A Vicarious Creation, or Why Yahweh is Among Us

Credulous at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men.
Pull your head on out your hippy haze and give a listen.
Shouldn't have to say it all again.
The universe is hostile. so Impersonal. devour to survive.
So it is. So it's always been.

Tool -- "Vicarious"

I've been thinking a lot lately, particularly about the proper place of narrative in relation to truth. In many ways, this is a cumulative post of past experiences that haven't made their way to you at this point, but in another way this post is meant more as a summation.

Genesis has been a bit of a hot topic lately, especially with my friends. A great deal of them are conservative Christians and, for many of them, the issue of inerrancy and Genesis has been a splitting headache of a problem. I think this problem should be addressed, so here goes my hat being tossed into the ring.

The stories in Genesis builds heavily off Ancient Near Eastern creation myths, such as The Epic of Gilgamesh and others. In fact, it seems to assume certain similarities between them: water, creation from dry land, the sequence of days, etc.

However, I would argue that the writers of Genesis weren't interested in simply copying or rehashing the same themes. If Genesis was written during the Babylonian exile, then Israel would've been bathed in the material and national propaganda of the time, in the same way Americans are.

But, instead of leaving it as such, I think Genesis is far more subversive than that, and has a demythologizing effect on such myths. Questions of origin and salvation aren't of interest to the writers. Instead, they are more focused on the physical creation and what it means to be human and to be made in the likeness of Yahweh. Rather than completely disregard their culture, the remnant seemed quite content to speak in the same type of language and appeal to the same rhetorical devices such as "rest" after a conflict has been resolved and secured (Gen 1:31-2:3) and the use of repeating formula according to Gordon Wenham.

Also, 2:4 has a standard rhetorical introduction with "in the day that Yahweh-God made the earth and the heavens." Peter Van Seters says this is similar to our modern use of "once upon a time." The plural ("Let us make mankind") contains a hint of a divine council or heavenly court. This resembles a Babylonian myth about how the king was a special creation of the gods, all of whom were called upon to contribute attributes and qualities that would equip him to rule (Van Peters). 

Once upon a time, Yahweh created the earth and the heavens.

In many ways, we get quite hung up on myth, seeing it as false. Or, that Yahweh wouldn't tell a story that way. Jesus was quite fond of parables and seemed at ease speaking cryptically, just as a passing example. Or, Icarus flying into the heavens and falling to earth contains profound principles that teach us regardless if the story is historical. Consistency and chronology are not important to myths (Van Peters).

The term "adam" is used in a new sense to include both male and female. This new creature is made in the image and likeness of God, the climax of the first creation story. Instead of creation being hostile and horrific, mankind will have dominion over it via the command of Yahweh.

For myself, I think myth is a profound and powerful method of conveying truth. The principles of the creation story stand as Yahweh being sovereign, powerful, emotive, loving and willing to come among us. In many ways, this looks into the future as well as states a present fact:

Yahweh is loving and powerful, we (male and female) are in His likeness and He has welcomed himself among us.

--Nick

Adam's Federal "Headship" in Romans 5

I more or less stole this from Allison.

According to Sarah Grimke, if Adam is the only one responsible for the fall, or sinned willingly (whereas Eve as deceived), why on earth should these be construed to give him (man) leadership over women? Dr. Payne writes on Egalitarianism and federal headship on his website. I found the following helpful (emphasis mine):

Don’t Stretch the Analogy Beyond Its Purpose

To read more into the analogy than Paul makes explicit is to risk substituting a private inference for the direct teaching of God’s Word…On p. 281 Cranfield highlights the point of the analogy: “Adam is only mentioned in order to bring out more clearly the nature of the work of Christ. The purpose of the comparison is to make clear the universal range of what Christ has done.”

