture to rule it...
ReplyDelete*was given, my faith in...
If evidence from outside of Scripture supersedes Scripture then all bets are off and anything can go. How much extra Scriptural evidence is there that Jesus existed. In fact some would say that because there is an overwhelming lack of evidence for Jesus outside of Scripture it is more likely that what we are told about Jesus is wrong or that he didn't exist at all. Something has to be primary either it is Scripture or it is something else. But it is the Bible that testifies to itself to be the very word of God, if it isn't our primary for how we understand God and what he has done in this world then we are relegated to subjectivism.
ReplyDeleteOf course. Again, all I'm saying is that I'm not convinced Scripture *requires us to believe* that animals couldn't die before the Fall, just like it doesn't require us to believe in a geocentric universe.
ReplyDeleteWhat Scripture does do is give us evidence that death was foreign to this world before the Fall and that death will be destroyed at the end. Scripture gives us no evidence of death for animals before the Fall and so to make any theological evaluations based on any evidence other then what we are given in Scripture should be only accepted if the conclusion in no way contradicts the evidence (little though it may be) that we are given in Scripture. The evidence for Adam being the first created man that was made perfect that represented us and then sinned incurring judgment is all over Scripture. If Adam was not an actual person who represented us then the comparison that Paul uses to contrast what the first Adam did with the second Adam (Christ) is an illogical comparison. You had said before that seeds go into the ground and die. Leviticus 17:11 states that the life of an animal is in the blood. Plants don’t have blood so what we would say as dieing for plants is not the same as ‘death’. Occam’s razor tells us in the presence of multiple possibilities the simplest is to be preferred. It comes down to the sufficiency of Scripture. What does the evidence of Scripture tell us?
ReplyDeleteI've been agreeing all along with what you say about Adam.
ReplyDelete"Plants don’t have blood so what we would say as dieing for plants is not the same as ‘death’."
"Die" was the Bible's word (1 Cor. 15:36), not mine.
This is hypothetical so maybe has no relevance, but, if animals were originally intended to live forever, after a few hundred years or so we would be buried in them. Rabbits especially. Was THAT the creation design that the Fall interrupted? Or were animals just going to stop breeding? Or we ship them off to other planets? And, could Adam, in principle, never have stepped on an ant? And you didn't respond to Psalm 104. And about Jesus eating fish after His resurrection, are we to take His actions there as representing fallout from the curse?
I'm not saying animals DID die. I just don't think we need to say that in principle they absolutely could not have.
You want to include animals in the death brought by sin in Romans 5, so do you want to include them in the life brought by Christ? By man came death, by Man came also the resurrection. Are all the animals that have died to be resurrected? I guess they could... but it seems like consistency would demand (in your view) that they must.
In the way that you mean no Christ does not pay for the sins of animals since animals do not sin. However; the world was not under a curse until the Fall. All of creation was placed under a curse at the time of Adam’s sin. So absolutely the Universe is included in the work of Christ. The whole of creation cries out to God waiting for the final restoration.
ReplyDeleteI was talking about Adam because that is what the first point of this blog post was about and earlier it seemed that you were advocating Neo-Darwinism, which calls into question the historical Adam.
As for the fish that Jesus ate. He was eating in the fallen world where we eat fish so it’s hard to place the activity after the New Creation because it was done in this Creation.
As for your hypotheticals, I don’t mind talking in hypotheticals for an interesting conversation but in the end it is subjective speculation and while interesting, not enough for formulating theological beliefs. Could the mass of cute and fuzzy bunny’s been transferred to another planet? Sure, they could have. Could Adam have stepped on an Ant? In a perfect universe he wouldn’t have to, did he, (picture shrugging of shoulders). My point is only that we must look at the evidence in Scripture and then formulate our theology. Can secondary evidences be used, absolutely, but not at the expense of the primary evidence that we find in Scripture.
Romans 5:12 tells us that sin broke into the Universe because of Adams sin, and, this sin brought death with it. Death here is being brought into the Universe because of Adam’s sin. The whole universe is dying. We understand this as Entropy. The verse then goes on to say that this death also passed onto Adam, (and all whom he represented).
