Adam is Israel

March 2, 2010
Category: BioLogos Features

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

For a related discussion of this post, see our recent video blog with N.T. Wright: "On Genesis 2 and 3".

For the past few posts we’ve been looking at creation in the Old Testament as a cosmic battle, and we’ve spent a lot of time seeing how that idea works itself out in the book of Exodus.

There is much more to Exodus and creation in the Old Testament than cosmic battle. I am not trying to say that cosmic battle is some magic key to unlock the mysteries of the Bible. But it does open a new window to seeing the ”ancient ways” in which the Israelites thought of creation.

It also helps us look at the Adam story from an angle that might be new to some readers here: Adam is the beginning of Israel, not humanity. I imagine this may require some explanation.

Israel’s history as a nation can be broken down as follows:

Israel is “created” by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the Red Sea is “divided”);

The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit, a lush land flowing with milk and honey;

They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law;

They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon.

Israel’s history parallels Adam’s drama in Genesis:

Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1;

Adam is placed in a lush garden;

Law (not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is given as a stipulation for remaining in the garden;

Adam and Eve disobey and are exiled.

There are two ways of looking at this parallel. You could say that the Adam story came first and then the Israelites just followed that pattern. But there is another way. Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins.

Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these readings of Genesis has more “explanatory power.” I (and other biblical scholars) come down on the second option for a number of reasons, some having to do with Genesis itself while others concern other issues in the Bible. Let me give one reason from Genesis.

If we see Adam as a story of Israelite origins, it will help us make sense of at least one nagging question that begins in Genesis 4:13—one that readers of Genesis, past and present, have picked up on. After Cain kills Abel, he is afraid of a posse coming after him, which casually presumes the existence of other people. So God puts a mark on Cain and exiles him to Nod, a populated city to the east. There he takes a wife and they have a child, Enoch, and Cain proceeds to build a city, named after his son, in which others can live.

Some have solved this problem by saying that Adam and Eve had a lot more children that Genesis simply neglects to mention, and so Cain married his sister. I suppose if one must, one can take refuge in this explanation. But this scenario seems a bit desperate—not to mention uncomfortable. Plus, this explanation is completely made up. Genesis neither says nor hints that the residents of Nod are Adam and Eve’s offspring. They are just “there.”

If the Adam story is about the first humans, the presence of other humans outside of Eden is out of place. We are quite justified in concluding that the Adam story is not about absolute human origins but the beginning of one smaller subset, one particular people.

The parallels between Israel and Adam that we see above tell us that the particular people in mind are Israel. Adam is “proto-Israel.”

Some might object that Genesis 1-11 deals with universal matters, not merely one people: the entire cosmos created in Genesis 1, the flood, the disbursement of the nations after the flood. Absolutely. No question there. But the point is this: after the creation of humanity in Genesis 1, Genesis 2 begins to tell the story of “proto-Israel.” In other words, Israel was not a latecomer, coming into existence only in the exodus. Israel was always there as God’s specially chosen people since the beginning.

Look at it this way. The word “adam” is ambiguous in Genesis. Every commentator notes that sometimes “adam” represents humanity (so I will use the lower case); other times it is the name “Adam” (upper case) representing one man. What does this back and forth mean? It means that Adam is a special subset of adam.

The character “Adam” is the focus of the story because he is the part of “adam” that God is really interested in. There is “adam” outside of Eden (in Nod), but inside of Eden, which is God’s focus, there is only “Adam”—the one with which he has a unique relationship.

The question in Genesis is whether “Adam” will be obedient to “the law” and stay in Eden, thus continuing this special relationship, or join the other “adam” outside in “exile.” This is the same question with Israel: after being “created” by God, will they obey and remain in the land, or disobey and be exiled?

Having said all this let me take a step or two back. I am not saying that this is ALL there is to the Adam story. There are all sorts of angles one can take to get at that extremely rich and deep piece of theology. But the “Adam is Israel” angle is at the very least a very good one—and in my opinion a much better angle than seeing Adam as the first human and all humans are descended from him. Genesis does not support that reading.

This “Israel-centered” reading of Adam is not a stretch. It is widely recognized, not only in modern scholarship, but by pre-modern interpreters. And you have to admit there is one distinct advantage of this reading that readers of BioLogos will recognize immediately: if the Adam story is not about absolute human origins, then the conflict between the Bible and evolution cannot be found there.

The conflict is found elsewhere in the Bible—namely in the New Testament and specifically in two of Paul’s letters.

We’ll get to that next.

For a related discussion, see our recent video blog with N.T. Wright: "On Genesis 2 and 3".

Filed Under:

creation, Adam, Eve, Genesis, faith, evolution, theology, Scripture, reading, interpretation, Israel, exile, Old Testament, hermenuetics, Bible, Christianity, meaning, myth

Share |

Comments (116)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.

steve martin - #5646

March 2^nd 2010

Hi Pete,
Just a quick note to say that I’ve really appreciated this series.

Also, I am looking forward to what you have to say next about Paul’s letters. Frankly, I’d say most of us that are comfortable with the reconciliation of biological evolution and our Evangelical faith (including a high view of scripture) really aren’t that troubled with Genesis. As you (and many others within the OT community) have pointed out on numerous times for a long, long time, the “literalistic” interpretation just isn’t tenable.

Now the NT passages (oo, let me guess, you aren’t going to mention Rom 5 are you ) THOSE are more troubling to many of us.
Gordon J. Glover - #5647

March 2^nd 2010

“Some have solved this problem by saying that Adam and Eve had a lot more children that Genesis simply neglects to mention, and so Cain married his sister.”

Actually Pete, regarding Cain’s siblings: Genesis 4:25 says that when Seth was born, God was granting Eve another son in the place of Abel, “since Cain killed him.”

So if one suscribes to the “other children” hypothesis, then the inhabitants of Nod must have been female, otherwise Eve’s statement in 4:25 would be false. That means the first cold-blooded killer was actually afraid that his younger sisters would gang up on him!

And if one attempts to wiggle out of this by claiming the text fails to mention other sons or that it does not read chronologically, then perhaps the text also fails to mention the 14 billion years of natural history the took place after 1:1 and the days of creation are not chronological? Hmm…

(cont…)
Gordon J. Glover - #5648

March 2^nd 2010

(...cont)

My experience in debating the literalists is that they can rarely walk the walk. I’ll never forget how shocked I was to read Henry Morris’ commentary on Genesis 1 where he invents a second firmament ad hoc to avoid the obvious conflict between 1:6 and 1:16. Huh? I’m not allowed to add time between the days of creation but Morris can hand out firmaments like they are candy at Halloween? Where is the consistency there?

GJG
Chaka - #5649

March 2^nd 2010

The parallels between Adam and Israel are noncontroversial. What I’m unconvinced of is that readers who understand Adam as the first man have misunderstood Genesis.

These “pre-modern interpreters” you mention—do they say that Adam is Israel AND Adam is not humanity? If they say the former without saying the latter, then they can hardly be taken as sharing your reading.

Your last paragraph seems to acknowledge that Paul, at least, understood Adam as the first man. It seems that you would have to admit that other voices within the Bible share this understanding. Whoever is responsible for Gen 3:20 thought that Eve was the mother of all who live.

I’m enjoying the series.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5650

March 2^nd 2010

Peter,

You have Adam is Israel by way of metaphor.

What if Adam, the first Adam, means the literal first “Israelite?”

Christ, the “last Adam,” does not imply Jesus was the last man. Nor does it require we be literal descendants of Christ or Adam.

Both Cain and the pharisees of Matt. 23 were sons of the serpent. They were dead. They were not sons of the living, Eve.

In typical ancient parlance, Genesis 2 says that there were mines in Havilah and a city-state named Eden.

Adam is Israel. Adam is not humanity. Israel was restricted to the old covenant people, a covenant that began in Gen. 1, over a thousand years before Moses.
John VanZwieten - #5657

March 2^nd 2010

Peter,

Are you suggesting the Gen 2&3 are historical accounts of the beginnings of Israel, or mythic accounts _about_ the beginnings of Israel? I’m sorry if I missed something obvious in your post.
Gregory Arago - #5658

March 2^nd 2010

Hi Pete,

Thanks for provoking my thoughts here!

First, I’d like to clarify: this is not ‘science’, right? I’ve no problem with that!

A couple of your quotes, followed by brief commentary:
“Genesis neither says nor hints that the residents of Nod are Adam and Eve’s offspring. They are just “there”.”

“Israel was not a latecomer, coming into existence only in the exodus. Israel was always there as God’s specially chosen people since the beginning.”

“if the Adam story is not about absolute human origins, then the conflict between the Bible and evolution cannot be found there.”

~
The translation I checked says Nod means ‘wandering;’ ‘land of Nod’ doesn’t imply a ‘city.’ Cain later built a city, but I don’t read ‘city’ or ‘residents’ before this.

Isn’t it appropriate to say, with Genesis 32: 28 that Jacob is Israel? There were many ‘people’ (i.e. sons and daughters of Adam & Eve) before Jacob.

How much have you consulted Christian/Jewish anthropologists about this, in addition to biblical scholars?

Comparing ‘anthropos’ to ‘adam’ & ‘Adam’ might serve fruitful too…
Gregory Arago - #5659

March 2^nd 2010

...as well as Homo sapiens!
Gregory Arago - #5661

March 2^nd 2010

Sorry to respond again before an answer. There are many things in your post, Dr. Enns, to address and question!

You wrote:
“Every commentator notes that sometimes “adam” represents humanity (so I will use the lower case); other times it is the name “Adam” (upper case) representing one man.”

Could we agree ‘adam’ = Humanity (upper case)? That is, *all* of Humanity (in Unity) reflects the ‘imago Dei’? (Gen 1: 27, 5: 1)

If you would contend that some (of) ‘adam(s)’ are not created ‘imago Dei’ then I forsee a great problem for such an approach.

Also, wouldn’t it be appropriate, given Gen 32: 28 to say that Israel was not ‘created by God’ but was rather ‘named by God’? Or would you say this is not different?

This also would provide an outlet for those who oppose ‘creation’ with ‘evolution.’

Respectfully,
Gregory
Lem - #5662

March 2^nd 2010

I agree that the text of Genesis does not demand that Adam was literally the biological father of all humanity, anymore than Abraham was the literal biological father of every Israelite. Abraham was the primary patriarch of Israel and Edom, but logically, other men contributed to the gene pool until it was diverse enough for the group to be endogamous.

But the following statement is problematic: “In other words, Israel was not a latecomer, coming into existence only in the exodus. Israel was always there as God’s specially chosen people since the beginning.” Problematic, since we know that the story of the chosen people began specifically when God called Abraham and instituted circumcision.