Other Passages Focus on Eve’s Responsibility for the Fall

Paul writes in 2 Cor 11:3, “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” In 1 Tim 2:14-15 he writes, “the woman being thoroughly deceived and fell into transgression [lit: ‘has become in transgression’], but she will be saved through the Childbirth if they remain in faith and love and holiness with propriety [to counteract socially unacceptable behavior here just as in 1 Tim 2:9 (cf. Cor 11:3–16)].” The association of Eve with her descendents, as the equation of “she” with “they” requires, shows that her transgression affects them, and that her seed (Gen 3:15) crushes the serpent, Satan, and brings salvation to them through “the Childbirth.”

Genesis Holds Both Responsible

Since in Hebrew “Adam” identifies both the man in isolation and the man and the woman together in Gen 1:26-27, “let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule…,” and since it was the sin of both the woman and the man that led to the fall in Gen 3, and since God addresses both woman and man (in that order) stating the consequences of the fall, and since there is a corresponding plural contrasting God as “us” and man as “them,” it seems inescapable that Eve did participate in the fall and in its ultimate reversal through her seed.

“Mankind” not “Male”

One possibility is that Paul intended “one man” to refer to the Adam (singular) identified as “them” in Gen 1:26-27, as possibly indicated by Paul’s use of ἄνθρωπος rather than ἀνήρ. Paul may have chosen to use the word “Adam” because it is a singular name, even when used to designate the original couple, and so makes a more direct counterpart for the singular name, the one man (ἄνθρωπος, focusing on his humanity, not his being male), Jesus Christ in 5:15, who brings the opposite, salvation from that fall…It is not Adam or Christ as male that is highlighted here, but Christ as human, hence the use of ἄνθρωπος in “though one human being” rather than ἀνήρ, which Paul could have used if he had intended to specify man as male.

Payne also cautions that neither the terms “federal” or “headship” are used in this portion of Scripture concerning Adam. These are terms some of us are using to describe what we think the text means, not what the text says exactly. I would put the argument on par with universalism claiming their interpretation of the text.

--Nick

Scot McKnight, Peter Enns and "The Evolution of Adam" pt III

As usual, food for the mind.

Part One (Ch 1-4) of the new book by Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, discusses Genesis as an ancient story of Israel’s self-definition. Chapter 4, Israel and Primordial Time, sums up the discussion of Genesis and the Old Testament and moves on to consider specifically the story of Adam in Genesis 2-4. Enns argues that the OT is a story of Yahweh, the God of Israel, as creator and redeemer and that the story of Adam serves as a foundation for this story of Israel. In this post we will look at both of these arguments.

Yaweh is Creator and Redeemer.

The creation narratives in the Old Testament are not merely stories of origins. Rather they are theological statements that declare that Israel’s God is supreme, victorious over all. The Old Testament is filled with allusions to various ANE myths and stories. This was, after all, the cultural context of both the authors and the original audience. The allusions are especially prominent in the Psalms. The Lord God tamed the waters into submission, subdued and ordered the chaos, cut the Red Sea to pieces, crushed the heads of Leviathan, laid the foundations of the earth. This same God led his people out of Egypt and established David’s line “forever … through all generations.”

Speaking into the context of Israel in exile and post-exile the scriptures attest to the power and ultimate victory of God.

Israel’s God is (1) the one responsible for the created order and (2) still acting in the here and now to save his people. Yahweh, in other words, is creator and redeemer, and creation and redemption are not two separate acts; the latter is an instantiation of the former. That Yahweh was Israel’s creator and redeemer is what made him stand out among the crowd of less worthy gods, why their God alone was truly worthy of worship. (p. 65)

The theological message of the Old Testament speaks to the power and majesty of God and to his work as Israel’s redeemer. This sets the foundation for our understanding of the work of Jesus as God’s Messiah. Enns suggests that to read all of the cultural allusions at work in the Old Testament as literal will unavoidably misunderstand the theology at work. Our modern cultural context is very different.

Do you think that Yahweh as creator an redeemer is a good summary of the message of the Old Testament?

Is it reasonable to suppose that the original authors used ancient ideas about origins to convey ideas about Yahweh as creator and redeemer?

The case Enns makes for the theological message of the Old Testament is powerful, God is creator and redeemer. As one who is by nature a student and a synthesizer, who likes to look for and understand the big picture, I found the book full of important new insights and understanding. The Old Testament as a whole makes sense in ways I never saw before.