I am sorry but you will have to refresh my memory on what your point was regarding Psalm 104
"However; the world was not under a curse until the Fall. All of creation was placed under a curse at the time of Adam’s sin. So absolutely the Universe is included in the work of Christ. The whole of creation cries out to God waiting for the final restoration."
ReplyDeleteWell yes, that I agree with. Isn't begging the question a little bit though? The question is whether animal death, in itself and in principle, is part of the curse and the fallen order.
"I was talking about Adam because that is what the first point of this blog post was about and earlier it seemed that you were advocating Neo-Darwinism, which calls into question the historical Adam."
Ok, well I specifically affirmed a historical Adam a few times in this thread.
"Romans 5:12 tells us that sin broke into the Universe because of Adams sin, and, this sin brought death with it. Death here is being brought into the Universe because of Adam’s sin. The whole universe is dying. We understand this as Entropy."
Death of man as a curse was brought into the universe. I don't see the Fall as introducing Entropy. I'm not a physicist, but as far as I know Entropy is simply a property of matter, and is why, for example, batteries die. The total energy of a system decreases over time, or something like that. I could be wrong, you'll have to expound this one a bit more.
"I am sorry but you will have to refresh my memory on what your point was regarding Psalm 104"
Lions seeking their prey from God. It is presented in the context of the goodness of the created order.
The Fall did bring animal death as far as them being used for sacrifice. I'll give you that.
ReplyDeleteAs for Entropy--everything in the Universe is breaking down from order to disorder so in the end everything will fall apart. As for Psalm 104 that is telling us that in this creation at this time (post Fall) the Lord brings food to the Lion.
ReplyDeleteMy main point in our discussion has been that if we are going to have theological beliefs they must be based on Scripture. General revelation can be a help but it is secondary not primary. There is no Scriptural evidence that there was animal death Pre-Fall but there is Scriptural evidence for death entering into the cosmos at the time of the Fall(Rom. 5:12). Not just to mankind but into the entire creation. Rom. then goes on to say that this death will be the judgement of man. My point is that death was a result of the Fall for the entire creation, if it was already present pre-Fall then it couldn't have entered into it.
My main point in all of this actually is regarding the sufficiency of Scripture. With evidence for death entering the world at the Fall and absolutely no Scriptural evidence for death before the Fall the only way to see death before the Fall is either to disregard the Scriptural evidence (for whatever reason) and replace it with evidence other than the Word of God.
Hi folks. I haven't read every comment, but possibly helpful to this discussion about death prior to the fall, is the (inferred) fact that only humans were given the Tree of Life to eat, not all of creation. That's clearly what sustained Adam and Eve's life in the garden, as seen when they were kicked out of it, for they were to be kept from it: "…to guard the way to the tree of life" (3:24).
ReplyDeleteSo, Rob, it's not that clear death qua mortality entered into the cosmos at the point of the fall of man. Nor is it supremely clear that in Rom 5 Paul has simple mortality in mind. There is a death greater than this; it's called the "second death."
These very same issues are also being dealt with here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7522:utter-irrelevance&catid=89:evolution#JOSC_TOP
Chris said
ReplyDelete"So, Rob, it's not that clear death qua mortality entered into the cosmos at the point of the fall of man. Nor is it supremely clear that in Rom 5 Paul has simple mortality in mind. There is a death greater than this; it's called the "second death."
Did spiritual death pass on to all of creation?
My main point in this discussion was that there is absolutely no scriptural evidence for death before the Fall and the evidence that we do have in Scripture is death entering the Cosmos as a result of the Fall. The point that I am fighting for is the sufficiency of Scripture. Any doctrine that we hold has to have Scriptural backing. General revelation can play a supportive role but it can not be the primary.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that in the case for the real Adam almost everyone goes to Romans 5 and forgets about 1 Tim 2:13-14 and also Matthew 19:3-9. Though Jesus doesn't say Adam it is without doubt who is in view other his argument wouldn't have worked.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work guys, May God continue to Bless his word.
SDG
Rob asked: "Did spiritual death pass on to all of creation?"
ReplyDeleteIn my understanding of 'spiritual death', no.
I would agree with you Chris
ReplyDelete