If we lose the universality of the human race as expressed in Genesis 1-11, then we lose the narrative of human origin - division into nations - calling of Abraham - Israel’s calling and separation - the arrival of the Messiah and the subsequent reuniting of the nations under one Lord, faith, and baptism.
Norm - #5666

March 2^nd 2010

Gregory,

I think you bring up a very important issue. Here is where my studies have led me concerning the biblical use of (adam). An examination of how that word is utilized in scriptures points to it as indicative of covenant man or Israel. This gets to the issue of who exactly is under consideration in Gen 1:26-28 and should be understood as a collective term. It’s speaking of the covenant people Israel and is prophetic of the culmination of creation and not of the beginning of Creation. The Image of God there is speaking toward a prophetic fulfillment of the Temple creation account and has the end in sight and not the beginning.

The sixth Day equates to the coming of Messiah and the dominion exercised over all the created beings per Gen 1:28, (Gentiles are represented consistently in scripture as animals). This corresponds with Peter’s vision of the animals coming into covenant after Pentecost in Acts 10. This helps to explain the mystery of the language change from Good to Very Good as it is the ultimate consummation of God’s finished imbuing the Image of God through Christ. I realize this is a brief outline but it fits the bill when seen as Israel being resurrected from dead Adam to life in Christ the second Adam.
Mark Edward - #5667

March 2^nd 2010

Incidentally, both Adam and Eve’s exile was toward the east (for the cherub is set on the east side to guard the entrance), and Judah’s exile to Babylon, in the east.
thunkofit - #5670

March 2^nd 2010

So, then, Israel did not consider all human beings as made in God’s image? That was a peculiarly Israelite status?

hmmm.
Norm - #5675

March 2^nd 2010

Often times the East indicates toward the Gentiles and symbolically puts one further away from relationship with God. The difference between Adam and Cain is that Adam was told his work symbolically would yield thorns and thistles while Cain was banished effectively back to Gentile status where his labor would yield no food. This language is all symbolic of relationship with God. Cain’s banishment effectively removes him from Covenant status with God while Adam was “dead” but still with Hope through the “seed” of Eve the “mother of all the Spiritual Living”.

Adam’s plight was Israel’s plight as seen in Ezk 37 concerning the symbolic dead valley of bones that will be resurrected through the Messiah. As Enns says Adam is a microcosm story of Israel and Israel’s story resonates with topology such as the exodus pointing to the Messianic time which is the climax of everything written in scripture.
Lem - #5676

March 2^nd 2010

I don’t bring this up to score a quick point against anyone, but the kind of exegesis seen in Dr. Enns’ post is the same exegesis the “Christian Identity” adherents use to support white supremacy. Claiming that Adam is the father of only Israel (which they believe to be the white race, prior to a massive immigration to Europe) they justify segregation from non-whites.

To say that Adam is the father of Israel only, rather than of humanity in general, makes much of Genesis unintelligible. Clearly the author of Genesis believed that Adam was the father of all the nations, from the Midianites to the Hamites to the Japhethites, and established this with genealogies.
Norm - #5677

March 2^nd 2010

The Image of God is an attribute conferred only upon those in Covenant with God as seen in the NT. Adam/Israel starts out only in the Lesser (Likeness) of God as seen in Gen 5:1. This attribute of the Likeness is found detailed for us in 1 Cor 15 where Paul describes the Covenant nature of Adam as the “natural” and mortal nature of Israel but through Christ will take on the “spiritual” nature of God being raised to eternal life.

1Co 15:47-49 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. (48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (49) And AS WE HAVE BORNE THE IMAGE OF THE EARTHY, WE SHALL ALSO BEAR THE IMAGE OF THE HEAVENLY.

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON,
Col 1:15 He is THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, the firstborn of all creation.
2Co 3:17-18 Now the Lord is the Spirit, … And WE ALL, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, ARE BEING TRANSFORMED INTO THE SAME IMAGE
2Co 4:4 …. of the glory of Christ, WHO IS THE IMAGE OF GOD.
Col 3:10 and have put on THE NEW SELF, which is being renewed in knowledge AFTER THE IMAGE OF ITS CREATOR.
Norm - #5678

March 2^nd 2010

Lem,

I think you are jumping to conclusions because Christianity is built upon a spiritual relationship with God and the good news of the Gospel is that the two peoples (Jew and Gentile) are now one in Covenant with God with no racial distinction.

Eph 2:12-22 that ye (Gentiles nv) were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (13) But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. (14) For he is our peace, WHO MADE BOTH ONE, AND BRAKE DOWN THE MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION, (15) having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; THAT HE MIGHT CREATE IN HIMSELF OF THE TWO ONE NEW MAN, so making peace; (16) and might RECONCILE THEM BOTH IN ONE BODY UNTO GOD THROUGH THE CROSS, having slain the enmity thereby: (17) and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh: …. (18) for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father. (22) in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5679

March 2^nd 2010

Thunkofit,

Each ancient city-state had its own god, its own people, and its own law. They had their own “creation” story. That god and law were only for that people, the citizens. It was for no other.

Wiseman, the original ANE scholar, claimed Gen. 1 was the pattern for all these others. Current ANE scholars claim Genesis is a polemic against the others and follows their pattern.

Either way, you have the modern assumption that these creation stories are cosmologies. Is that true?

Hamurabi’s Code starts with a creation story. Why do we translate it differently than we do these “cosmologies?” Is it fundamentally different? Or are our modern expectations different?

We expect Genesis to be about the creation of the physical universe and all human beings, therefore we read it that way. The ancients would have seen it as the creation of their city-state, the law and the first citizens. Only the citizens were in the image of their god.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5680

March 2^nd 2010

Lem,

Claiming Adam is the father of Israel only does no such thing. Israel was destroyed (except for a remnant) in AD 70. The “white race” was grafted in. So was the “black race.” So was every other “race” of Christians. These other “races” were the sea of Genesis 1. “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.”

Genesis reads rather straightforwardly with as Adam the father of Israel. It is our modern reading that is unintelligible. We’ve made a habit of ignoring numerous details in the text that defy any traditional reading.
Gregory Arago - #5683

March 2^nd 2010

Norm,

Gen 1: 27 is the first reference to ‘image of God’ or ‘imago Dei’, not Gen 5: 1.

I don’t think that your ‘Adam/Israel’ combination is yet warranted. This is open for discussion, as far as I understand Dr. Enn’s message. There may be good arguments for it, but preferably not premature conclusions. Let’s talk!

This is *much* (even MUCH) more difficult an issue for (evangelical) Christians than ‘age of Earth’!

I’d not seen the words ‘Lesser’ or ‘Likeness’ capitalized before #5677

So many natures and naturals…

Norm, how/why do you equate ‘covenent man’ with ‘Israel’? Who was Jacob to you, historical or not? Was he named Israel or not?
Brian Thomas - #5686

March 2^nd 2010

Dr. Enns,
Very thought provoking. This makes sense, especially as Adam is the first toledot leading to the formation of Israel.

Could you please recommend some references for digging deeper, especially the pre-modern interpretors you mention? Thanks.
Pete Enns - #5687

March 2^nd 2010

My, my. I walk away from my desk for a few hours and I am mobbed. It’s nice to be noticed. Let me begin some interaction here and I will come back to it later today to tomorrow. Chaka 5649: A very good point. AIt is generally fair to say that ancient interpreters did not think of an either/or but both and. I am suggesting an either/or (although, I hope all can see, I think the conversation is important and we can all learn a bit from each about this). Jeffry 5650: I think Adam does mean “first Israelite” literally, but as the Israelites understood their own origins. In that sense, follow John 5657, I am saying that Gen 2-3 is not historical but mythic, symbolic, archetypal (to pick up on Walton’s language). I know there are differences between these labels, but I am not going to go into that now.
Pete Enns - #5689

March 2^nd 2010

Greg 5658: You are right. It is better to refer to Nod as a land rather than a city. I was conflating there. As for the symbolic name of the land, yes on that too, but the fact remains there are people there. And yes, too, Jacob is Israel BUT—and I am not just “Adam happy” here: Jacob is an Adam figure—so are Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ. They all represent new beginnings for a people. For Christians, only one of these was obedient—even unto death. Also, all humans are imago dei—and this happens in Gen 1, not 2. Greet points, by the way.
Gregory Arago - #5691

March 2^nd 2010

Please forgive, because I know you are the expert here Pete, but how can one say Jacob *is* Israel, and also that Adam *is* Israel at the same time? Does ‘Israel’ have an supra-human meaning?

They/we are all apples, right?

Isn’t there *necessarily* a precedent or priority or *first*? God named Jacob as Israel. I just don’t see then how Adam can be said to be also Israel other through the use of metaphor or analogy, i.e. without history, if the name Israel was first given to Jacob.

As an aside, Pete, I find this something very problematic with ‘evolutionary philosophy’ in that it gives away the need for ‘firsts’. It often fails at ‘first moments’. One simply must ‘get historical’ at some point.

I am curious and intrigued to learn more about how you do/see this, given the current topic.
Norm - #5692

March 2^nd 2010

Greg,

Thanks for the opportunity to talk.

Concerning the Image of God and which comes first the Likeness or the Image. First it is important to determine the purpose of Gen 1 and I like Walton take it as a 7 Day Creation account. I though see it describing the totality of Israel from beginning to climatic end which is how some of the ancients viewed it as well before Hellinization set in and became the standard view. Therefore Gen 2:4b is the beginning of the detailed Adam/Israel’s story fleshed out more vividly.

Gen 5:1 details for us that there was no Image of God but only the Likeness of God at first. The Hebrew words for Image and Likeness are close but not the same and you will find that the Hebrews were very careful in their word constructs in Genesis. I also take my cue from Paul’s theological dissection of Adam in the NT where he defines how the Adamic “body” is manifested in an inferior state of creation in 1 Cor 15:45-49. The key to understanding this is to realize that Paul is speaking of Adam as Israel corporately just as Enns is seeing. As I have posted before the Image of God was only an attribute that came through tChrist. Israel wasn’t in the Image originally; thus the need for redemption.
Norm - #5694

March 2^nd 2010

Greg,

Everything in scriptures revolves around Covenant with God. That is the worldview of the ANE and particularly the Hebrews. Adam’s story is written from that mindset and one needs to grasp the importance of that model in keeping the storyline accurate from their viewpoint. Most folks do not grasp Adam as Covenant man but they have no problem recognizing it with Israel. Well Adam, Abraham, Jacob and Joseph were all in Covenant with God.

Hos 6:7 But they (Ephraim , Judah) like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

I see the above mentioned characters as historical but mythic (to borrow a phrase) as we see all of these characters with story lines revolving around them that are caricatures of Israel and Christ and used typologically to illustrate much more than a historical point.