Enns also draws connections between various elements of the Old Testament – Genesis 1, the construction of the Tabernacle, the construction of the Temple, the importance of a cycle of work and rest, the pattern of seven. The created world is God’s temple. The creation story in Genesis 1 is part of Israel’s story of self-definition and the Sabbath is Israel’s privilege to share in God’s rest after victory over chaos.

Adam in Genesis. 

The specific argument Enns advances for the role of Adam within the theological message of the Old Testament is, I think, somewhat less convincing. This makes it interesting and worth some serious discussion centering around both Adam in Genesis and Adam as understood by Paul.

Enns first suggests that some of the elements of the story of Adam are about the origins of Israel rather than about the universal origin of humanity. This is a line of thought that has its origins in pre-Christian literature in Second Temple Judaism. The parallels are outlined in the table below (Table 4.1 p. 66)

This is summarized:

Adam in primordial times plays out Israel’s national life. He is proto-Israel – a preview of coming attractions. This does not mean, however, that a historical Adam was a template for Israel’s national life. Rather Israel’s drama – its struggles over the land and failure to follow God’s law – is placed into primordial time. In doing so, Israel claims that it has been God’s special people all along, from the very beginning. But this is no mere triumphalism. Israel is also asserting that (1) its sorry pattern of disobedience and eventual exile has marked their existence since the very beginning; (2) despite this pattern, their creator and savior has always been with them – and remains with them. This message of God’s faithfulness would have been especially poignant in the wake of the exile, which is likely the time when the stories were brought into their final form (as we saw earlier). (p. 66-67)

Enns continues on to describe some of the ways that this idea of Adam as proto-Israel can be reconciled with various features of the text.

Physical death becomes Adam’s end when he disobeys and is exiled from God’s garden containing the tree of life. Life, human life, is a divine gift from God – I’ve posted on my thoughts about this before, particularly in the post last August: Immortality is a Divine Gift.

Because Adam in the story is the original Israelite not the original human the presence of other peoples is not a problem. Cain found his wife from another nation.

Enns also discusses the world plays and use of the word ‘adam as, perhaps, and indication that Adam is “the one human with whom he has a unique relationship, the progenitor of God’s chosen people, Israel.”

Noah continues the line of Adam within God’s chosen people – again with disobedience, obedience, and God as creator and redeemer. The flood need not be universal in the context of the story. The parallels with Gilgamesh and Atrahasis suggest that the story has been restructured as Israel’s story.

The Story is Christ-Centered. 

I could stop at this point and open the topic for discussion – but to be fair to the force of the argument of the book it is important to point out that the story Enns puts forth is first and foremost Christ-centered. The last section of Chapter 4, The Gospel and Primordial Time, comes back to this focus.

“Jesus is the final and unsurpassed intersection of primordial time in history.” The Gospel of John is a telling of the gospel with a theological focus that brings all of these elements together. In the beginning was the word … and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus is the temple (John 2:19). The fantastic hymn in Colossians 1:15-20 repeats the same theme. All things were created through and for Jesus.

[T]he New Testament transform’s Israel’s own traditions to address the climactic turn of events in the gospel. How Israel articulates the intersection of primordial time and history is no longer adequate. Israel’s self-definition is not abandoned, but it is transformed to account for the climactic act of God. In the resurrection of the Son of God, the people see more deeply what the Israelites have expressed in their own way. Some of their articulations remain as vibrant as ever, while others are exposed as mere shadows, awaiting the clearer word that is in Jesus (Heb 1:1-4; 8:5-6) (p. 75)

In Part Two of the book Enns moves on to look at Paul’s understanding of Adam, of Christ as the second man born not of dust but from heaven, and the role this plays or should play in our understanding of the gospel. For now, however, we can stop and consider the story of Adam as told in Genesis.

What do you think about the idea that Adam is the proto-Israelite rather than the proto-human?

Do you think it works with the text? What are the theological implications?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Entire link, McKnight/Enns part 3.

--Nick