How, in the context of man being on earth as a result of an evolutionary
process (as taught on your website) do you view these many NT quotations, made
by the Son of God and his inspired apostles from the early chapters of the book
of Genesis?
I will expand on this in some detail, but in short:
- None of the quotes show that Jesus taught as essential to salvation the belief that the universe was created in six literal consecutive day
- Most of these quotes affirm God as creator, which holds irrespective of the mechanism of creation employed
- The references to Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 refer to death as a punishment for sin, and not mortality. Early Christadelphian writers were quite happy to regard mortality and corruption as natural part of the created world, and saw death as the ‘second death’, the punishment for sin which lasts forever.
- I maintain that Adam and Eve were historical, created people who were the first people with whom God entered into a covenant relationship, and who were the first to sin. Therefore, I regard Genesis 2 onwards as being historical.
- However, as Genesis 4 implies, they were not alone. Other people outside the Garden existed. From a theological point of view, their origins are very much in the domain of ‘uncertain details’, to invoke the Robertsian phrase from his 1898 article.[1]
- Adam’s example of disobedience has been followed by all men, and because of that, death as a punishment for sin has spread to all the human race.
In Detail…
I work on the principle that when
properly interpreted, the witness of creation and the Bible are not in
conflict. Any contradiction therefore comes about from a flawed reading of
either of the books of revelation. The fossil record is an unimpeachable
witness of death in the natural world that stretches back 3800 million years.
Furthermore, anatomically modern human beings can be found in the fossil record
up to 200,000 years ago. Given these facts, any interpretation of the Bible
which ignores these facts is in serious trouble.
This principle is hardly foreign
to our community. As long ago as 1864, brother W.D. Jardine wrote:
The inconsistency spoken of between nature and scripture, arises not
from antagonism, but from the misinterpretations of both. It is man’s
interpretation of the one set against man’s interpretations of the other. It is
not nature versus scripture, but false science against true theology, or false
theology against scientific fact. Some scientific men, we believe, view the
Scriptures through the distorted medium of “confessions of faith” and doubt
them, and theologians view science and call it false, because it does not take
to their turn-pike road.[2]
I cannot emphasise the importance
of this exegetical principle. The moment any interpretation of the Bible brings
us into conflict with well-established facts about the natural world, we should
take this as a sign that our interpretation needs to be revised.
An excellent example comes from
bro C.C. Walker’s response to a brother T. Griffiths who argued, based on a
literal reading of the Bible, that the Earth was flat, and that any concession
to modern science was wrong. Bold emphasis is mine:
Seeing that the veracity and verbal inspiration of the Scriptures are
denied by many on the basis of the revolving globe-earth theory, even to the extent of rejecting the ascension of Jesus into the heaven
of heavens as a “geometrical impossibility.” the matter surely cannot be set aside as of no importance, and
beyond the province of a magazine devoted to the defence of Biblical teaching
and the overthrow of pagan and papal dogmas.
The globe-earth theory is essentially pagan in its origin, and no amount
of ingenuity has yet succeeded in harmonizing it with the cosmogony of the
Bible.
It is supposed that the theory was
first introduced into Europe by Pythagoras, in the sixth century b.c., and he was a rank pagan. It was
afterwards adopted by Plato, and latterly modified to its present form by
Aristarchus of Samos, “who went to the length of ranking our green world as a
planet revolving yearly round the sun.” Through Copernicus and Galileo the
theory has acquired a distinct Romish taint.
We may blame the author of “Lead
Kindly Light” for following the glimmer of Rome’s magic lantern, instead of
bringing his mental difficulties to be solved in the light of the word of God; but what about those who allow themselves
to be led by the vapourings of scientific theorists while pondering over the
plainly worded inspired narrative of creation? . . .
There may not be much danger of a
brother being led astray by the perusal of modern rationalistic literature, for
in that case he is prepared to antagonize the fallacies of modern thought, but
morsels of error, in the form of “scientific” tit-bits, daintily wrapped up
within the covers of a Biblical magazine, devoted to the defence and advocacy
of Scripture doctrine, may not give rise to suspicion that there is anything
wrong. The wrong is there all the same,
and its effects become manifest when he who has swallowed the morsel finds, as
the logical outcome of an adopted bastard theory, that the Bible and modern
science are at variance, and verbal inspiration a farce. . . .
The late Prof. Woodhouse, of
Cambridge University, once wrote, in reference to the globe-earth theory—“We
shall never arrive at a time when we shall be able to pronounce it absolutely
proved to be true. The nature of the
subject excludes such a possibility” (Astronomy, Vol. 1, p. 13).