Yes you are correct that these concepts just like evolution are challenging to most of us raised in the Evangelical church. However these issues that I’m point out to you are ones that I have researched and debated for several years now and it’s finally good to see that some of our scholars are seeing similar things. However I may be a little further out there than some of them are presently.
Tim - #5702

March 2^nd 2010

Pete,

The suggestion that Adam is primarily a representation of Israel and not humanity is intriguing, but it raises a question that a few of the previous posts have already alluded to. How do you explain the sinfulness of the entire human race if we are not descended physically from one man? In Acts 17:26 Paul declares that God made “from one man every nation of mankind…” Paul certainly seems to believe that all men have a common ancestor in Adam.

Tim
Luke - #5703

March 2^nd 2010

Pete,

I’m intrigued by your interpretation here. I myself am an OT studies student, but I must confess that I’ve never heard this view before and have even studied Genesis 1-3 quite extensively.

You mention Genesis 4:13 as validation for your assertion, and I certainly agree here that this is a “problem passage” and doesn’t seem to fit. However, I personally have a tough time building such a fundamental belief on the ambiguity of one text. I am by no mean a young earth guy or anything and think Genesis 1-11 is full of myth, metaphor, etc, but I have a tough time seeing how the pieces fit together if your hypothesis is correct. Is there more biblical evidence for this? Can you point me to a work that adopts this view you promote?

Since I admittedly have not run across this view, my initial reaction is to think you’re trying to make the Bible fit with your modern worldview so you can believe in evolution. However, isn’t this the method you constantly deny in your works? Wouldn’t it be more “honest” to say Genesis 1 is about human origins (not just Israel’s origins), but that of origins according to the ancient and it’s more literary than literal?
Luke - #5704

March 2^nd 2010

It strikes me as odd that you claim it’s about Israel’s origins, then you still make the claim that ALL humanity is imago dei. You also make the claim that Adam was the first Israelite, but at other times I’m lead to think he’s an archetypal figure. Did God really create Adam out of nothing if he’s the first Israelite? Also, who does the female refer to?

I’m certainly open to your interpretation, but it’s going to take a lot more than one proof-text and a couple of parallels to convince me. I hope you don’t disappoint. I’d love to see where you’re coming from more clearly and I’m eagerly anticipating subsequent posts.
norm - #5705

March 2^nd 2010

Tim,

I realize you were addressing Pete but to contextualize the question properly maybe we should look at the Greek wording found in Acts 17:26. The key word under consideration is “haima” which means “BLOOD”. Notice how it is applied in John 1:13 and then properly translated in Acts 17. A correct translation and it’s usage in John 1:13 knocks the wind out of the sails concerning your question about what Paul thought about Adam. Since Adam is nowhere in sight with an accurate translation. Made of Blood or born not of blood appears to be more of a generic description of mankind’s common heritage not necessarily from Adam. It’s called translator bias when there is a presupposition that mars the accuracy lost in translating.

Act 17:26 And hath MADE OF ONE BLOOD all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Joh 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (13) Which were BORN, NOT OF BLOOD, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

If you are interested I’ll try to explain sin from the Hebrew concept.
norm - #5707

March 3^rd 2010

Luke you are indeed correct, IMO Pete cannot hold to “imago dei” for humanity at large while fostering Adam as Israel. I’ve laid out the outline in previous post here how it does work biblically.

Adam was created from the dust of the ground which is metaphor for “he came from mortal origins.” His Garden life did not work because of dependence upon his mortal nature to achieve the commandment or in Israel’s case the Law. This was what the curse of working the ground producing thorns and thistles is about.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Ecc 3:18-20 … regard to the children of man (adam/Israel) that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. (19) For what happens to the children of man (adam) and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man (adam) has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. (20) All go to one place. ALL ARE FROM THE DUST, AND TO DUST ALL RETURN.

Dan 12:2 `And the multitude of those sleeping in the DUST OF THE GROUND do awake, some to life age
Jane - #5710

March 3^rd 2010

Gordon J. Glover - #5647 - you have a new biggest fan, me. Thanks for your thoughts, they will be put to good use.
Gregory Arago - #5720

March 3^rd 2010

I’m finding difficulties here in two ways:
1) I am not a biblical scholar and I hear different expressions given:

“This “Israel-centered” reading of Adam is not a stretch. It is widely recognized, not only in modern scholarship, but by pre-modern interpreters.” - Peter

“I myself am an OT studies student, but I must confess that I’ve never heard this view before and have even studied Genesis 1-3 quite extensively.” - Luke

Norm still uses the Adam/Israel combination as if it were ‘truth’, not discussion.

2) When does biblical scholarship meet with ‘science’ of anthropology, Homo sapiens?

I am worried that Pete’s view sacrifices ‘universal Humanity’.

Norm wrote: “Luke you are indeed correct, IMO Pete cannot hold to “imago dei” for humanity at large while fostering Adam as Israel.”

Still leaning toward what Lem said: “To say that Adam is the father of Israel only, rather than of humanity in general, makes much of Genesis unintelligible.”

And are modern Palestinians made in the image of God? They are clearly not Israelites.
Gregory Arago - #5721

March 3^rd 2010

But of course I won’t blame it *all* on evolutionary theories, Pete. Just some of it!

The pure logic here trumps ‘theories’ about the biosphere: “There must have been a first.”

Anthropology uses the -logos, just as biology uses the -logos.

When speaking of ‘names,’ we must discern where/when a certain name originated. Names simply *must* have origins. If Jacob was *historical*, which it seems to me that Pete would say ‘yes, he was,’ then the *first name* for Israel is associated with Jacob, *not* with Adam.

If, as Pete said in #5689, “Jacob is an Adam figure—so are Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ,” what he at some point needs to distinguish is: who then is *not* Israel?

This is where the segregation question and the division of ‘races’ rears its face.
Pete Enns - #5724

March 3^rd 2010

Folks,

Some interesting comments, but generally, at least to come of you, I would ask that you read my previous posts, then perhaps return to this post and even my comments here. My reading of Adam is based on factors outside of Genesis but certainly include Genesis.

The problem remains that we have people outside of Eden. Where did they come from? I would be happy to see suggestions.
Gregory Arago - #5725

March 3^rd 2010

“The problem remains that we have people outside of Eden” - Dr. Pete Enns

What do you mean by ‘people’? How do you define ‘person’? Can a person ‘live’ *without* the image of God?

“Where did they come from?” - Dr. Enns

They were pre-human or non-human; part of natural history, which many use the theory of ‘evolution’ to describe ‘scientifically’. They were *not* Homo sapiens. They did not possess the image of God.

Adam and Eve were put *into* Eden from outside (Gen 2: 8). They were taken from pre-human/non-human stock and later became ‘human’ - Homo sapiens - when they were *specially* put into Eden and inbreathed with the image of God, covenant people.
Gregory Arago - #5728

March 3^rd 2010

The other option is that pre-Adamites or non-Adamites were both *human* in some senses and also *not-human*.

But then the meaning of the lower case ‘adam’ is called into question for its universal Humanity, as Pete has already noted above.

This is distinct, however, from suggesting a multiple-Adamism or polygenism.
norm - #5729

March 3^rd 2010

Greg,

I guess the reason that I use Adam/Israel concretely is because it is not a new concept to me as it may be to you and others. I have firmed it up theologically and I’m not ambivalent about this subject so may come across as convinced on the matter which may be foggy to you. Rest assured I’ve wrestled with many of the questions that you are asking and have tested them theologically and in fact am still looking at them.
I would say, go back and read my earlier post here and then come back with specific theological questions concerning what I’m stating. That is the only way I know to reconcile your concerns properly and truly have discussion.

Greg you are concerned that Pete’s views sacrifice Universal Humanity but I would challenge that it’s just the opposite. What inferring “imago dei” upon humanity at large does is embrace Universal Salvation without Christ. The Bible is pretty explicit that man begins as a mortal being contrary to what we may think. I refer you back to Ecc 3:18-20 which I posted above and is just a sampling of the Biblical viewpoint of mans mortal nature. That we are redeemed from the mortal nature to eternal life is what resurrection is all about and is the climax of the Messianic story.
norm - #5733

March 3^rd 2010

Greg to answer your question concerning whether the Palestinians have the “imago dei” or not is to ask the question of whether they or any man is faithful to the God of the Bible. I believe I put off the mortal nature when I put my faith in Christ the redeemer and live through the Spirit which is God’s Image.

2Co 3:17-18 Now THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (18) And WE ALL, … are being TRANSFORMED INTO THE SAME IMAGE … For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Since God so loved the world that He Sent His Son to redeem us from the curse of mortality how then could we ever say that any man was not precious and worthy in His sight. Christ died while we were yet sinners that we might live eternally with God and it is the free gift to all men regardless of race or ethnicity. God grieves over any that reject the abundant “life” that brings them into His Covenant fellowship. It’s the gospel message at its purest as the Jew and the Gentile have been brought into the One man of redemption through Christ Jesus our Head.
CodeMonkey - #5739

March 3^rd 2010

I read here that the Genesis story is open to one reading or another, right. So it would follow that any of the biblical stories are open to one reading or another, which means they can be twisted to fit any position.

Not a big fan of stuff like that myself.

My reading….it’s all just a fairy tale that never actually hppened. Not to be a party pooper, but I would have to imagine that my “reading” would be just as valid as any other.
Michael Thompson - #5740

March 3^rd 2010

Interesting, so we don’t become truely human in the image of God until we enter into the covanent by faith and are born again?

MT
norm - #5743

March 3^rd 2010

MT, I would say that everyone is truly human but one doesn’t have right standing with God until they are born again in His Spirit and Image.

CodeMonkey, your reading would be valid as long as its consistent with the Biblical view which has a consistent story line and ending. The end result of the OT can be determined from the NT interpretation of it.
Chaka - #5744

March 3^rd 2010

Dr. Enns wrote in #5724 that “the problem remains that we have people outside of Eden. Where did they come from?”

I don’t feel the force of this problem like you do. First, I’m ready to accept that any account of distant origins is going to be murky, with inconsistencies and unexplained leaps. E.g., I feel no need to explain how light exists before the sun (Gen 1:3, 14).

Second, it’s not true in a narrative sense that “we have people outside of Eden.” They don’t exist in the narrative until Adam and Eve are out of Eden (Gen 4).

Third, the “other people” in Gen 4 aren’t really characters in the narrative, they’re just props—they pop up when they’re needed to allow the story to move forward.

In short, this is only a problem if you insist that Adam, Eve, Cain, and Cain’s wife are all literal individual persons. But you don’t insist that. So why is it a problem?

