Deathisdefeated

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

The Evolution of Adam: What The Bible does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins By Pete Enns

I want to introduce Pete Enns newly released Book “The Evolution of Adam”: What the Bible does and doesn’t Say about Human Origins. 

This is going to be a ground breaking book in Christian circles as Pete introduces some new concepts to the evangelical crowd that seriously challenges many of their longstanding hermeneutical approaches.  I have listed the Table of Contents and Pete’s concluding 9 Thesis below to give you a flavor of his work. 

I find the book quite useful, and challenging at the same time; nevertheless I’m fairly comfortable with much that Pete presents even though I do contest some of his premises.  

I would like to emphasize that Chapter 4 alone is worth the price of the book because Pete appears to corroborate what many of us have been declaring about Genesis and Pauline theology for a while. Here are some snippets giving a sneak preview of Chapter 4.

Adam and Israel

                “Another place to see the intersection of primordial time and present time in Israel is the Adam story. Genesis 1–11 as a whole certainly has in view a universal setting. Using ancient categories, Genesis 1 describes how the earth and cosmos came to be. Likewise, the flood story speaks of all life on earth being swept away by the chaotic waters (Gen. 6:7), and the table of nations in chapter 10 recounts how the earth became repopulated.

The Adam story seems to fit into this universal focus, but not entirely so. Some elements of the story suggest that it is not about universal human origins but Israel’s origin. This line of interpretation has pre-Christian roots. For example, the book of Jubilees (second century BC) presents Adam as a patriarch of the Israelites (3:27–32). Similarly, the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus (Sirach/Ben Sira, second century BC) presents Adam as an Israelite ancestor (49:16).[66]

I am not suggesting that the Adam story can only be read as a story of Israel’s origins. It is, however, a compelling way to read it, for it makes sense out of some well-known interpretive difficulties while also helping along the evolution discussion. If the Adam story is not really a story of the beginning of humanity but of one segment of humanity, at least some of the tensions between Genesis and evolution are lessened—although we would still need to address the issue of Paul’s reading of the Adam story, which we will get to in chapter 7.”

Enns, Peter (2012-01-01). Evolution of Adam, The (Kindle Locations 1695-1706). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition. Paperback edition Chapter 4 page 65-66

“Reading Adam as a story of proto-Israel is compelling and worthy of careful attention. It also complements yet another approach to the Adam story we will look at in chapter 5: reading the Adam story as a narrative version of Israel’s quest for wisdom in Proverbs. Both of these complementing perspectives support the general point I am making here: Adam is not a story of the origin of humanity in general but of Israel in particular. When seen from this perspective, efforts to reconcile Adam and evolution become unnecessary—at least from the point of view of Genesis. Paul’s use of the Adam story, as I have been saying, is another matter.”

Enns, Peter (2012-01-01). Evolution of Adam, The (Kindle Locations 1803-1808). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition. Paperback edition chapter 4 page 70

 

Next I want to highlight how Pete interfaces in a limited manner with Revelation.

The Gospel and Primordial Time

“ By employing some of the images we have been looking at, the New Testament describes the final intersection of primordial time and history. For example, we see this in how the Christian Bible ends. The book of Revelation is a highly symbolic, apocalyptic book—not in the Hollywood sense of the word but in the ancient sense: God’s reign is about to break into this world and set it right. It does not mean that the world is coming to an end in some catastrophe, with a disembodied heavenly existence waiting on the other side. Rather, the reign of God brings renewal (Rev. 21:5).

Hence, in Revelation 21–22, a new heaven and earth are revealed, a new act of creation that supersedes the heaven and earth of Genesis 1:1. The Christian Bible ends where it begins; thus it is no surprise to see the re-creation of the cosmos described in ways that recall primordial time. In this new creation, “the sea was no more” (21:1), no chaos to tame. Israel’s Sabbath celebration of the victory of God over chaos is an anticipation of the eventual complete submission of chaos under God’s power. The Israelites captured this belief in the bronze sea in the temple. Revelation claims that the defeat of the sea was accomplished through the victory of the Lamb of God over death—the resurrection is the final defeat of chaos. The enemy is vanquished, and so there is no longer any need for the temple symbolism (21:22). Likewise, part of this new creation is a new Jerusalem, which symbolizes God’s immediacy with this creation—the final intersection of the divine plane and the human plane. God’s dwelling place is now among the people (21:2–3). God’s presence means the ways of the old creation are passing away, including even death and pain (v. 4).”