The “great astronomer,” Sir Robert
Ball — wherein does his greatness lie? Certainly not in his discovery or
advocacy of scientific truth. He is an
evolutionist of the first order, and a pronounced anti-creationist. He is
just the type of unbeliever that so-called modern science is producing; the old
Scripture - revering type of astronomers, such as Ferguson, Woodhouse, and
Herschell, is fast dying out as the natural effect of an anti-Scriptural
theory.
But here I must submit my queries:—
1.—Is it not a fact that the Bible
teaches that there are but two great lights and but one sun?
2.—Is it not a pure speculation,
unsupported by any natural fact, the theory that the “dots in the heavens” are
great suns?
3.—Is it not a fact that the
enormously extravagant distances and magnitudes of the so-called “dots” have
for their bases, the unproved assumption that the earth is a revolving globe,
speeding through space at 68,000 miles an hour, and with an orbit of 190
millions of miles?
4.—Is it not a fact, as Prof. Robert
Main, of Greenwich, candidly affirmed, that the theories “respecting the
distances of the fixed stars and other cosmical problems” are based upon the
“refined speculations of modern astronomy?”
5.—Is it not the teaching of Scripture
that the earth, that is, the dry land, is a stationary body, founded upon the
seas, and established upon the floods, and with its foundations in the deep?
6.—Is it not the plain testimony of
Moses that sun, moon, and stars, were made and set in the heavens on the fourth
day of Creation week?
Believing, as I do, with you, that
it is “necessary to bring everything to the test of the Word of God,” I present
these questions in all good faith for your serious consideration.[3]
The relevance of this letter to
the current question about how to reconcile a conservative reading of the Bible
with the fact of evolution is striking. We have:
- A linking of a literal reading of the Bible with orthodoxy, and any deviation tantamount to denial of inspiration
- Disparaging references to scientific facts as ‘pagan’ in origin
- Privileging a literal reading of the Bible over scientific facts, and a derogatory view of modern science
- Quoting scientists out of context
- Ad hominem attacks on scientists - ‘he is an evolutionist of the first order’.
I should note that while brother
Griffiths’ rejection of a spherical Earth may seem quaint to us, he needs to be
commended for his consistent adherence to a literal reading of the Bible.
Brother Griffiths. When read literally and consistently, the Bible does reflect
the belief that the Earth is flat, with a solid firmament overhead in which the
sun, moon and stars are fixed.[4] As
brother Griffiths noted, it is impossible to harmonise the cosmology of the
Bible with what modern astronomy has revealed to us. However, as brother C.C.
Walker noted in his reply (emphasis mine):
Moses’ testimony was given to Israel in what might be called the infancy of the world, when men did not
know the extent of the earth, let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars.
And, as we believe, it was given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in cosmogony in detail, as to impress
upon them the idea that The Most High God is the Possessor of Heaven and Earth
(Gen. 14:22). And
this against the claims of the gods of the nations, as was abundantly
proved in Israel’s history. [5]
To this can be added his
observation that “Moses’
testimony is not so “plain” that it cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood”
which highlights two facts which if ignored will lead to exegetical blunders
such as Young Earth Creationism:
- A flat literal reading is not the default exegetical option
- God can accommodate human limitations if it means the theological message can be more readily understood.
There is no little inconsistency in implying
that the ‘plain sense’ of the words is the default exegetical option, only to
assert when trying to rebut mainstream Christian doctrine that references to
demons should not be interpreted literally, but read as mental illness. The
plain reading of the NT references to demons is constantly appealed to by those
who believe in supernatural demons who possess humans and cause disease.
Needless to say, I do not believe in the ontological reality of demons, but
there is no little inconsistency in arbitrarily using a flat literal
hermeneutic.
The reference to demons was deliberately
chosen, as this is a classic example of how human limitations were
accommodated, rather than wasting time and effort in trying to give the target
audience a scientifically accurate understanding of the subject. Jesus’ healing
of the paralysed man in Luke 5 illustrates this point remarkably:
“Why are you reasoning in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your
sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? “But, so that you may know that the Son of
Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—He said to the paralytic—“I say to
you, get up, and pick up your stretcher and go home.”