You mention that you find more “explanatory power” in your reading of Adam for multiple reasons. I’d be interested to hear the others, particularly what convinces you to confirm “Adam as Israel” and deny “Adam as everyone.”
Janice - #5745

March 3^rd 2010

norm - what you said in your posts above regarding “The Image of God” - (#5733 and earlier) makes sense to me and seems to be backed up by Morschauser. (See below)

Scott N. Morschauser, a Presbyterian Theologian, has recently used the evidence from the Ancient Near East to argue that Gen 1:26 should be more properly understood as, “Image _for_ God.” In this way, many theological stumbling blocks can be diverted since man isn’t really in the image _of_ God.

S.N. Morschauser, “Created in the Image of God: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Imago Dei,” Theology Matters, Vol 3 No.6 Nov/Dec 1997.

Created in the Tselem of God: A reply: “The idea makes sense, since “for” is implied indeed in the meaning.” - J.P. Holding
Dick Fischer - #5746

March 3^rd 2010

Let my comment on the “literalist” approach. Personally, I take Genesis more literally then even the YECs try to do and it works well with a few caveats. Keep in mind the King James translators converted OT Hebrew and Aramaic into English with the mindset that the entire human race descended from Adam, that the flood was global obliterating all human and animal life except those on the ark, that after the great flood all humanity spoke one universal language, and that all languages eminated from Babel. That mistaken though commonly held idea not only colored the translation it established the tradition from which more modern translations have never departed. When translated and interpreted in the light of the history of the ancient Near East, a literalist approach works just fine.

Many of the Genesis 2-11 patriarchs can be found in parallel literature. And all of them can be where Genesis includes some additional information.
John VanZwieten - #5750

March 3^rd 2010

Dirk,

Can you point towards the translation you mention? Is there a book or website that explains the parallels?
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5752

March 3^rd 2010

Dick,

I read your book several years ago and had my entire world turned over (again). Your approach as the only “literal” approach. (Using the contemporary fundamentalist / evangelical / dispenstaional definition of literal.) Your book is an extremely important contribution to the subject. Thank-you for your work.

It took me a few more years before I thought to ask, “Did the author of Genesis 1 really mean to tell us about the “creation” of the physical universe?” This is the unquestioned assumption of almost every modern commentator. Even those best known for questioning this assumption, never truly questioned it. Walton, for example, calls it a “functional” creation of the “cosmic temple.” His cosmic temple is the physical universe.

In the prophets and in the New Testament, Heavens and Earth refers to God’s people, Israel, and their covenant with God. Why should we assume that Heavens and Earth in Genesis 1 is different from Heavens and Earth in the rest of Scripture? Why can’t Heavens and Earth be “Israel” all the way from the beginning?

Make that “little” change, and most of the details you’ve confirmed in early Genesis suddenly jump out as the only way the story makes sense.
Norm - #5755

March 3^rd 2010

Janice,

I’ve skimmed through this article and I must say I was duly impressed. I do have some differences but by and large this was a well presented examination of the Biblical and ANE understanding of the Image of God.

I’ll start with the differences. The author IMO starts out with Humanity at large as the ones under discussion which I believe is in error. Being I’m an Evolutionist I see humanity existing in various stages for tens of thousands of years including subspecies such as the Neanderthals and other lesser developed branches. If we hold to the idea of humanity being in God’s Image then where do we start? I start with the forming out of mortal humanity those chosen to serve as God’s Image bearers and IMO it starts with a historical Adam/Israel covenant ancestor. Gen 4:26 says these first faithful called on the name of the Lord.

It started good but turned south quickly in the Garden and basically delayed the completion of God’s intended work until Christ came and accomplished what the first Adam could not.

The question is did Adam fall from the Image of/for God or did he fall from his lesser state of mortality as defined by Paul. Adam/Israel was waiting redemption from the mortal state to the immortal.
Dick Fischer - #5756

March 3^rd 2010

Thank you Jeffery,

I do have an updated version of that earlier book, and I don’t touch Genesis 1. See www.historicalgenesis.com.

I see essentially no difference in the Genesis One account and Big Bang cosmology. The fourth day of creation is where God appointed the heavenly bodies to function as timekeepers for the sighted creatures to come starting on the fifth day. Here is another example:

Genesis 1:20-21: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life [fish], and fowl [flying insects] that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven [sky]. And God created great whales [large sea creatures], and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind [amphibians and reptiles], and every winged fowl [birds] after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”

I can’t defend every single word, but when allowances are made in a few instances for what seem to be differences in Genesis and our scientific understanding, then I see no reason to go looking for some way to help out more Moses who otherwise would be just plain wrong. I really see no reason to try and put Genesis into any category other than literal-historical.
Gregory Arago - #5757

March 3^rd 2010

“I would say, go back and read my earlier post here and then come back with specific theological questions concerning what I’m stating.” - Norm

I read again.

The first question I asked to Pete at the start of comments: “this is not ‘science’, right?”

I am interested not *only* in theological questions, but *also* in scientific questions. I find your theology helpful, Norm, but as yet there is no link you’ve provided to how it connects with anthropology. In this sense, it may be that your position is still as ‘fuzzy’ as mine.

For instance, in #5729 you speak of Universal Humanity (Homo sapiens?) and Universal Salvation. Yet, to you, non-Adam/Israel human beings do not *have* the image of God. This seems a rather exclusionary, unecumenical position!

Would someone please help me understand by addressing the issue of Gen 32: 28 and the *naming* of Jacob as ‘Israel’? If the first mention of ‘Israel’ is connected by name with Jacob, how then can one suggest ‘Adam is Israel’?

Is Israel an ahistorical name *without* an origin?
Norm - #5758

March 3^rd 2010

Greg,

As I stated about two posts above that I’m an evolutionist but I had to work my way through all the speed bumps to get there (had a big hang up dealing with a statistical analysis on the Cambrian explosion for a while). Basically I’m a non concordist probably to the extreme and by that I mean I’m able to separate the biblical and scientific discussions as defined in today’s contemporary climate. An example is that I do not read Gen 1 as science in hardly any sense at all because it is mythic in nature or what ever ANE definition one is comfortable describing it. The elements that we find in Gen 1 are all found in the rest of the scriptures and I use a comprehensive investigation of their biblical usage to help illustrate their nature and purpose.

I indeed am not ecumenical when it comes to being in Covenant in God as I see that as a faith relationship upon which Judaism and Christianity have been built upon. Many are called but not all will answer. To me biblically appropriating the full Image of God upon the broad expanse of humankind is rejecting the necessary work of Christ and is akin to Universal Salvation to all mankind whether in faithful covenant or not.
Dick Fischer - #5759

March 3^rd 2010

“The problem remains that we have people outside of Eden. Where did they come from? I would be happy to see suggestions.” - Pete Enns.

If the history of the ANE is relevant, and I think it is, Adam would have been the first of the Akkadians dated to about 7,000 years ago. They preceded the Sumerians judging by the Sumerian King List which puts Semites (or Adamites) in first position at Eridu.

Ubaidans were early inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia in that region, however, there were earlier excursions in the north, Samarrans, Halafians, Natufians, but they probably did not venture too far south. it took the invention of irrigation, which Genesis hints at, to establish a settlement near the Persian Gulf

The biblical picture starts at Eridu with Adam.

Someone asked about a translation. If anybody would like to see a tentative re-translation of Genesis 1-11 send an email to dickfischer@verizon.net
Gregory Arago - #5760

March 3^rd 2010

Ah, yes, Norm, now you’ve taken a step towards scientifc explanation.

You wrote: “Being I’m an Evolutionist I see humanity existing in various stages for tens of thousands of years including subspecies such as the Neanderthals and other lesser developed branches. If we hold to the idea of humanity being in God’s Image then where do we start?”

Here’s a major issue with ‘being an Evolutionist’; being stuck in flux (i.e. the basis of evolutionary philosophy) makes no ‘intervention’ possible according to its fuzzy, gradualist, anti-kind perspective.

Yet there simply *must* be something that didn’t evolve. I believe that God ‘created’ human beings as a special kind of species, in God own Image. In this sense, I am an Adamic scientist.

Is humanity then different in degree or kind from (other) animals? If one answers ‘only in degree’ as natural-physical scientists tend to do, along with ethologists and eVo psychologists, then how can he or she suggest that the image of God is special to human beings or that a Covenent did not just ‘naturally evolve’ into existence? Only outside of natural science.

The image of God is ‘more-than-natural,’ isn’t it?
Gregory Arago - #5761

March 3^rd 2010

Hi Jeffrey,

Glad to hear your warm words. I’m a fan of Dick Fischer’s work too.

But I’m a bit confused by your conclusion wrt Israel.

You wrote:
“Why can’t Heavens and Earth be “Israel” all the way from the beginning?”

1) The name Israel was given to a single person, Jacob (Gen 32, 35). This was clearly done ‘after the beginning.’

2) How can ‘Heavens and Earth’ be ‘Israel’ when there are geographically non-Israel(i) lands on Earth?

Why not speak instead of Heaven and Earth with God’s Kingdom?

I quickly checked for references to ‘Israel’ and didn’t discover references to ‘Israel’ as ‘Heaven and Earth’. Could you say what verses you have in mind? There are significantly fewer references to ‘Israel’ in the NT. In the translation I checked, 2295 out of 2378 references to Israel are in the OT.
Norm - #5762

March 3^rd 2010

Greg,

What I mean when I say Adam represents Israel is that Adam’s story is a microcosmic retelling of Israel’s Key theological and historical encounters. I believe that Genesis was written somewhere within 500 years after entering the Promised Land. It is extremely detailed and intricate literature with precise word counts and organization. In my current opinion it requires a very organized and stable priestly order to pull that kind of literature off and that probably fits the post Solomon era of Judah best.

I believe Genesis is pointing more to the Messianic period than it is to the historical people that it is dealing with. In effect Genesis has been compiled to present a prophetic narrative that shadows Israel’s ongoing history. Israel’s future is therefore embodied typologically in all of these stories including Babel which is a picture of Israel amongst the Nations such as Babylon and Assyria, but ultimately Babel is undone at Pentecost. These countries were all players in relation to Israel as demonstrated by Isaiah and Ezekiel where they are intimately tied to Israel. In fact Ezekiel describes these Nations as Trees with Israel in the Garden of Eden. This then is how even the Jews viewed these stories.
Norm - #5763

March 3^rd 2010

Greg,

I’m not a fan of philosophy adding to the exploration of Biblical literature and theology and so I discount its importance. The reason is that the Hebrew theology is what drives OT literature and not Greek or modern philosophy.

I don’t have a problem with evolution sticking me with a dilemma in investigating Genesis because it’s actually not pertinent. I mention my science and evolution background to illustrate that it is a separate investigation and stands outside of my biblical explorations which is not intended to match with science and anthropology.