Enns, Peter (2012-01-01). Evolution of Adam, The (Kindle Locations 1882-1895). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition.

This book is only 150 pages and is an easy read with challenging thoughts. I hope to add some post that explores some of Pete’s ideas.  I’m going to be challenging a few notions here and there and will insert how I differ with Pete on Paul’s concepts of Genesis and Adam. Pete presents the idea that the proper reading of Genesis or the intent of the author was more literal due to ancient worldview (ANE) concepts. I believe this idea is somewhat an inconsistent approach about the construction and understanding of Genesis. My position is based upon the recognition that Ezekiel and Revelation which differ by 500 years both took liberties with Genesis from a literal standpoint. (This is especially revealing for Ezekiel which very likely was possibly somewhat contemporary with Genesis construction.) 

 

Both books apply Genesis imagery in similar manner that many of second Temple Judaism pieces of literature do as well, so Genesis IMO falls right in line with the 2T literature’s manner of presenting the Adam/Garden themes and can’t be separated from them as cleanly as people might like to.   Ezekiel definitely appropriates Garden imagery in several places such as the Nations as Garden Trees and the Single Temple River and animal motifs in Chapter 47 to name a few. Revelation 12 also picks up straight from Genesis 3 concerning the Woman and the Serpent’s ongoing struggles against each other.  Rev 21’s de-creation of the Sea, Sun and Moon motifs take us back to Gen 1’s cosmic Temple Creation account to illustrate the passing of the First cosmic Heavens and Earth of Rev 21:1-3.      

 

One can also begin to conceptualize that the “woman” motif was not a singular but corporately driven idea. The “woman” continues the “theme as Eve the mother of all the Living” embodying the Church as the end recipient of that Genesis proposition. Pete though appears to lean toward Eve the mother of all the living is postulating a biological implication but Revelation and  it’s doubtful that Paul hardly viewed Eve the “woman” in that manner.  If Genesis actually falls into the same consistent Genre field of Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation and many 2T pieces then it was constructed with the imagery motif as the backbone of its intent and Paul naturally reflected and reoriented these ideas into his writings since he was an educated product of that Hebrew mindset. This would render the proposition of ANE background as a less significant issue than Pete is attempting to make the case for.  It doesn’t eliminate it but it moves it a little further back in the pecking order for properly understanding the original intent and context of Genesis and how and why Jews interpreted it the way they did.

I highly recommend that you purchase the book whether as the paperback or digital version and join into a highly relevant and contemporary discussion here.  It will not take you long to read the piece, especially for those speed readers out there.

Here are the details below:

 

The Evolution of Adam: What The Bible does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins By Pete Enns

Details: about 150 pages, $12.10 for paperback and $9.99 for Kindle version.

Pete’s Blog site Here

Amazon site Here

Part One: Genesis: An Ancient Story of Israelite Self-Definition

  1. Genesis and the Challenges      of the Nineteenth Century: Science, Biblical Criticism, and Biblical      Archaelolgy
  2. When Was Genesis Written?

The Problem of the Pentateuch . Two Early Examples. God Has Two names. Wellhausen and a Postexilic Pentateuch. The Old Testament, the Exile, and Israel’s Self-Definition. The Creation Story and the Church’s Self-Definition

  1. Stories of Origins from      Israel’s Neighbors

Genre Calibrations.  Genesis1 and Enuma Elish.  Genesis 1 and Monolatry.  The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Atrahasis.  Israel’s Second Creation Story. Adam and Atrahasis.  Reorienting Expectations of Genesis and Human Origins.