For anyone who thought that personal sin caused
disease, accommodating that belief rather than disabuse them of that idea would
be the easier option, and achieved the same end result. For those who genuinely
believed demons caused disease, contemporary medical explanations for disease
would be simply incomprehensible. Rather than waste time trying to bring them
up to a modern 21st century understanding, the easier option was to
accommodate that viewpoint. Accommodation however does not equal endorsement,
and that is a critical point that needs to be remembered.
Before I go any further, I need to emphasise once
again that I regard Adam and Eve as historical figures, but not the ancestors
of the entire human race. The evidence from human genetics shows without doubt
that it is impossible for the entire human race to have descended exclusively
from two people living a few thousand years ago. As the Evangelical geneticist
Dennis Venema notes:
Taken individually and collectively,
population genomics studies strongly suggest that our lineage has not
experienced an extreme population bottleneck in the last nine million years or
more (and thus not in any hominid, nor even an australopithecine species), and
that any bottlenecks our lineage did experience were a reduction only to a
population of several thousand breeding individuals. As such, the hypothesis
that humans are genetically derived from a single ancestral pair in the recent
past has no support from a genomics perspective, and, indeed, is counter to a
large body of evidence. [6]
In addition, the fossil evidence detailing the
existence of anatomically modern human fossils as long ago as 200,000 years
(let alone the evidence showing large-scale evolutionary change in the human
lineage) is unarguable [7]. Any
discussion of the Bible-Science interface which ignores these facts is as I
have said before in serious trouble. I am not trying to be polemical, but the
blunt truth is that we’re talking about facts as incontrovertible as
heliocentrism, and privileging a literal reading of a few Bible verses,
particularly when no attempt is made to justify this hermeneutic will not make
those facts vanish.
Anyway, on to the verses. All my quotes are
from the NRSV unless otherwise stated.
Acts
14:15-17 “Friends, why are you doing this? We are
mortals just like you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from
these worthless things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and
the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he
allowed all the nations to follow their own ways; yet he has not left himself
without a witness in doing good—giving you rains from heaven and fruitful
seasons, and filling you with food and your hearts with joy.”
Well, there’s no reference here to the age of
the earth or the specific mechanism of creation. It refers to God as creator,
and that’s it. As someone who regards the witness of geology, astronomy,
palaeontology and comparative genomics as faithful and reliable, this means
that the mechanism by which God created is more or less the mechanism
elucidated by modern science. Again, remember that the Bible is not a science
text, and is more concerned with inculcating theology, even if it means
accommodating existing human ideas on how this occurred.
Acts 17:24-27 The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of
heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he
served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to
all mortals life and breath and all things. From one ancestor he made all
nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their
existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they
would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is
not far from each one of us.
The first thing that needs to be recognized is
that the Greek text does not say “from one man”. What it does say is:
ἐποίησέν τε ἐξ ἑνὸς πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν
ἐπὶ παντὸς προσώπου τῆς γῆς
Note that it actually says ‘from one he made
all nations to inhabit the earth’. That leaves open the question of whether it
is one ancestral group, or one person. Again, it’s critical to avoid reading
into dated translations preconceived meanings, otherwise we won’t be rightly
dividing the word of truth.
Paul is speaking to Greeks who did not share
his understanding of Old Testament writings, therefore we need to avoid reading
this exchange with the Genesis narrative in mind. Paul not infrequently used
the writings of the Greek poets and philosophers to make a point, and this is
where we will make progress:
Acts 17
|
Greek / Roman Parallels
|
he allotted the times of their existence and
the boundaries of the places where they would live. – v 26
|
‘For you have thought it over while
paying very little attention to this, namely, that a portion of land has
been properly set aside for human habitation as well as for space for use
relating to the sentient gods.’[8]
|
so that they would search for God and perhaps
grope for him and find him – v27
|
‘For nothing is better than to search
for the true God, even if the discovery of him eludes human capacity.’[9]
|
though indeed he is not far from each one of
us.
|
‘With him, with Zeus, are filled
all paths we tread, and all the marts of men; Filled, too, the sea, and
every creek and bay’,[10] ‘God is near
you, he is with you, he is within you’[11]
|
For ‘In him we live and move and have our
being’
|
|
‘For we too are his offspring.’
|
‘And we are his offspring’[14]
|
we ought not to think that the deity is like
gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of
mortals.
|
‘a god is not made with stone,
don't you know that God is not made with hands?'[15]
|
Note that Paul is not afraid to quote mythology
in order to make a theological point. Citation of, or reference to a text does
not automatically mean that one is also endorsing the world-view associated
with it. The Greek audience would have in mind their myths in which humans were
descendants of the gods. Needless to say, Paul is not endorsing this idea!