You see God chose the timing of when to bring mankind into relationship with Him. I would love to answer that question of why He chose to do so with Israel through Adam but I’m told like Job that its above my paygrade. It’s the same with Christ coming in what is described as the fullness of time to finally finish the redemption of mankind. I like Paul simply must let the Potter have His way and fully appreciate God and Christ willingness to bring us into the Family of God through faith in Them.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5766

March 3^rd 2010

Gregory - #5761

I used Israel due to Peter Enns’ title, Adam is Israel. Like a few others here, I have my own book on this subject.

Calvin and Luther taught that the one old covenant started in Gen. 1. The contemporary church teaches multiple old covenants, with the most important one starting at Sinai. On this issue, I agree with Luther and Calvin. One old covenant that started with Gen. 1:1 and ended with the destruction of the temple. One new covenant that began during Christ’s ministry and came in fullness with the end of the Jewish sacrificial system.

What’s required to demonstrate this? The Curse (Gen. 3), the Flood, Babel, and the destruction of Jerusalem were all covenantal judgments on a separate covenantal people.

All of these are controversial, but none of them should be.

The Curse was a covenantal judgment. Why that is debated today baffles me. The fact that it is a covenantal judgment implies that what came before that is the covenant.

Gen.1 the “creation” of the Heavens and Earth is the assignment / declaration of the covenant people. God’s original temple was not Walton’s cosmic temple, but a person or people called Heavens and Earth. This person or people was the original “Israel of God.”
Gregory Arago - #5770

March 3^rd 2010

Hi Jeffrey,

Thanks for your response. I found your book on-line and looked at your site.

Not sure how you addressed my concerns in #5761 with what you wrote. The two problems 1) and 2) were left unanswered.

I didn’t use the term ‘covenant’ in my message to you, though that is what you seem to have focussed on in your response #5766.

Please help clarify because I’m a bit confused about what you’re trying to say.

Also, why is nobody addressing Jacob and Gen 32, 35? Is it because it refutes, based on history and precedent, the theological claim that Adam is Israel?
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5771

March 3^rd 2010

Gregory,

In answer to your last question.

In Matt. 24, Jesus promised that the temple would be destroyed, “Not one stone left upon another.” He promised with it, “Heaven and Earth will pass away.”

The temple was destroyed in AD 70. Not one stone was left upon another. What about Heaven and Earth?

The physical universe has not passed away. Either Jesus was wrong or Jesus was talking about something else. In Jesus’ mind, the H&E was not the physical universe in either a material or functional sense.

Please look at Rev. 21. What did John see?

1) The New Heaven and New Earth.
2) The Holy City, The New Jerusalem.
3) A Bride adorned for her husband.

Did John see one thing? Or three?

I say one thing. Notice vs. 9, “I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb,” and vs. 10, “he ... showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem.” Items 2 & 3 above are the same. John saw one entity to which he gave three descriptions. That one entity was the Church.

Go back to vs. 1. “[T]he first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.” Where in Scripture do we find H&E and sea? Gen. 1. The church comes and the first H&E passes, has passed away.
Gregory Arago - #5775

March 3^rd 2010

Norm,

From #5762: “Adam’s story is a microcosmic retelling of Israel’s Key theological and historical encounters.”

You haven’t established criteria for distinguishing the historical/real from the theological or mythical. Dick Fischer just wrote in this thread that “Adam would have been the first of the Akkadians dated to about 7,000 years ago.” So, we’re dealing not *just* with a microcosmic story, but with a flesh and blood person. Do you disagree?

Pete noted: ‘adam’ = humanity, ‘Adam’ = one man.

When do we ‘get historical’ in Genesis?

The rest of #5762 is a theological monologue. My interest here is ‘science and religion’ dialogue.

#5762: “my biblical explorations which [are] not intended to match with science and anthropology.”

While I respect your biblical explorations, this approach makes it difficult for me to openly discuss with you. And it seems to contradict the mission of BioLogos: “the integration of science and Christian faith.”

You started to talk about evolution, then backed away. I’m prepared to face these difficult issues, taking the best of science and scripture at the same time!
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5776

March 3^rd 2010

Gregory,

There is a 1250 character limit and your questions really don’t make sense in the paradigm I am pushing. So I’m trying to redirect your questions appropriately.

I used Israel because Peter Enns’ said “Adam is Israel.” All of my development has been in terms of the old covenant started in Genesis 1 with Adam. Adam is either the original covenant person or the “federal head” of the original covenant people.

In that sense, it is appropriate to say “Adam is Israel,” just as it is appropriate to say that the Church is the new or true Israel. We have Biblical precedence. Levi tithed to Melchizedek. Didn’t Abram precede Levi? Does that answer Q1?

I believe I answered your Q2 H&E is people, not land. Specifically, God’s covenant people.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5777

March 3^rd 2010

Gregory,

I don’t think Dick Fischer’s view of Adam as the father of Akkad holds up. Instead, I think placing Adam as a Sumerian in Sumer near the city of Eridu / Eden around 4000 BC works better. (Wiseman, Ancient records and the structure of Genesis, Best, Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic)

Both Wiseman and Best demonstrate by different means that Adam was likely the author of a portion of early Genesis. Add to this the results of Radday’s statistical linguistics and all of Genesis appears to be a series of accounts by human witnesses to the events recorded.

This makes Adam a historical person in the strictest sense. He wrote down his own account of his own life.
Gregory Arago - #5778

March 3^rd 2010

Jeffrey,

I re-read Matt 24. Not really sure how it relates to this thread, but thanks for directing me there.

You wrote: “Adam is either the original covenant person or the “federal head” of the original covenant people.”

Yes, I would agree. Again, the issue here seems to be: when does Genesis ‘get historical’? In your recent post, you answer this: you believe Adam *was* historical. Some here don’t.

eVo science is serious in discussion here.

Isn’t there Israel the person, born with the name Jacob & also the ‘Land of Israel’ or Zion? Are you an Israelite &/or a child of Adam? So Adam’s covenant was historical & Israel’s symbolical?

Btw, thanks for being honest in saying: “your questions really don’t make sense in the paradigm I am pushing.”

Hopefully we can benefit each other. I’m trying to understand when/where the science of anthropology comes into play. This may be the most important field to help evangelicals ‘accept biological evolution,’ while retaining their extra-natural, traditional faith.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5780

March 3^rd 2010

Gregory,

Those who believe Moses wrote Genesis have a problem. How did Moses get his material? Oral traditions? Visions from God? That’s the Fundamentalist view. If you hold to Moses authorship, how can a person honestly hold Genesis as historical? Any of it? It is either myths or visions?

I’d say that most people here are trying to honestly face that predicament. They believe in a late date for Genesis and are trying to understand what that means.

With an early date, we have to come to terms with how and why Adam would have known how to write.

There was a man Jacob, renamed Israel. I am not his biological descendant, nor am I Adam’s biological descendant.

Adam’s covenant was historical and so was Jacob’s. They were the same covenant. The covenant must be re-ratified with each generation. Similar to how many Christians do things today. Baptism to add babies to the covenant. Confirmation when the child becomes of age.

In my view, Genesis has nothing to do with physical creation. Therefore, the science that OEC, YEC, TE, and Gap-theory attempt to apply to Gen. 1 is completely irrelevant to the problem. Anthropology comes into play in Gen. 1:1.

Please send me an email and we can discuss it offline.
Karl A - #5782

March 4^th 2010

I had not previously thought of the “image of God” as being a result of covenant (cf. Norm’s posts) rather than inherent to humanity. But it reminds me of a similar paradigm shift I underwent a number of years ago. I had grown up with the (what I now consider) Hellenistic belief that humans are imbued with an immortal soul at conception, until someone pointed out the passages that taught that, whereas we have sinned and been cut off from the Tree of Life, only God/Christ inherently “hath immortality” (I Tim. 6:16), but we can seek it (Romans 2:7) and indeed are granted it in Christ alone (John 3:16). (Search the Internet for “conditional immortality” if you want to read more.)

I realize this is somewhat off the subject but it is healthy to re-examine our assumptions, which are often very Hellenistic (following Augustine and others) as we approach theology and particularly the Old Testament.
Karl A - #5783

March 4^th 2010

Regarding Gregory’s legitimate question (my words), “If Adam is Israel why isn’t Israel
‘Adam’?”, would an analogy with another nation (United States of America) be helpful? We speak of “Founding Fathers” of our country. Usually this refers to people like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson, but sometimes we refer to the Pilgrims this way. Often this founding narrative also includes people like Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci. So, which set of people were the “Founding Fathers”? Which time period? Yes, yes, and yes, at least according to the narrative.
(continued)
Karl A - #5784

March 4^th 2010

But there does seem to be a qualitative distinction between Jacob and the others before him. I think you are right, Gregory, to be picking on that. Jacob seems to be a pivot point - forward from him you have the nation of Israel, a group of people. Backward from him you have not a group of people but a series of individuals through whom a lineage is passed. Adam has children but only one (Seth) is key to the lineage. Lamech had many children but only Noah is the recipient of the special covenant. Until Jacob the Genesis narrative is about a single line, then after him it branches out.

There is (at least) one other pivot point in the Scriptures: Jesus. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke trace the lineage of Jesus, naturally, through a number of individuals involving David’s kingly line. After Jesus we get, not another lineage, but the church, the new Israel.

Much of the debate in these posts centers around whether Adam was also a pivot/branching point. Were there people before him, but Adam was singled out as a covenant recipient? And was the branching out of descendants from Adam considered by the Biblical writers to encompass all of humanity, or was the focus solely on Adam as an early founding father for Israel?
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5799

March 4^th 2010

Karl A - #5783,

Excellent observation. Thanks.

Karl A - #5784,

Yes that is, to us, a major qualitative distinction.

Yet look how Jacob is discussed in the New Testament? To that people at that time, Adam, Abraham, and Moses were the big breaks. Especially in Paul’s letters. Noah and Jacob were second rung.

This is one of those little clues that tells me I am not reading and understanding the Gospel the way Jesus and the Apostles did.
Janice - #5801

March 4^th 2010

Norm wrote at #5755:

Janice,

”...The question is did Adam fall from the Image of/for God or did he fall from his lesser state of mortality as defined by Paul. Adam/Israel was waiting redemption from the mortal state to the immortal.”

To the Pharisees Jesus said, “If you were blind [i.e., didn’t know], you would have no sin, but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains” (John 9:41).

“The Fall”, I think , was a fall from “innocence .” (not “perfection” as is widely taught).