  1. Israel and Primordial Time

Israel and the Cosmic Battle.  Adam and Israel.  Creation and Sanctuary. The Gospel and Primordial Time

Part Two: Understanding Paul’s Adam

  1. Paul’s Adam and the Old      Testament

Doesn’t Paul Settle the Matter.  Not Paul’s Adam.  Adam and Wisdom

  1. Paul as an Ancient      Interpreter of the Old Testament

Paul as an Ancient Man.  Interpreting the Bible after the Exile.  Various Adams of Jewish Interpreters.  Paul and His Bible.  Paul and His Interpreted Bible

  1. Paul’s Adam

Paul’s Adam:  The Historical First Man, Responsible for Universal Sin and Death. Sin and Death without Adam.  The One People of God.  The solution Reveals the Plight

 

Conclusion ADAM TODAY: NINE THESES

How are Christians—those who value Scripture as God’s Word and who also accept evolution as the correct model for human origins—to think of Adam today? That is the question we began with at the beginning of the book, and the question for everyone to work through on their own. I hope the thoughts I have outlined thus far may be of some help. Toward that end, I think it is appropriate to conclude this book by outlining in nine theses the core issues before us, retracing some of the steps we have taken throughout this book while also adding a point or two.

Thesis 1: Literalism is not an option.

Thesis 2: Scientific and biblical models of human origins are, strictly speaking, incompatible because they speak a different “language.” They cannot be reconciled, and there is no “Adam” to be found in an evolutionary scheme.

Thesis 3: The Adam story in Genesis reflects its ancient Near Eastern setting and should be read that way.

Thesis 4: There are two creation stories in Genesis; the Adam story is probably the older and was subsumed under Genesis 1 after the exile in order to tell Israel’s story.

Thesis 5: The Israel-centered focus of the Adam story can also be seen in its similarity to Proverbs: the story of Adam is about failure to fear God and attain wise maturity.

Thesis 6: God’s solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expresses that fact in the biblical idiom available to him.

Thesis 7: A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors—whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment.

Thesis 8: The root of the conflict for many Christians is not scientific or even theological, but group identity and fear of losing what it offers.

Thesis 9: A true rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not simply adding evolution to existing theological formulations.

 

Enns, Peter (2012-01-01). Evolution of Adam, The (Kindle Location 3325). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition.

Views: 574

Comment by Norm on January 16, 2012 at 9:22pm

Let’s look at some more issues from Pete’s new book, this time from Chapter 5.

 

Paul’s Adam and the Old Testament

 “The conversation between Christianity and evolution would be far less stressful for some if it were not for the prominent role that Adam plays in two of Paul’s Letters, specifically in Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20–58. In these passages, Paul seems to regard Adam as the first human being and ancestor of everyone who ever lived. This is a particularly vital point in Romans, where Paul regards Adam’s disobedience as the cause of universal sin and death from which humanity is redeemed through the obedience of Christ. Many Christians, however creative they might be willing to be about interpreting Genesis, stop dead in their tracks when they see how Paul handles Adam.

 

It is understandable why, for a good number of Christians, the matter of a historical Adam is absolutely settled, and the scientific and archaeological data—however convincing and significant they might be otherwise—are either dismissed or reframed to be compatible with Paul’s understanding of human origins. For many other Christians, the matter is not so black and white, but the overall sense remains that it is theologically necessary for there to be some sort of Adam somewhere in human history who is personally responsible for alienating humanity from God.” (emphasis mine)

 

Enns, Peter (2012-01-01). Evolution of Adam, The (Kindle Locations 1950-1960). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition.

 

I would like to address Pete’s investigation of Paul’s thinking toward Adam as the first literal human being.  It seems Pete is reading this idea into Paul’s concept of Adam more substantially than it possibly should be.  If Pete is deriving this idea from Paul in regards to Rom 5:12, 18 and 1 Cor 15:21 then there may be a way out of this conundrum which allows Paul to be primarily addressing Adam from a covenant Proto Israel viewpoint instead of a universal biological understanding.  I believe the answer lies within Rom 5:12-13 when we break it down and follow Paul’s thinking not only through chapter 5 but also into  chapters 7 and 8. Paul has a way of skipping around and leaving and then coming back that makes him difficult to follow is an understatement.  If we focus carefully on Paul’s overall premise of Romans 5-8 we will see that Paul is outlining that the beginning of the Law given during Adam’s Garden existence is the culprit regarding Adam’s plight and it’s the same in 1 Cor 15 as well.  However there is much more packed into Rom 5:12-13 than typically meets the eye. Let’s look at it and then break the points down.

 

Rom 5:12-13 YLT  because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;  for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law;

 

If we read carefully we see that the giving of the commandment changes things for Adam in the Garden. It’s also important to realize that Adam is still in the Garden in this conceptualization by Paul.  Notice though that Paul designates the breaking of law specifically as “the sin” and it’s consequence as “the death” as illustrated here in these verses.  However and this is an important recognition; Paul casually mentions that  just plain old “sin” was in the world but it was not reckoned against Adam while residing in what I will call the “theoretical pristine Garden”.  This enjoyment from God holding Adam accountable for what I will call natural “sin” is distinctly different from what Paul call’s “the sin” stemming from being entangled in “law”.  What some call “original sin” is nothing of the sort when it get

Comment by Norm on January 16, 2012 at 9:26pm

gets down to what lead to Adam’s expulsion from God’s Garden, instead it was in regards to Adam’s entanglement as a means to basically outmaneuver God by using Law to sidestep their need for Him.  However remember, the natural “sin” of humanity was already in the world but in God’s Garden experience it is not counted against the faithful one in covenant with God. 

 

So how did this particular “sin” lead to all men being subject to “sin” again? It’s really quite simple; there was no longer any Garden existence in which man could find refuge like the original faithful man Adam had.  The ability to escape natural man’s proclivity to sin yet not be held accountable had no viable recourse in the world, thus “all men” had their hopes dashed and fell back under the condemnation that the world of chaos and darkness held because none could overcome their natural inclination to refrain from “sinning”, thus all men sinned.  This is further illustrated in Romans 7 when Paul comes back around to the Garden scene again and speaking individually as Adam or Proto Israel he reminds once more how the Law begins the problem for humanity’s bondage to Sin’s.  However it was “the sin” specifically that relegated faith seeking mankind outside of Garden existence.  Here again Paul takes us back to the Garden scene he introduced via Rom 5:12 where life (immortality) was the original standard.

 

Rom 7:9  And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died;  and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death:  for  (the) sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me.

 

Often people read Paul speaking individually here in Romans 7 but in reality he is speaking corporately as a member of the first Adamic Body of sin and death. He is speaking surely as Proto Israel because everything is wrapped up in the problem of the Law. He then comes to the climatic statement asking who will free him/Israel from this body of death.  He is telling his readers that they need to refrain from remaining entangled in that old body of Judaism bound to the Law.

 

Rom 7:23-25  and I behold another law in my members (plural), warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of the sin that is in my members (plural).   A wretched man I am ! (old man Adam) who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?   I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord; so then, I myself indeed with the mind do serve the law of God, and with the flesh, the law of sin.

 

Paul continues to expound the benefits and the need to not walk under old covenant Law in Romans 8. Do you notice that Paul brings his argument full circle back to the Garden where again there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus even though sin is still in the world and all men sin.

 

Rom 8:1-2  There is, then, now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit;   for the law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus did set me free from the law of the sin and of the death;

 

Finally Paul makes it clear that in the previous three chapters where he details the futility of the old covenant Law that there is no other choice for eternal life but through Christ.  The Garden is now open for business again and he warns them not to go back to that old way of the flesh.

 

Rom 8:13-14  For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.  For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Comment by Norm on January 16, 2012 at 9:27pm

Now Pete also mentions 1 Cor 15 so let’s look at its contextual parameters and see if Paul stays on track with the above understanding.  

 

1Co 15:21-22  For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.  (22)  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

Notice that if Paul is continuing his premise he sets out in Romans 5-8 that 1 Cor 15 would be simply continuing that same premise here. So let’s look at Paul’s conclusion later on in 1 Cor 15 to see if the patterns hold up. The question becomes has Paul switched over to an individual body of death here in 1 Cor 15 or is he continuing a corporate (Proto Israel) understanding of the Body of Death that Israel found herself in. It sure looks like its talking an individual body but scripturally Paul would be pulling from the OT and its understanding of National Israel in need of resurrection so that its members may find life instead of death.  National resurrection implies individual resurrection for its covenant members and so they go hand in hand together even though Paul is making the corporate application here.

 

1Co 15:42  So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. … 45  Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. … 48  As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

 

Paul’s above explanation is corporately applying National resurrection to those following Christ the Last Adam. Just as Ezekiel 37 states that the “dead bones” of Israel will have the breath of life again, so it happens through Christ.  Daniel 12 also says that those who sleep (Adam’s offspring) in the Dust will be raised when the Power of the Holy People ends.

 

Dan 12:2, 7 many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life  … that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished.

 

Daniel 9 also adds its collaboration to this idea that Paul appears to be pulling from concerning the end of transgression via “the sin”.

 

Dan 9:24  "Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, …

 

I would like to make one other point concerning 1 Cor 15 above; notice that it says that “Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.  We all know that Gen 1:26-28 applies the attribute of the likness and Image of God to Adam but many often miss something concerning Gen 5:1-3 when the author describes the attribute of God that fallen Adam receives. Theologically speaking we know that the full Image of God did not become complete until Christ the Last Adam bequeathed it to us from the Heavenly realm.

 

Rom 8:29  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

 

Col 3:9-10  … seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices  and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

 

If we look carefully at Gen 5:1-3 we see that something is missing from the Adam cast out of the Garden and passed on to his progeny.

Comment by Norm on January 16, 2012 at 9:27pm

Gen 5:1-3  This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.  (2)  Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man (Adam) when they were created.  (3)  When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

 

Did you notice the subtlety of leaving out the Image of God being imbued with the fallen Adam?  I posit that Paul is reflecting this theological implication above when he says that “we have born the image of the man of dust” when referring to Adam because that is exactly what Seth inherited from Adam which was not the full blown Image of God but the lesser attribute “man of dust” likeness of God. There is a difference because the Hebrews constructed Genesis very delicately and word oriented. They used words like we use Gold.  There is an intentional implication there in which Seth indeed gained the Image but just like those Paul was writing to in 1 Cor 15 he only received the image of the lesser “man of dust” and not the full attribute of the Image of the “Man of Heaven”.  That would have to wait for the Last Adam.

 

Pete’s supposition that Paul believed that Adam was the first man of humanity is built upon an examination of the language from Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15 that IMO  doesn’t exactly follow Paul’s thought pattern when examined carefully. Pete has two options for his Chapter 5 when possibly the best option has been left out.  The above understanding falls in perfectly with Pete’s idea of Proto Israel and effectively reinforces his conclusions there.  Modern scholars are beginning to see that Paul uses corporate language consistently in Romans and 1 Cor and this up-to-date recognition helps what Pete is uncovering about Genesis.  Adam and Genesis is essentially a Hebrew story and I encourage you to read Pete’s book and determine for yourselves how these concepts work theologically for Paul.

Norm

Comment by Tim Martin on January 16, 2012 at 10:32pm

Norm,


Thanks for posting your analysis regarding Enn's new book. This is very intriguing to me. I will be getting the book.

One question I have been pondering is the whole notion of "mankind" being read into the name "Adam" by modern theological approaches.

Let me throw something out and you can tell me if the thought is worth exploring more. 1 Cor. 15 has remarkable connections to Hosea as I discovered in my recent sermon series in Hosea here at Covenant Community Church. But in Hosea, there is a prophecy that "in that day" God would make a covenant with the beasts, birds, and creatures (Hos. 2:18). You see something similar across the OT when animals are presented as receiving the blessing of salvation through the Messiah of Israel. That is, the whole creation is redeemed through the work of the last Adam.

Covenant Creation understands this consistent symbol-pattern to be covenant jurisdictions among human groups, i.e. man/Adam indicates Israel, beasts and birds of the land indicates the nations close to Israel or Canaanite nations, and fish of the sea indicates pagan nations far removed from "the land" out at the ends of the land.

