The Historical Adam and the Saving Christ, Part 1: Adam as Israel

J. R. Daniel Kirk - #9991: “We only can start to approximate what a “natural reading” ...”

I disagree. The science of hermeneutics is logic applied to the interpretation of literature. The basic principles are nothing but principles of honesty and reason. Context is always important, but to suggest that because Sumerian king lists began with mythical characters so does the Bible is not appropriate hermeneutics. Other religions considered their kings to be descendents of gods. If the Bible is nothing more than the myths of another false religion, then let’s forget the whole thing.

Rule #1 in any text on hermeneutics is determine the author’s intent in writing the passage. Did the author intend to write poetry, history, prophecy or what? That has to be determined by the passage itself unless the author refers to other sources. Genesis does not refer to lists of Sumerian kings.

BTW, while we recognize the mythical characters in the Sumerian geneology, it’s likely that the authors intended them to be historical. They were wrong. That’s why we don’t trust them. In the same way, the author of Genesis clearly intended the book to be historical. Either he was right, and we can trust him, or he was wrong and we can’t trust anything in the book. The effort to pick and choose what is accurate and inaccurate in Genesis is no different from the Jesus Seminar parsing sentences in the Gospels.

I agree with you BenYachov,
The push for this “Adam is Israel” view is going to do more harm than good in reconciling evangelicals to the idea of evolution.  I don’t know why so many BioLogos posts are pushing it so hard right now, but I believe they are being counter productive to their own cause.  It’s really quite disappointing.  I should remember to pray for the organization, and they don’t lose focus of what’s important.

Pat

At Roger D. McKinney #9973:

You said,

“Those interventions tell us about the character of God. In the prophetic books, God used prophecy to proof to Israel that he is the one true God. He asked the Israeli people to look at their own history and see that everything he had prophesied beforehand had actually, historically happened. And he told them to pay attention to his prophecies to see if the came true historically and that would be proof that he is the one true God. I wouldn’t take the historical accuracy of the OT lightly. The whole meaning of Christ depends upon it.”

Well said. With that established I wonder how you interpret John’s apocalypse?

Patrick M,

I’m not in principle against concept of Adam & Israel being metaphors for each other, myself being an amateur student of ancient Jewish Christianity & some of it’s modern expressions.  But naturally I dislike the whole either/or fallacy that governs it.

Patrick, why do you think this approach is going to be harmful?

Here is something that might add to the discussion.

In his book “The Conversion of the Imagination”, Richard Hays argues that what Paul was doing in his letter to the Corinthians was enabling them to see themselves as part of the story of Israel. For example, Paul makes a comment about how the forefathers of the Corinthians (a largely pagan church) were baptized in the wilderness. Paul also, at one point, says to them “When you were pagans (Greek - ethne)...

It makes sense that, if as Dr. Enns contends, Genesis 1-11 was written or compiled either during or shortly after the Babylonian exile, it was comprised to give the Jews a story to become part of, just as Paul was doing with the Corinthian converts and, not surprisingly, just as happens with modern day converts. In Christ, we too have become the seed of Abraham. The Jewish story has become our own story.

James F. McGrath - #9866

So are you suggesting that Paul’s saying ” In Adam - our original humanity or state of being human - we’re all sinners and we are mortal but through Jesus, the second, or superior humanity, or state of being human - we have the true meaning of life” ?

Mairnéalach - #10062 “...how you interpret John’s apocalypse?”

Though a Baptist, which group tends to by dispensationalist (as in the “Left Behind” series), I am more of a partial praeterist, along the lines of RC Sproul. I think most of Revelations was to explain the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem to Jews and Christians and warn Christians of the coming persecution by Rome. But the second coming and what follows afterwards is still future.

Despite the debate on the historicity of Adam, I love the quote:

“People were created to represent God’s reign to the world, which includes a mediation of God’s love and blessings.”

I am no scholar, but every time I read the Bible I walk away with that point. 

Thank you Daniel, I look forward to part 2.