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:

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

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.
Norm - #5803

March 4^th 2010

Janice,

Very good point. It appears to be a matter of “conscience”. The conscience was originally clear for Adam before the commandment but once it or in Israel’s case the Law was instituted they sinned and came under a “guilty conscience”. Their eyes being opened ties in nicely with the statement of Christ “if you were blind” and matches well with what Paul says about the end of the Old Covenant world where their will be another change in perception using the eye metaphor again. This language is in regards that under Christ there is again no shame due to a guilty conscience as His blood now covers us.

1Co 15:51-53 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) in a moment, IN THE TWINKLING OF AN EYE, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and THE DEAD SHALL BE RAISED incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, AND THIS MORTAL MUST PUT ON IMMORTALITY.
Dick Fischer - #5869

March 5^th 2010

Hi Jeffrey, you wrote:

”! don’t think Dick Fischer’s view of Adam as the father of Akkad holds up. Instead, I think placing Adam as a Sumerian in Sumer near the city of Eridu / Eden around 4000 BC works better. (Wiseman, Ancient records and the structure of Genesis, Best, Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic)

The Sumerians spoke an entirely different unrelated language to the Akkadians who spoke a Semitic tongue. Hebrew derives from the Akkadian language as do all the rest of the Semitic languages. The first two names on the Sumerian King List are Semitic, or Adamic, names at Eridu. According to Babylonian tradition the Garden of Eden was located near Eridu.

The cylinder seal on my web site (www.historicalgenesis.com) of a king standing in a boat with crates and animals is in Akkadian dress. Sumerians are depicted with shaved heads and large noses. This cylinder seal dates to 3000 BC and was found at Uruk, the biblical Erech.
Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5883

March 5^th 2010

Dick,

I don’t dispute any of your evidence. The Origins Solution disturbed me so much, I spent six months reading, re-reading, and checking your facts. (Your new book came in yesterday’s mail. I look forward to reading it this weekend.)

There are details in the Biblical text that you did not address in The Origins Solution.

According to Wiseman, Genesis 1-11 has several features that indicate it was originally compiled in ancient Sumer, in Sumerian pictographs. Genesis 12-36 has several features that indicate it was originally compiled in Akkadian. And Genesis 37 on were compiled in Egypt in another form. These literary features were unique to those peoples in that time.

The Genesis account places Genesis 1-11 in ancient Sumer. Terah left Ur in Sumer for Haran in Akkad at the same point where the text changes from a Sumerian source to an Akkadian source. The Akkadian source ended when Joseph was taken to Egypt.

Coincidence? It is what you would expect if Genesis was written by the people who lived it. If Moses (or anyone later) wrote it, why would he use an extinct Sumerian form? Why change forms when Terah left Sumer? Why change again for the Joseph narrative?
Dick Fischer - #5887

March 5^th 2010

Hi Jeffrey:

I’m glad somebody besides me is checking and rechecking. I continue to do it. Just yesterday I was at the University of Pennsylvania Museum tracking down some additional details. Philip Jones, one of the Sumerian-Akkadian translators there, told me about an earlier curator who whenever he was stumped on a translation would turn to his book of Hebrew.

The Sumerians and Akkadians lived side by side and in some cases intermingled from at least 4000 BC until 2000 BC when Sumer was destroyed. Initially the Sumerians were the dominant partners and the official language in the entire region was Sumerian until 2371 BC when Sargon came to power and the official language became Akkadian from then on.

It is not easy to determine whether someone was Akkadian or Sumerian from their name only because even Akkadian names are converted into Sumerian in Sumerian literature. Thus Utnapishtim in Akkadian becomes Ziusudra in Sumerian, but both translate into “he who found long life.” This throws a lot of people off. I had much correspondence with Bob Best and even borrowed a little from his book.
Paul Seely - #5919

March 5^th 2010

There is a third way to deal with the parallel between Adam and Israel: Deny it exists..

Rather than “Israel is “created” by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the Red Sea is “divided”),” say,
IIsreal was not created by God at the exodus. Israel was created over hundreds of years in Egypt prior to the exodus. Before the exodus, the Israelites are “my people, the children of Israel,” (Ex 3:10) They are a unit with elders (Ex 3:16). They were God’s son before they left Egypt (Hosea 11:1)

Rather than, “The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit, a lush land flowing with milk and honey,” say,
Canaan is not a lush land like the garden of Eden. The only lush area that was like the garden of Eden was around the Jordan. “ Cf. Gen 13:10.

Rather than, “They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law,” say, they remained in the land long after disobeying the Mosaic law, particularly with regard to idols.

Rather than, “They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon,”: say,
Unlike Adam they disobeyed over and over again before being exiled (Cf Judges and Kings.)
Paul Seely - #5922

March 5^th 2010

Make no mistake: I stand in back of Pete 100%, But I resist his rather rabbinical approach, popular though it is in some academic circles, because I think it leads us away from a solution that will stand up to close examination. (I am also puzzled as to why and how Gen 2, which has usually been understood to be pre-exilic, is being interpreted as post-exilic?)

The reason Gen 2 does not agree with modern science is the same simple reason Gen 1 does not agree with modern science: God did not reveal history or science; he used the “history-science” of the day to reveal spiritual-moral-theological truths.

As for the people living outside of Eden, I agree with Chaka 5744. I once read an account of a missionary to a pre-scietific tribe in Africa, who after listening to their origin stories, commented that they contradicted each other. The natives were amazed that anyone would care.
spiderich - #5972

March 6^th 2010

Hi Mr. Fischer,

Like Mr. Vaughn, I was hoping you could address Wiseman’s hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiseman_hypothesis
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0840775024/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

Also, some think that Radday’s statistical analysis confirms Wiseman: http://books.google.ca/books?id=y6FKPW2XsA4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/8876531033/ref=cm_rdp_product

Regards,

Richard G.
Gregory Arago - #5983

March 6^th 2010

Btw, Karl A., let me thank you for #5784. You said it better than I could have.

This question is apt: “If Adam is Israel why isn’t Israel ‘Adam’?”

Also, you wrote: “Jacob seems to be a pivot point - forward from him you have the nation of Israel, a group of people. Backward from him you have not a group of people but a series of individuals through whom a lineage is passed.”

This is precisely a major problem in Dr. Enns interpretation: distinguishing groups from individuals. It seems to me that to say ‘Adam is Israel’ is to give up the individual man ‘Adam.’ Perhaps Pete could clarify on this?

Your two closing questions in #5784 offer a good challenge for the problems that Dr. Enns raises in stating his current position.
chaplain Mike - #5994

March 6^th 2010

Another aspect that confirms this is to realize that the “land” (earth in most translations) in Genesis 1 is not the globe but the Promised Land. This is the land that is in view all throughout Genesis 1-11, until the nations are scattered from it to settle throughout the earth in Gen 11. John Sailhamer’s commentary is helpful in seeing this in Genesis 1, but I don’t think even he goes far enough in seeing the geographic limitations in Genesis 1-11.

Before Genesis 1-11 introduces the Bible, it introduces the Torah. The message of Adam and Eve was meant as a warning to Israel, about to enter the land at the end of Deuteronomy. If you read Deut 30, you will see that this is the exact message of Moses to those people.
Dick Fischer - #6002

March 6^th 2010

To Richard:

The account of the sons of Seth in Genesis 5 is identical in form and format to the account of the sons of Shem in Genesis 11. I think we can infer that a single individual Semite in the Line of Promise compiled both, or a later scribe living at the time of Abraham was influenced by the previous pattern in Genesis 5 and used the same pattern for Genesis 11. It could have been Abraham himself or someone in his entourage.
Cain’s line of descendants in Genesis 4 is described in an entirely different format, rich in detail as compared with the repetitious, boring litany of patriarchs in the line of Seth and Shem. A likely explanation is that the narrative of the line of Cain was contributed by someone in his line of descent and he had to be living before the time of Noah.

Any of Noah’s three sons are possible repositories of this information as they lived a hundred years before the flood. Also, according to legend, clay tablets were buried before the flood that were intended to be available following the flood, but I don’t remember reading anything about their retrieval.

Continued ...
Dick Fischer - #6003

March 6^th 2010

When Abraham went to Egypt with whatever entourage he may have had, his band of Semites was not entirely isolated in a land of ethnically distinct native Egyptians. We know that Noah’s grandson Mizraim went to Egypt after the dispersal of Noah’s kin. All of Mizraim’s sons have been identified with parts of Egypt. The Hebrew word for Egyptian is “Mizraim.” The Arabic word is “Musri.”

It is possible that the entirety or at least part of Genesis 1-10 could have been brought to Egypt and stored there either in the Egyptian library, or resting in the care of Hamitic descendants, available for Abraham or Moses centuries later.
Alice C. Linsley - #6015

March 6^th 2010

Whether historical or archetypal, Adam and Eve are the founders of the human race in biblical parlance. They failed to make communion with the Creator their first priority. The prophets criticized Israel for this same failure. Yes, there are patterns in Scripture, but these do not mean that Adam is Israel.

The Apostle Paul, who knew the tradition of Israel very well, speaks of Adam as Humanity in need of redemption.

Dick,

Genesis 4 and 5 are the lines of descent of Cain and Seth, both rulers. Their lines intermarried. Lamech the Elder’s daughter, Naamah, married her patrilineal parallel cousin, Methusaleh, and named their first-born son Lamech, after her father. This is a characteristic of the unique kinship pattern of Abraham’s ancestors and the pattern continues until the appearance of Jesus Christ. Then it disappears.
spiderich - #6022

March 7^th 2010

Dick,

Thanks for the reply. But does that mean you believe Wiseman’s hypothesis (of colophons in Genesis) has some merit? I have very little knowledge of Sumerian & Akkadian, but I find it persuasive.

Are you familiar with Don Stoner? He also concurs with the hypothesis; see this article, with references to Kramer, Best, etc. (and at least one mention of yourself, in the 3rd section):

http://www.dstoner.net/Genesis_Context/Context.html

Richard G.
Dick Fischer - #6030

March 7^th 2010

Hi Alice:

I believe Adam is historical, a flesh and blood human being, who lived around 7,000 years ago in southern Mesopotamia. That late time frame would make him the federal head of the human race not the biological head. He would have been the first to be accountable for his actions and through his failure to obey sin spread to all mankind.

Whether Cain and Seth were rulers I don’t know but their sons apparently were as the en- prefix indicates ruler or king. The city of Enoch is listed in the Sumerian king list and in other Near East literature as “unug.”

Jubilees lists Methuselah’s wife as Edna, the daughter of Azrial. I don’t have any other sources.
Dick Fischer - #6032

March 7^th 2010

Hi Richard:

I do see merit in early dates for sections of Genesis material with separate authors making contributions. I presume Moses compiled and edited it either in Egypt or in the desert.