Given that conception of creation, (and I think it explains God's blessing on the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and man on the land in Genesis 1), my question is this: If Hosea looms large in the background of Paul's teaching on resurrection, then could it be that when he refers to Adam, he is intentionally speaking of a specific portion of the covenant creation only, the land part related to what we would label "Hebrew" and later "Israelite"?

It seems to me that if Paul is working closely from Hosea, and he is, then he would use the same imagery introduced in Hosea (and the rest of the prophets) regarding the beasts/fish as non-Israelite nations. Hence his reference to "Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another." ( 1 Cor. 15:39) I suspect Paul knows what he's talking about with that statement even when modern interpreters are baffled by his words.

It just seems to me that a very major unexamined assumption in this whole discussion by theologians of all persuasions is that Adam = all mankind/human beings on planet Earth. If that presupposition can be demonstrated false, then we could be on the way to a wholesale revolution in looking at Paul's theology in Hebraic terms. Is that how you would characterize this discussion?

BTW, it would also explain Paul's "Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life...." (Rom. 5:18). We could say that Paul is referencing the fall of all Israel through one man's offense, and the salvation of all Israel through one man's righteous act. There is no discussion of the birds/beasts/fish at this point in Paul's teaching. He is contextually limiting himself to man on the land.

Does this seem like a workable approach to develop?

Tim Martin

Comment by samuel m. frost on January 17, 2012 at 12:31am

But, Norm, this would posit that man was created evil and sinner.  How do you get Luke's description of Adam as a "son of God", when, in fact, he was a sinner plucked out from among existing nations, then failed (because he was a sinner already)?  I believe you misread Paul's statement about about SIN not being taken into account.  There is a difference.  It is sinthat is not taken into account.  This means that sin was present - it's just not taken into account.  People sinned from Adam to Moses and they were judged (Sodom, Flood, et al).  Their "evil" was judged.  Another particular interpretation is that it was not taken into account by the person (they had no way to account for their actions as sin since they had no law).  But, this does not mean that BECAUSE there was no account, there was no "sin".  Enns has a dilemma of his own making.  Paul unquestionably (as did the great deal of second temple Judaism) take Adam as 'the first man'.

Comment by samuel m. frost on January 17, 2012 at 12:35am

sin and death (if already present) entered through Adam?  It was already present!  We can make the distinction between law "given" and the law of God in his own being (God is holy, righteous - which means his standard of holiness and righteous is eternal - wheter it is given to men or not - it is still an infraction - whether known or not).  Ignorance is no excuse.

Comment by samuel m. frost on January 17, 2012 at 12:41am

Tim, in 1 Cor 15, Paul does mention "creation" - "seeds" "flesh of men" "animals" "fish" "birds" "sun, moon, stars" - note the order: Day 6, 5, 4, with "seeds" on 3.  Fee recognized this as well.  "With what bodies"?  Paul's answer: "Fools!"  Then he appeals to the creative act of God in the agricultural world: "God gives to each seed its own body (stalk, tree) as he determines".  Classic Hebrew.  Not a sparrow falls apart from the will of the Father.  Each hair is numbered.  God is direcly involved in creation.  And, so Paul uses a classic "val qohomer" argument: "if God does this, then how much more can he raise bodies?"  In other words, it ain't no problem for Him.

Comment by samuel m. frost on January 17, 2012 at 12:45am

Paul's appeal to the formation of bodies (Gn 2.7) in 1 Cor 15 is in direct answer to the origin of bodies and the question "what kind?"  It's an uncomplicated way to read the text without all the intrusions Enns has for "evolution" which assumes the epistemological status of inductive reason (Empricism).

The Bible isn't the problem.  Empiricism is.

Comment by Tim Martin on January 17, 2012 at 6:22am

Sam,

I take Adam as the first man, too. I just don't take it to mean the same thing that you insist.

I don't buy any of your constructs. That's really all I have to say regarding your stuff.

Tim Martin

Comment

You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!

Join Deathisdefeated

Events

Forum

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Boyardee in Eschatology. Last reply by Dustin Curlee on Monday. 15 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

Millennium

Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Boyardee May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Boyardee in Eschatology. Last reply by Boyardee Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

The Day of Atonement

Started by K1 in Eschatology. Last reply by K1 Apr 25, 2015. 9 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service