So, when Paul says ‘of one he made all
nations’, this is not a reference to Adam, since Genesis was unknown to the
audience. That interpretation needs to be abandoned right now. We need to
interpret it in the Hellenistic worldview of the Greek audience, who did not
think that humanity descended exclusively from one person.
The Greeks tended to view the world in terms of
Greeks, and non-Greeks (barbarian). Inherent in this worldview needless to say
is an element of racial superiority, with Greeks seeing themselves as superior
to other races. Not all Greeks thought this way, with some arguing that all humans,
be they Greek, Roman, Jew or whatever, were all members of the same human
family, and it is this which Paul is appealing to.
The theological point Paul makes here can be
seen clearly in Galatians 3:27-29:
As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with
Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free,
there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And
if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to
the promise.
This unity is not dependent on universal human
descent exclusively from Adam, needless to say. Any reading of Acts 17 which is
contingent on this has missed Paul’s point.
1 Tim 2:11-14: Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
I have no problem integrating these verses into
an evolutionary creationist worldview. As I said before, I believe that Adam
and Eve were historical figures specially created by God. I regard Gen 2-3 as
being essentially historical. I do not regard Adam and Eve as being the sole
exclusive ancestors of the entire human race, and note that this view is not
explicitly taught in these verses, nor is the point made by the author of 1 Timothy
contingent on this fact. These verses are not teaching anthropology. They are
teaching theology.
Matt 19:3-6: Some
Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not
read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be
joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer
two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one
separate.”
Once again, Jesus is not teaching anthropology.
He is reminding the Pharisees that God hates divorce, and in so doing, he is
referring back to the creation of Adam and Eve. What Jesus is not saying is
that the entire human race is exclusively descended from Adam and Eve. What he
is saying is that marriage is a sacred union of man and woman, which humans
violate at their peril. His point is not contingent on Adam and Eve being the
sole, exclusive ancestors of the entire human race, and does not preclude the
existence of non-covenant human beings outside the Garden. This is my view –
Adam and Eve were historical figures, though not the first human beings to walk
the planet, and not the sole ancestors of the human race. They were however the
first people with whom God entered into a covenant-relationship, the first
sinners, and the first people to be married. (I am of course differentiating
between pair-bonding which took place among the non-covenant humans outside the
Garden, and the institution of marriage which was first ordained in Eden.)
Hebrews 4:1-11: “Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest is still open, let
us take care that none of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For
indeed the good news came to us just as to them; but the message they heard did
not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who
listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as
God has said,
“As in my anger I swore,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’ ”
though his works were finished at the foundation
of the world. For in one place it speaks about the seventh day
as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And
again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.” Since
therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received
the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again
he sets a certain day—“today”—saying through David much later, in the words
already quoted,
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”
For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about
another day. So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the
people of God; for those who enter God’s
rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. Let us
therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through
such disobedience as theirs.
This has been cited as ‘proof’ of a literal
creation in six consecutive days. My correspondent says:
If the days are literal Heb.4 is straightforward – but how is it
to be understood in the context of, say, the Framework Hypothesis?
Needless to
say, the bald scientific facts rule out a young earth created in six
consecutive days. Early Christadelphians such as CC Walker recognized that the
creation of the entire universe did not take place in six days six thousand
years ago. Emphasis again is mine:
“We can only legitimately glean from the
very brief allusion of Moses that at some time anterior to the creation he is
about to describe, the world was in existence, but in a waste and void
condition by comparison with what it afterwards became under the creative
energy of the Almighty. The conclusions of geology, and the undoubted existence
of fossil remains of incalculable antiquity are quite in harmony with this
view, whereas the view that the earth
itself was created some 6,000 years ago is hopelessly irreconcilable with
facts.”[16]
‘The
term “day” obviously signifies an indefinite period in Gen. 2:4. “These are the
generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day
that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Truly there is no mention of
evening and morning in this case; but for the reasons given in the notes
above-named we do not feel shut up to the conclusion that the Lord God
occupied only twenty-four hours in making the firmament. It has been
thought that the law of the Sabbath necessitates six literal days in creation; but
on second thoughts this does not seem conclusive, since the millennium is a
“Sabbath” of a thousand years duration, and “one day is with the Lord as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:9).”[17]
‘Yet it does not seem necessary to
confine the allusions of this first chapter of Genesis to six literal days
on the last of which man appeared.”[18]
Nothing has changed in the intervening years to
make bro. Walker’s observations out of date.
Mind you, the assertion that interpretation of
Hebrews 4v4 is conditional on the days of creation being literal days of
creation needs to justified, rather than simply asserted. Without any
supporting evidence, the assertion cannot be regarded as normative.
It is important to understand what the idea of
creation in six days with a day of rest afterwards meant to the original Hebrew
audience. We need to enter their world and leave behind all our
presuppositions, which are based on the creation-evolution conflict which meant
nothing to the original audience.
Old Testament scholars such as John Walton – a
theological conservative – have reminded us of the need to avoid reading 21st
century concepts of creation into the creation narratives:
In the post-Enlightenment Western
world, the framework of cosmic ontology has become strictly material—that is,
the cosmos is perceived to exist because it has material properties that can be
detected by the senses. The functioning of the cosmos is consequently
understood as resulting from its material properties, and its origins are
described in material terms. In a material ontology, something is created when
it is given or otherwise gains its material properties. In material ontology,
there is great interest in investigating and understanding the physical nature
of reality, especially in terms of its building blocks, from the smallest
constituents, including molecules, atoms, cells, quarks, and so on (the
constituent parts), to the largest agglomerations of constituents, including
planets, solar systems, and galaxies. In a material ontology, material origins
are of ultimate importance and of central concern.
However, we have no reason to think
that cosmic ontology in the ancient world was conceived as having a material
basis. Though an ancient material cosmic ontology cannot be ruled out, it
certainly should not be assumed as the starting point for our consideration.
Good methodology demands that we take our lead from the texts themselves when
thinking about how the ancients framed their own ontological perspectives. If
their ontology was not material, then they likely would have had little interest
in material origins. The focus of their ontology would also naturally be
reflected in their accounts of origins.[19]
In other words, when the ancient world referred
to creation, they were not necessarily referring to material origins. Rather,
as Walton notes:
…the precosmic world was understood not as a world absent of matter but
as a world absent of function, order, diversity, and identity… Reality and
existence in the cognitive environment of ancient peoples can be understood as
predominantly comprising function and order, not matter and objects. The acts
of creation involved naming, separating, and temple building…Modern material
ontology offers no secure understanding of the meaning of life, but the
functional ontology of ancient Near Eastern peoples gave meaning to the reality
that they experienced in the way the world worked.
In the ancient cognitive
environment, it was more important to determine who controlled functions than
who or what gave something its physical form. We could therefore conclude that in the ancient world something was created
when it was given a function…
The idea that the ancients did not
have a material ontology of course does not mean that they had no interest in
or awareness of the physical world around them. That is, it is not as if they
had a mystical view of the world rather than paying attention to the real world
they experienced every day. The point is, however, that to them the “real”
world was a world of divine presence and activity. Their cosmological ontology
reflects that it is the functioning of that ordered, real world that is of
importance, not its physical makeup or the physical origins of the material
objects. The “hardware” is incidental; it is the “software” that counts. (Emphasis in the original) [20]
The days of creation then in a
function-oriented ontology therefore can be seen not as the literal creation of
the entire universe in six consecutive days, but the assigning of function and
purpose to the universe in six consecutive days.
The significance of what ‘rest’ means in
Genesis becomes clear when we look at the ancient Near Eastern views on the
significance of the cosmos, temples, and divine rest. Walton notes that the:
…building of temples was described in cosmic terms, that the temples
were described as having cosmic functions, that temples were understood as
models in miniature of the cosmos and were replete with cosmic symbolism, that
cosmic origins were sometimes associated with temple building, that temples
were sometimes thought to represent the world, and that deities rested in
temples that had been constructed for precisely this purpose…The temple was the
hub of the cosmos and the rest of the deity in the temple was essential to his
rule of the cosmos.[21]
The idea of ‘divine rest’ in the ancient
world did not necessarily refer exclusively to sleeping or reposing, but would
often refer to the deity entering into his temple to rule. Critically, this
view can be seen in Psalm 132:
Rise up, O Lord, and go to your resting place,you and the ark of your might.9 Let your priests be clothed with righteousness,and let your faithful shout for joy.10 For your servant David’s sakedo not turn away the face of your anointed one.11 The Lord swore to David a sure oathfrom which he will not turn back:“One of the sons of your bodyI will set on your throne.12 If your sons keep my covenantand my decrees that I shall teach them,their sons also, forevermore,shall sit on your throne.”13 For the Lord has chosen Zion;he has desired it for his habitation:14 “This is my resting place forever;here I will reside, for I have desired it. [22]
Our confidence in the
temple-cosmos-rest motif is reinforced, as Walton notes by the fact that
resting takes place on the seventh day:
“This connection is further
substantiated by the fact that the rest takes place on the seventh day. Several
examples of temple inaugurations from ancient Near Eastern literature, cited
above, show that these rites took place in the course of seven days and that
the deity entered the temple to take up his rest on the seventh day. Mark
Smith, in his discussion of the motif of seven days in Genesis 1, concludes,
with Hurowitz, that “creation in Genesis 1 uses the language of
temple-building.” Regardless of whether Genesis 1 is understood as reflecting a
temple-building account (like the building of Baal’s Temple in seven days) or a
temple-inauguration account (like the temple inauguration in Gudea Cylinder B),
the connection between Genesis 1 and temple imagery is confirmed.
“Seven-day temple inaugurations are
the norm in biblical temple-building accounts. In the account of the
construction of Solomon’s temple, a seven-day dedication, to which was added a
seven-day feast/banquet (2 Chr 7:9; 1 Kgs 8:65), followed the completion of
construction. Levenson observes the repeated use of the number seven in the
account and concludes that the account is modeled on the seven days of
creation.[23]
A full elaboration is beyond the
scope of this reply, but it should suffice to show that:
- The ancient world was more concerned with the origin of function and order than in material origins, and Israel was no different
- The motif of ‘cosmos as temple’ which after being brought into existence was followed by divine rule / rest in the cosmos-temple (the seat of power) is seen in the creation account
Needless to say, literal days are
being referred to here, but one is completely misunderstanding the creation
narrative – as well as destroying the temple-cosmos motif – by seeing it as a
mechanical literal creation of the entire universe in six consecutive days.
More to the point, the significance of divine rest on the seventh day is lost.
So, when the author of Hebrews says
that:
“a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; for those who enter
God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. Let us therefore
make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such
disobedience as theirs.”
we can see that if we do not fall
away, then in the millennial age, when the Earth finally is redeemed and
becomes the Temple of God, then we too will have the privilege of ruling as
kings and priests when we enter into God’s rest and rule.
2 Cor 11:3 “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”
Again, as I do not deny the
historicity of Adam and Eve, and regard the events in the Garden of Eden as
historical, this poses no problem for me. The assertion by my correspondent that “Rom.5v12 & 1
Cor.15v21-22 teach that death in the world is a result of the sin in Eden” is not maintained by a detailed
reading of the verses. The first point that needs to be stressed is that
death, not mortality is the consequence of Adam’s sin. I do not die because I
sin. I die because I am made of corruptible material. I remain dead as a
punishment for sin if I choose to reject the offer of salvation, and that is
the point Paul is making here – death as a punishment for sin was introduced
into the world when the first sin was committed. Prior to Adam’s sin, humans
lived and died as the ‘beasts that perish’ but as God’s law was unknown, sin as
a concept did not exist and therefore death as a punishment for sin simply did
not apply.
The terms ‘death’ and mortality’
are expressed by two different Greek words (thanatos, and thnētos,
respectively) and theological confusion results if these terms are confused.
Paul meant death, not mortality when he used thanatos (Romans 5:21;
6:16, 21, 23 and 1 Corinthians 15:21) and these verses show that death, and not
mortality, is the inevitable consequence of sin.
The argument that ‘death’ in
these verses is not physical mortality but eternal death as a punishment for
sin has strong Christadelphian support. Emphasis again is mine:
“The wages of sin is death. Wages
are paid only to those who labour: those who in their toil sow to the flesh,
will be paid for the labour they perform; and the pay for this kind of
labour is corruption, or death unto death ending in corruption, as the apostle
saith, shall of the flesh reap corruption, and of such he says, in another
place, whose end is destruction; so that death, corruption, and destruction are
the wages of sin, which everyone is fairly entitled to who loves
darkness rather than light, and refuses to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.” [24]
“True; no wicked man can claim to be made
alive in Christ that he may live for ever; but he will certainly be made alive
that he may be judged and consigned to the dire severities of the
Second Death, which is the wages of sin, the first death being the
common lot of all, both saints and sinners.”[25]
“By a simpler set of terms, it is said, they
shall die (Rom. 8:13); the end of these things is DEATH (Rom. 6:21); the
wages of sin is death. (Ibid. 6:23.) The wicked rise, are confronted by the
Judge, condemned, and put to shame (Dan 12:2; 1 Jno. 2:28); they
receive in body according to their deeds(1 Cor. 5:10); having sown to the
flesh, they reap corruption(Gal. 6:8).” [26]
“Therefore, there is a death not
realised by the wicked in their lifetime, and how can there be any
argument from present experience to a result not yet experienced? Is this death
(which is the wages of sin) destruction or torment? Dr. Angus
says it cannot be destruction.”[27]
“Death as the wages of sin is
a definition used by Paul in contrast with everlasting life as
the gift of God. Therefore it means death, under the divine anger,
inflicted for the extinction of the sinner.”[28]
“Our friend imagines there was a change in
the nature of Adam when he became disobedient. There is no evidence of
this whatever, and the presumption and evidence are entirely the contrary way.