Yes I know Don but I can’t keep up with everybody who wants to dive into Genesis 1. I have my own opinions, and I see no conflict with a scientific perspective when allowances are made for Hebrew manners of speech.
Pete Enns - #6098

March 7^th 2010

Paul (5919, 5922). Let me interact with you, since you are hitting on some things of general benefit. Thanks for disagreeing with me 100% but being behind me 100%. Is that the new math?

First, you may be the only person I know who takes such a stand against any sort of Adam/Israel parallel. I think you may be expecting too much from the idea of parallel, and certainly more than i mean by the term. There is clearly a “pattern” that Adam and Israel share. Second, the logical inconsistencies do not bother me in the least, including the presence of humans outside of the garden. *I* don’t think these things have to be solved, but I am pointing out that literalists DO. Third, yes Gen 2-3 is earlier than Gen 1. Gen 2-3 existed (in my opinion) independently of Gen 1 until the post-exilic period at which time the final canonical form of Genesis came to be (this is middle-of-the-road OT opinion here). Originally, Gen 2ff. function as Israel’s creation story (it is similar to Atrahasis and functioned that way). (continued)
Pete Enns - #6099

March 7^th 2010

Paul (cont.)

In the exilic and postexilic periods, Gen 1 was written (dependent as it was on older traditions) and placed at the head of the early origins story. This canonical shaping gave the older origins story a different function, now no longer origins as in Atrahasis but Israel’s origins. Gen 1 became the “universal” origins story. The Israel parallels in the Adam story are strong, but one can also see elements of the story that served its earlier function as an origins story (e.g., Eve as the mother of all living, although even here I am not fully convinced it is talking about absolute human origins, but that is another story.) What remains is a grand creation story, beginning in Gen 1, where there are “inconsistencies,” as you mention. Again, these don’t bother me at all because *I* am not expecting that type of consistency, but a lot of readers are. Finally, as for “rabbinical” readings of Scripture, I’m not sure what you mean there. Perhaps making subjective, ad hoc connections? Remember, we’re all doing midrash. You too.
Gregory Arago - #6104

March 7^th 2010

Pete,

A solid argument has been made wrt Jacob’s role as ‘Israel’. You’ve not addressed this yet, though perhaps it will come in your next post that deals with the apostle Paul’s view.

Karl A. put it best in #5784.

You answered me:
“And yes, too, Jacob is Israel BUT—and I am not just “Adam happy” here: Jacob is an Adam figure—so are Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ.”

Jacob IS Israel & an ‘Adam figure’. But you didn’t suggest that pre-Jacob figures are ‘also Israel.’ Why not?

The ‘rabbinical reading,’ it seems to me, expresses over-concentration on Israel. I don’t think you’ve made your case, other than speaking of loose ‘parallels,’ which Chaka, Luke and others have addressed.

What can you say to show that you are not undermining ‘universal Humanity’ (#5662) by suggesting that Adam IS Israel? Who are the non-Israelites today that do *not* possess the image of God? Are they human, or not fully or…?

I get a sense in your perspective that ‘if everyone is with us, then no one is against us.’
Dick Fischer - #6105

March 7^th 2010

The Sumerian word “ti” means “life” or “rib.” Thus the Sumerian pun: “The lady of the rib is the lady of life.”

For our purposes “living” is an adjective modifying a missing noun. We could pencil in “bipedal hominids” or “human beings,” but we could also pencil in “Adamites,” or even “Caucasians” if we wanted to make a racist statement.

I don’t think Eve as the mother of all living infers anything about ancestry or descendants. The statement is about monogamy. Adam had no other wives, hand maidens, or concubines.
spiderich - #6111

March 7^th 2010

Hello Dick,

Thanks for taking the time to interact.

Richard G.
Andrew - #6122

March 7^th 2010

@ “Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins.”

It’s pretty obvious to me that Israel’s history of creation/calling - covenant - transgression - exile - restoration fits that of Adam too. And in my tradition (Reformed), this marks an essential part of covenant theology in delineating an overarching covenant of works God had with Adam/man/Israel. But I believe Hosea 6:7, for one, shows that it is anachronistic to read the Adam story as a retelling of Israel, rather than vice versa. “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant, there they dealt faithlessly with me” (ESV). “Like Adam” could also be translated as “like mankind.”

Hosea was written in the 8th century BC PRIOR to Israel’s exile. How can the Adam-story of Israel’s covenant-breaking and subsequent exile already be referred to here prior to the exile itself? This is an anachronistic reading. Granted, we cannot know if this verse was a later addition to the text of Hosea, but I know of no manuscript evidence that suggests this. (cont’d…)
Andrew - #6124

March 7^th 2010

(cont’d…)

The whole point of Israel—from Genesis 11:27 onward—is that BECAUSE Adam fell and all of mankind with him (Romans 5), God needed to enact a plan of salvation for the WORLD (Gen. 12:2-3). He began this with Israel, whom he formed to be his covenant people who, through faithful obedience to the Law, would reveal the light of God’s nature and demands to the rest of the world (cf. Isa. 42:6; 51:4; 60:3). As Israel promulgated the Law, they would reveal God’s righteous standard. They would show off his protection of his people and the blessings given them upon the obedience of faith. As such, the nations would be drawn to God through her. And the Law’s sacrificial system would act as a type pointing to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

An additional reason Israel was formed and patterned after Adam is to show that if even God’s blessed covenant people failed to enact the salvation and righteousness for which they themselves were saved and created in the Exodus, then salvation is a hopeless work from man. It must be alone a work of God, which is the message of the New Testament.

For all these reasons (and more, I’m sure), I find it very unlikely that Israel’s history predates that of the Adam story.
Gregory Arago - #6154

March 8^th 2010

Paul Seely wrote: “As for the people living outside of Eden, I agree with Chaka 5744. I once read an account of a missionary to a pre-scietific tribe in Africa, who after listening to their origin stories, commented that they contradicted each other. The natives were amazed that anyone would care.”

It seems people care who are engaging ‘science and religion’ dialogue. To us, ‘logical inconsistencies’ matter.

E.g. if one accepts a polygenesis of human beings, i.e. different groups, different places & times in natural history, one *inevitably* sacrifices ‘unity of Humanity.’ It then becomes easy to posit ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ races of human beings & use words such as primitive, savage & civilised. Neo-evolutionary anthropologists have rejected this categorizing.

Likewise, to say that ‘African tribes’ are ‘pre-scientific’ is in one sense condescending. These people certainly have ‘knowledges’ that others do not possess. Does ‘more science’ = ‘better’?

Also, Paul, please correct me if I misunderstood what you meant in saying Pete takes a ‘rabbinical approach.’ Adam *is not* Israel in a historical meaning?
Dick Fischer - #6176

March 8^th 2010

Hi, Andrew:

I think you raise an excellent point that Adam’s saga if it was a historic event should precede Israel and not the other way around. If Adam was a “creation” only for the purpose of story telling then the Israel first Adam second chronology would work. The exile from Egypt, however, precedes the eighth century BC. Scholars debate but two dates are in the mix so to speak - 1440 BC and 1290 BC. The Babylonian exile can be dated beginning at 597 BC.
Paul Seely - #6217

March 8^th 2010

Pete (6098, 6099), OK, I will back off a tad: I admit “there is clearly a pattern that Adam and Israel share”: (God’s man is given a geographical area to inhabit and a law; he breaks the law and is exiled.”). But is that pattern rooted in the context of Genesis? It looks to me like the pattern that exists between the six days of creation and the geological ages (just ignore the differences). But, I think exegeting Genesis on the basis of of these historical parallels is to distort Genesis. You say, ”The Israel parallels in the Adam story are strong.” Strong? Here is your opportunity to educate me: What essay(s) would you cite to support this idea? Not essays which are themselves imaginative, but What is the hard evidence from the text that the final reviser was intending to speak to the Israelites about their pre-exilic sin and exile? Prove that the parallels with Israel are not being read into Gen 2 and 3 by subjective rabbinical-type imagination. I worry about replacing historical-grammatical interpretation with subjectivity
Pete Enns - #6247

March 8^th 2010

Paul (6217). Thanks for your comment. I think I understand what you are saying now. You are concerned that the Adam/Israel connection is not based on “hard evidence” but on subjective rabbinical-type imagination” and so is untenable. You see little difference between this type of subjectivity and reagin geological ages into the days of creation. The problem with this, though, is that you are not accounting for the Bible’s literary quality. No piece of literature does what you expect of the Bible in order to allow literary/theological allusion. No piece of literature announces “Here are my themes, here is where you can find them, and here is how you put them together.” Literature does not not work that way. Rather, learned, skilled readers discern thematic connections, present them as such, and let other learned readers ponder the possibilities. You are free, of course, not to be convinced, but it cannot be o the basis of their failing to be an objective evidential anchor of sorts that we can appeal to. To expect such a thing is to turn a blind eye to the very nature of Scripture, where thematic connections are precisely what is happening between books—indeed, between testaments. (cont)
Pete Enns - #6248

March 8^th 2010

(cont) The book of Revelation is unreadable apart from the author alluding to OT apocalyptic literature in order to foster a connection. he does not tell us what he is doing. He only expects us to be so immersed the literature to see them for ourselves. You cannot escape this in your interpretation of the flood. You show clearly that it does not work like modern science but ancient science. Absolutely. But, what is the story saying? Why is it there? What is the author drawing on to make his point? To fail to discern thematic connections between the flood and creation—or between the flood story in Genesis and Atrahasis—is to fault to read, even though the author does not tell us what those connections are directly. As soon as we say anything meaningful about a text that moves beyond its boundaries, we are inevitably in a world of “rabbinical imagination.” I might add to that we can learn an awful lot from rabbis and other early interpreters about how the Bible works. Try it, it’s fun.
Aaron Christianson - #6333

March 9^th 2010

You mentioned “other scholars.” I’m working on a paper about this at the moment, and I’m having trouble finding sources that draw parallels between Israel and Adam. It seems strange, since the parallels are so obvious, but I’m having a tough time of it. References would be great.
Paul Seely - #6373

March 10^th 2010

First it was Sailhamer completely disregarding the context of Gen 1, and telling us the “earth” in Gen 1 is the land of Israel. They made him president of the Evangelical Theol. Society. Then it was Beale telling us no matter where you look, you will find the Temple. They made him also president of the ETS. Now you are telling us Adam is Israel. You wouldn’t be bucking to become president of the ETS by any chance, would you?
Pete Enns - #6400

March 10^th 2010

Haha, Paul. I will look into the presidency thing, but I think I have a better chance of becoming the president of Russia or resident theologian in an OPC congregation.

Yeah, I think Sailhamer is wrong (but interesting). I think Beale overstates and misunderstands temple ideology to promote a fundamentalist bibliology.