“There was a change in Adam’s relation to
his maker, but not in the nature of his organization. What are
the facts? He was formed from the dust a “living soul,” or natural body.
His mental constitution gave him moral relation to God.”[29]
“Death and corruption, then, with
reproduction, the characteristic of spring and summer, is the
fundamental law of the physical system of the Six Days. Adam and Eve,
and all the other animals born of the earth with themselves, would have
died and gone to corruption, if there had been no transgression,
provided that there had been no further interference with the physical system
than Moses records in his history of the Sixth Day…
“It is certain, therefore, that the
animal nature they possessed was essentially a mortal nature, and
required to be physically operated upon by the power transmissible through
contact with the tree of lives to change it into a nature constitutionally
capable of enduring forever; which the animal nature is not.
“From these premises it will be seen, that we
dissent from our correspondent's “notion" that all creation
became corrupt (by which we understand him to mean, constitutionally
impregnated with corruptibility) at the Fall. We believe that the change
consequent upon that calamity was moral, not physical. The natural system was
the same the day before the Fall as the day after.”[30]
While one can find early Christadelphian writers
whose views on this subject stray dangerously close to Original Sin, the
presence of a solid, well-argued view on the subject shows that the view you
are advancing was hardly normative for the early generation of
Christadelphians.
Romans 5v12 has traditionally
been read as proof that all humanity sinned in Adam, and therefore genetically
inherited the consequences of Adam’s sin. This cannot be sustained as this
reading stems from the Old Latin text, which is regarded as inferior. A
comparison of a representative modern version with the Douay-Rheims, which
follows the Vulgate, makes this clear:
- NRSV: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned.
- Douay-Rheims: Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
The flawed nature of the Old
Latin rendering of Romans 5v12 was recognised around half a millennium ago by
the Dutch Biblical scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) who acknowledged that
the Greek was better translated “because all have sinned.” The Council of
Trent, the official Catholic response to the Reformation was aware of this, but
still used the Latin!
Tellingly, contemporary
Catholic theologians acknowledge Erasmus’ point. Jack Mahoney, in a recent book
on Original Sin notes:
“The formal teaching of the Council of
Trent, then, is that Adam’s original sin is inherited by everyone through
procreation and that its guilt is forgiven by the conferring of baptism, yet
something of its results remains even in the baptized, experienced as
concupiscence or sinful desires, fomenting or fueling sin in each of us. On
this several comments can be offered, the first crucially relating to where it
all starts, namely, to what Paul meant in Romans 5:12 when he used the Greek
phrase eph’
hō relating to Adam’s action.
Augustine and others, including the council fathers at Trent, relying on the
Old Latin translation, took this to mean in Latin in quo, or “in whom,” with
the clear implication that everyone had sinned in Adam. Most exegetes today
understand this phrase as using the common Greek preposition epi to imply succession rather than inclusion,
thus giving the meaning “since when” all have sinned rather than “in whom” all
have sinned. We must conclude that if this is the original Pauline meaning, it
removes from divine revelation any reference to Adam’s descendants being
incorporated in solidarity “in him” (in quo), and as a result it dispenses with
the conclusion that the whole of succeeding humanity has been condemned en
masse as a sort of “condemned mass in Adam,” as Augustine and others explained.
J. N. D. Kelly delivers his considered verdict in explaining how the Old Latin
version of the New Testament (which had influence only in the West) gave “an
exegesis of Rom 5:12 which, though mistaken and based on a false reading, was
to become the pivot of the doctrine of original sin.”
“As a consequence of this reflection, it
follows that there is now no need for theology to find a method by which to explain
how all Adam’s offspring inherit his original sin. Trent’s insistence that
Adam’s original sin was transmitted among all subsequent human beings by
propagation, or by generation, rather than simply by imitation (which Pelagius
was considered to have maintained) was clearly due more to the theological
polemic of Saint Augustine against Pelagius and his supporters than to Paul’s
writing centuries earlier.” - Mahoney J Christianity in Evolution: An Exploration (2011: Georgetown University Press) p 55
Support for the view that
physical death not only was unknown prior to Adam’s sin, but was genetically
transmitted to his descendants as a punishment for sin is alien to the Bible.
1 Cor 15:21-22: “For since death came through a human
being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as
all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
Note that it is death, and not mortality
that comes through human sin. Failure to properly differentiate between these
terms results in a confused understanding of the verses. It is nonsensical to
read 1 Cor 15 as saying that mortality came through human action. Humans were
created mortal – as bro. Thomas said earlier, ““Death and corruption, then, with reproduction, the characteristic of
spring and summer, is the fundamental law of the physical system of the
Six Days.” What came though human action was the introduction
of eternal death as a punishment for sin, which is effected by letting people
die, and not raising them from the dead. Needless to say, this answers
perfectly with the second part of the verse – resurrection from death comes
through human action.
The reference in verse 22 to
dying ‘in Adam’ needs to be read in parallel to being made alive ‘in Christ’.
Being ‘in Adam’ has nothing to do with being physically descended from Adam,
and remember, the genomic data rules out universal human descent from Adam, so
this interpretation is impossible. Rather, being in Adam refers to following
his example of disobedience. The way in which we are made alive in Christ gives
us the context to properly interpret the reference to being in Adam. Put
simply, we are dealing with two different paths to follow. One leads to eternal
death. The other leads to eternal life. Confusing death as a punishment for sin
with mortality, which as bro Thomas noted was part of the original ‘very good’
creation results in confused exegesis, and sets us up for a pointless conflict
between religion and science.
References
[1] Roberts R “True Principles and Uncertain Details” The Christadelphian (1898) 35:182-189
[2] Jardine
W.D “The Bible as a Law of Life and Immortality” The Ambassador of the Coming Age (1864) 1:93-94
[3]
Walker C.C “Is it Wrong to Believe that the Earth is a Sphere?” The Christadelphian (1913) (Birmingham:
Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association, 1913), 346–347.
[4] Enns P “The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid, but That’s Not
the Point” Science and the Sacred Jan 14 2010 http://biologos.org/blog/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point
[5] Walker, op cit, p 348
[6] Venema D “Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence
for Human-Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
(2010) 62:166-178
[7] Cartmill, Matt; Smith, Fred H. The Human Lineage (Foundation of Human
Biology) (2009: Wiley)
[8] Philo (Greecian Jew), ‘On Abraham’ (2.74), 1st
century CE.
[9] Philo, ‘The Special Laws’, 1st century CE
[10] Aratus (Greek poet), ‘Phaenomena’, 3rd century BCE
[11] Seneca the Younger (Roman philosopher), ‘Letters’,
1st century CE.
[12] Epimenides of Knossos (Greek philosopher), ‘Cretica’,
6th century BCE.
[13] Cleanthes of Assos (Greek philosopher), ‘Hymn to
Zeus’, 4th century BCE.
[14] Aratus (Greek poet), ‘Phaenomena’, 3rd century
BCE.
[16] Walker CC “Genesis” The Christadelphian (1910)
47:223
[17] Walker CC, “Genesis” The Christadelphian (1910) 47:361
[18] ibid, p 362
[19] Walton J “Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology”
(2011: Eisenbrauns) p 23–24.
[20] ibid, p
42–44
[21] ibid, p 178.
[22]
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard
Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ps 132:8–14.
[23]
ibid, p 181–182.
[24] Thomas J “Immortality, Heaven, and Hell the
Unscriptural Character and Heathen Origin of Popular Dogmas Demonstrated; and
the Truth Concerning These Things Exhibited by Dr Thomas” The
Christadelphian (1870) 7: 228
[25] Thomas J “The Wicked In the Resurrection” The
Christadelphian (1881) 18:197
[26] Roberts R “Future Punishment not Eternal Torments” The
Christadelphian (1870) 7:368
[27] Roberts R “Future Punishment not Eternal Torments” The
Christadelphian (1871) 8:15
[28] Roberts R “Answers to Correspondents” The Christadelphian
(1874) 11:526
[29] Roberts R ‘The Relation of Jesus to the Law of Sin
and Death” The Christadelphian (1869) 6: 85
[30] . Thomas J “Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall’, The
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come (1855) 5:159