Re: Adam/Israel, I assume you understand I am not making a simple equation. When I say “Adam is Israel” that is a shorthand way of saying that the postexilic compiler of the Pentateuch subsumed Israel’s traditional creation story (Gen 2ff) under a larger, universal picture painted in Gen 1. I am not making an equation, but saying (suggesting, actually) that Gen 2ff. has become an “Israel story” in postexilic ideology. In other words, postexilic Israelites, in response to the national crisis, are reading their history into primordial time. This fits well with the only other reference to Adam in the OT after Gen 5, 1 Chron 1:1, where Adam is the first name in what is a postexilic genealogy of ISRAEL.
Alice C. Linsley - #6474

March 10^th 2010

“Nod” (נוד) is an etymological etiology intended to explain the apparent peripatetic lifestyle of Cain and his descendants, the Kenites. The Kenites were metal workers and Nok is the oldest site of metal working in Africa.

In 1984, Nigerian philologist, Modupe Oduyoye noted that the Hebrew words for Nod נוד and Nok נוך are virtually identical. Apparently the opportunity to play on words was too great to resist and the author of Genesis used it to suggest that the Kenites were without land holdings, like their ancestor Cain.

Oduyoye saw a connection between Cain and the ancient metal working civilization of Nok in the Jos Plateau of Nigeria.(The Sons of the Gods and the Daughters of Men: An Afro-Asiatic Interpretation of Genesis 1-11, Orbis, 1984, p. 21.) I agree that Nod is Nok. Cain and Seth married daughters of Chief Nok. This is the older African layer of the text. Abraham’s ancestors came from this part of Africa.
Norm - #6535

March 11^th 2010

Peter Enns and Paul Seely,

I think Carol Hill has made some important points concerning the subject regarding Adam as Israel. Carol has published some articles on the ASA site outlining the Worldview approach and she followed those up with a presentation this past summer at Baylor University.

Here are some points she made.

• God’s first intervention into human history. The story of Adam & Eve is told from the worldview of the creation narratives of that day, but differs significantly because of the revelation of God to the line of Adam.
• Adam: First human to be given a “soul” (spirit) (Gen. 2:7).

• Sin dispensationally conferred on the human race through Adam (Rom. 5:12); similarly, grace conferred on human race through Christ (Rom. 5:15). Grace not biologically passed down because Christ is not the biological father of any of us; similarly, sin is not passed down biologically from Adam. Therefore, all humans (from Adam’s line or not from his line) fall under the dispensations of sin and grace.

(1) Historical: Adam and Eve were real historical people.

Here is a link to Carol’s Baylor presentation.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/Baylor_paperlinks.html
Dick Fischer - #6599

March 12^th 2010

Hi Alice:

I’m not sure where “Nok” is but I know where Enoch was. Enoch was situated at the same place where Erech was or right across the street. Akkadian and Sumerian literature used unug and uruk interchangably. If you locate Eridu in southern Mesopotamia and go north up the old irrigation canal across the Euphrates you will come to the city of Enoch, the city Cain built. Look at the map on my web page: www.historicalgenesis.com.
Keith Yoder - #6637

March 12^th 2010

Peter, you mention at the end of your post that this perspective was “widely recognized” by many interpreters ancient and modern. I just began reading Jacob Neusner’s book “Handbook of Rabbinic Theology” (2002). He comprehensively shows how ancient Rabbinic thought follows this same Adam=Israel structure. Just one quote from page 310—“In line with the Torah’s narrative, Israel represents the new Adam, God’s way of correcting what went wrong in the initial creation. The Land of Israel stands for the new Eden…the story told from Joshua through Kings matches the story told in Genesis.” He continues developing this structure for the next 200+ pages. So the Rabbis have been there before us.
Gregory Arago - #6759

March 13^th 2010

Hi Keith,

Interesting comment from Neusner.

Would you be willing to follow-up on the issue that Pete is raising about the ‘historicity’ or ‘non-historicity’ of Adam in Neusner’s text? Does ancient Rabbinic thought accept an historical Adam and Eve or not?

~
There are two different issues (at least) raised in this thread. 1) the parallels between Adam and Israel, 2) the challenge to historical Adam presented by evolutionary theory.

Dr. Enns said from the top: “Adam is the beginning of Israel, not humanity.”

This pov has been rejected by a majority of BioLogos readers in the three threads that have discussed it. However, as a structure or parallel, many people have expressed agreement with Pete’s postion (e.g. Chaka’s #5649).
TWJ - #6791

March 13^th 2010

James R. White’s critique of Peter Enns’ “Incarnational” model of inspiration at the link below…

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2010/03/james-r-white-critique-of-peter-enns.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+puritanreformed+(Daniel’s+Place+-+(Reformata+et+semper+reformanda))&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail
Rick mayo - #6807

March 14^th 2010

I read the original article and was struck with the supposed deductions that are drawn here. One must be careful to avoid taking “liberties” with scripture to the degree of proposing “some new thing.”
Granted, even the best hermeneutics still requires leaps of faith. However, where scripture is silent and vague…there are reasons for this.

Lastly, I found the article to be immensely thought provoking. Studying the Word of God via patterns of human behavior often leads to even greater mysteries. Clearly, if Adam represents Israel, where does that place Abraham who is the father of the faithful. A radical approach begins with Abram as he is “called out” to travel in a land he knew not. Hebrews 11, states that they didnt “obtain the promise but were sojourners and pilgrims”. This appears to break the pattern of an “entering in.”

Interesting.
Janice - #6828

March 14^th 2010

TWJ - #6791 on March 13th 2010 wrote: “James R. White’s critique of Peter Enns’ “Incarnational” model of inspiration ....”

Here’s more for consideration:

Inerrancy and Human Ignorance
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/inerrancy.html

Religious and Philosophical Reasons Why We Don’t Have Inerrant Copies

Note the word, “copies” When discussing Biblical inerrancy, it is important to remember that ONLY the original texts of the Bible are claimed to have been inerrant.
Bruce - #7110

March 18^th 2010

Great article. I have learned so much on this site. I am so thankful to those who conceived of it and implemented it. Thanks to Pete Enns and the rest who stretch our understanding and help us resolve the conflicts between the literalists and the realists. The truth is there, we just need to dig for it.
Patrick M - #7644

March 25^th 2010

Peter,
What do you think of Meredith Kline’s view that Israel is Adam? It’s sort of similar, but kind of the flip side of your view. Instead of the story of Adam being used to explain Israel’s current condition, the whole covenant with Moses becomes a sort of re-enactment of the Adamic covenant of works to point people to their need of a savior. This view seems pretty strongly inline with Paul’s understanding, and it encourages us to actually take the Bible as the true word of God. It encourages us to conclude that God’s covenants and revelation are in fact supernatural, and not just the fallible musings of an ancient people.
ntp - #9227

April 9^th 2010

And you wonder why WTS let you go?
Alice C. Linsley - #11070

April 24^th 2010

Dick, Nok is the oldest site of metal working known in Africa. It is in the Jos Plateau of Nigeria south of Kano (Kain). The biblical text provides loads of data on the African ancestors of Abraham.
dcyates - #13298

May 12^th 2010

I don’t know if anybody is still referring to this, and I certainly haven’t read every single response, so I may be both covering familiar ground as well as raising issues already dealt with, but here goes nonetheless…
Re: the content of Gen 1 - 3 (and beyond) I’ve been teaching my students in much the same way that Dr. Enns posits here for roughly the past decade. Indeed, reading this has been tremendously affirming. However, while there are, imho, undeniable parallels between the figure of Adam and the nation of Israel, I can also sympathize with those concerned that Dr. Enns reading potentially jeopardizes the more universal perspective that sees Adam as representative, not just of Israel, but of all humanity. My own proposed solution may ultimately derive from my being born and raised a Canadian—where we always seem to try to find a compromise somewhere in the middle, but nevertheless—cannot Adam be both? In the Genesis creation account God creates humanity to represent him; to act as his vice-regents to the rest of creation. In the ancient world (and we see this still today) monarchs would set images of themselves throughout their realm to indicate their sovereignty and dominion over that entire area. (cont.)
dcyates - #13299

May 12^th 2010

Would this not be at least one of the reasons why God creates humanity in his image and then instructs them to multiply and spread across the earth and to exercise dominion over it?
However, although God created humans to be his vice-regents, they disobeyed and failed to represent him properly, so he started over with the flood (which, as has already been noted, is a re-creation event) and thus re-started with a ‘new humanity’ to represent him. They too failed, with intriguing parallels between Noah and Adam: both are blessed by God; both are told they are to be “fruitful and multiply and fill the earth;” both are then told that God has abundantly supplied them with sustenance; both were the patriarchs of three named sons, two of which being generally good but the third son being evil; both sinned as the result of the consumption of fruit (though in Noah’s case, obviously, this was in the form of wine); there is nakedness and its resultant shame being mentioned in both accounts; both contain a form of re-clothing or re-covering of the nakedness in order to restore a semblance of honour; both follow this with the cursing of the offending parties; and both end with a rehearsal of the geneaologies of the sons. (cont.)
dcyates - #13300

May 12^th 2010

Again, however, humanity fails to fully obey and so God seeks to choose a single people to represent him rather than the human race as a whole. Abraham and the patriarchs lead us to the exodus which is yet another re-creation event which again results in the creation of a “new humanity” (it is in Exodus that Israel is called a “people” for the first time and whom God declares is his “son”).
flypaper - #15483

May 28^th 2010

regarding post by [Jeffrey L Vaughn - #5679, March 2nd 2010]:

I work in IT. Consequently I have chatted with a ton of Hindus (casual, moderate, conservative, secular, etc.). One day I was completely stunned when I heard the response a man gave me after I asked him about his hometown back in India. Excited to share he leaned back in his office chair and proceeded to tell me about is home town cultural heritage beginning with these very words:

“Well, Philip, let me tell you about the CREATION STORY OF MY PEOPLE…”
(add accent)

My jaw dropped!! Thousands of years later and people are still using this ancient way of communicating! Amazing.

If anyone befriends a non-Westerner I hope you will ask them about their “creation story.”

Blessings….
Steve C. - #15486

May 28^th 2010

One comment on this statement by Pete Enns:
“But there is another way. Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins.”

If this is true, then you have destroyed the entire foundation of our faith. Then all use of Genesis by Jesus, Paul and others are negated. If Genesis 1-10 is simply metaphor or allegory, then we are all just a bunch of fools, as there is no sin, or fall or need for a Savior and we are all truly to be the post pitied!

However, the second Adam, Jesus Christ , will dispute with you into your eternity in hell for leading astray so many good people with your garbage! You are to be most pitied…I suggest you repent of “taking away from God’s word” while there is still time. How do you sleep at night? How have you been blinded by the evil one? Shameful, shameful…
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

Adam is Israel

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment