Towards a Theological Anthropology Supporting an Historic Adam
A Speculative Counterpoint to the Hoehist View
In many systematic theologies there is a section devoted to anthropology. This addresses the origin of mankind in which a discussion of Adam is generally prominent. This traditional theological anthropology has been historically in conflict with the science of anthropology. There is a need for an anthropology that resides harmoniously within both Biblical and scientific boundaries. There are now many such anthropologies and one particular version in contrast to the Hoehist view will be described here. Adam will be presented as a historical figure but not as the progenitor of all of mankind. The goal will be to provide a theory of human origins that is compatible with both the Biblical record and the recent findings of archaeology and genetics.
In many systematic theologies there is a section devoted to anthropology. This addresses the origin of mankind in which a discussion of Adam is generally prominent. This traditional theological anthropology has been historically in conflict with the science of anthropology. There is a need for an anthropology that resides harmoniously within both Biblical and scientific boundaries. There are now many such anthropologies and one particular version in contrast to the Hoehist view will be described here. Adam will be presented as a historical figure but not as the progenitor of all of mankind. The goal will be to provide a theory of human origins that is compatible with both the Biblical record and the recent findings of archaeology and genetics.
The Hoehist View
Herman Hoeh, now deceased former history professor at Ambassador College in Pasadena, advocated a traditional view of the origins of mankind. This is the view commonly ascribed to the first chapters of Genesis by the Christian Movement. In this view, Adam was a historical figure and the progenitor of all mankind. Pre-Adamic humans or near humans are not always postulated. Hoeh added the following non-traditional points:
1. The earth was populated with hominids prior to Adam. These hominids were sentient to a degree but were not as advanced as Adam and Adam’s descendants. They were racially disconnected from Adam. Hoeh referred to these hominids as “Pre-Adamic” men and included such types as Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Erectus. Other Worldwide Church of God ministers described these early hominids as not having the potential for salvation. (Source: From a lecture given by Herman Hoeh at Ambassador College, Big Sandy)
2. God was unable to create Adam by fiat. It was instead necessary for God to experiment with various hominid forms prior to creating Adam. The bones of these prototypes populate the fossil record. Hoeh compared this to how an engineer creates models in order to arrive at the final design. (It is apparent that this view makes a statement about the limitations on God’s capabilities and proposes a form of evolution not based on natural selection but on God’s progressive and iterative engineering activities. See Note.) (Source: From a presentation given by Herman Hoeh at a ministerial conference in Pasadena.)
A Speculative Counterpoint
In this proposal, Adam was a historical figure. He was a hominid living sometime in the Neolithic. He was created not in a single act occurring at a point in time but by a process involving hominid evolution. The act of creating Adam in Genesis might involve the bestowing of an advanced sentience, one that could deal with spiritual concepts, on a hominid of appropriate neurological development. It was more an act of component assembly rather than whole creation at a moment in time. This type of creation scenario is compatible with the fact that Adam and his descendants, by circumstantial evidence, were of a common Y chromosome haplogroup found in the Middle East. The Jews, Canaanites, and Arabs are all of that Y chromosome haplogroup. This haplogroup is in no way an outlier and fits logically into the scientifically established hierarchy of human haplogroups and, therefore, into the genetic history of mankind.
Moreover, if Adam were created sometime around the traditional date of 4,000 BCE, the earth was already populated at that time by other humans bearing other Y chromosome haplogroups. These same haplogroups comprise the human genome today. This diversity of haplogroups prior to Adam means that Adam was not the progenitor of all branches of mankind but gave rise to a single branch of mankind (the Clans of Noah, all contemporaneous and of the same genetic haplogroup widespread in the region) then resident in the Middle East.
It is highly likely that Paul believed Adam was the progenitor of all mankind. He did not have the advantage of modern genetics to inform his writing. He wrote from the perspective of traditional belief. This in no way impeded Paul’s development of the spiritual meaning of Adam in salvation events. One may then regard the spiritual content of Paul’s writing as fixed and the biological part as varying with progressing scientific understanding and discovery.
“Adam” in Paul’s NT scenarios could be seen in many different ways, for instance, as a metaphor for mankind or as an actual historical figure. How Adam is understood influences how much “scientific” information we can extract of Paul’s accounts. In this theory, Adam should be seen in Paul’s NT scenarios as a historical figure who is the “father“ in spirit or in attitude of all mankind – with everyone down through the generations of man suffering from the same spiritual alienation from God as Adam did. Adam’s conjectured historicity is compatible with some of Paul’s language in the New Testament. He is then a genetic Middle Easterner who is the spiritual father or archetype of all mankind whose fatherhood was not biological.
“Adam” in Paul’s NT scenarios could be seen in many different ways, for instance, as a metaphor for mankind or as an actual historical figure. How Adam is understood influences how much “scientific” information we can extract of Paul’s accounts. In this theory, Adam should be seen in Paul’s NT scenarios as a historical figure who is the “father“ in spirit or in attitude of all mankind – with everyone down through the generations of man suffering from the same spiritual alienation from God as Adam did. Adam’s conjectured historicity is compatible with some of Paul’s language in the New Testament. He is then a genetic Middle Easterner who is the spiritual father or archetype of all mankind whose fatherhood was not biological.
This proposed model disagrees not only with the traditional model but also with the Hoehist modifications. Regarding point 1 in the previous section, while one might term men without the advanced sentience conferred on Adam as Pre-Adamic, they had the same genomic history as modern humans. They were not racially disconnected from Adam - they were our ancestors. Regarding point 2, the diversity of hominids contained in the fossil record are not an indication of God’s trial and error approach but represents Darwinian evolution, a tool used by God and likely guided by God.
There is an interesting support for this view. The archaeological site in Turkey known as Gobekli Tepe is a site with a circle of large upright t-shaped stone pillars decorated with skilled artistic renderings of animals. The mysterious feature of this site is that it was built at the end of the Epipaleolithic, just after the last ice age, in a period called the Pre-pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) at about 11,000 to 12,000 years ago. At this time people were in the hunter-gatherer stage of development and had been for millennia. This is comparable to a group of archaeologists rooting around in a 15thCentury AD midden somewhere in Western Europe and unearthing a 1957 Chevrolet.
There is no explanation for why a group of hunter-gatherers with limited technology would suddenly construct a massive megalithic site with impressive artistic renderings that required advanced planning, engineering, management, logistics, and artwork. So far no other place like it has been discovered in that time frame. The site is believed to be a temple which may indicate a sudden awareness of religion far beyond that seen among ancient hunter-gatherers. These nomadic people had not even yet developed pottery. My conjecture is that these people suddenly experienced a radical shift in their intellection and this created the anomaly of people undertaking a complex engineering project while having only the primitive culture of hunter-gatherers. This could place the creative assembly of Adam at about 12,000 years ago. Further work on this site will reveal more but at this point, it is a sign of the type of change in humanity that would fit this anthropological model.
Gobekli Tepe
There is an interesting support for this view. The archaeological site in Turkey known as Gobekli Tepe is a site with a circle of large upright t-shaped stone pillars decorated with skilled artistic renderings of animals. The mysterious feature of this site is that it was built at the end of the Epipaleolithic, just after the last ice age, in a period called the Pre-pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) at about 11,000 to 12,000 years ago. At this time people were in the hunter-gatherer stage of development and had been for millennia. This is comparable to a group of archaeologists rooting around in a 15thCentury AD midden somewhere in Western Europe and unearthing a 1957 Chevrolet.
There is no explanation for why a group of hunter-gatherers with limited technology would suddenly construct a massive megalithic site with impressive artistic renderings that required advanced planning, engineering, management, logistics, and artwork. So far no other place like it has been discovered in that time frame. The site is believed to be a temple which may indicate a sudden awareness of religion far beyond that seen among ancient hunter-gatherers. These nomadic people had not even yet developed pottery. My conjecture is that these people suddenly experienced a radical shift in their intellection and this created the anomaly of people undertaking a complex engineering project while having only the primitive culture of hunter-gatherers. This could place the creative assembly of Adam at about 12,000 years ago. Further work on this site will reveal more but at this point, it is a sign of the type of change in humanity that would fit this anthropological model.
Conclusion
1. Adam was used by Paul in the New Testament for spiritual understanding and not for scientific inquiry.
2. Adam, as a historical figure, is a spiritual father archetype and not the physical progenitor of mankind.
3. Adam fits into the genetic hierarchy of haplogroups that defines the human genome.
4. Most people now living are not descended from Adam physically but are his children ideologically.
5. At some point in time in the past the intellection of humankind was miraculously elevated to make spiritual understanding, salvation, advanced cultural development, and advanced technical development possible. The archaeological site Gobekli Tepe may point to this change.
This model may ultimately prove to be somehow flawed. But for now, it does reconcile science with a plausible Biblical scenario for the rise of Adamic humans at a given point in time. The traditional model of anthropology held by many in the Christian and Armstrongist communities is in conflict with scientific fact. This cannot be dismissed by mere assertion of opinion and must be addressed. This proposal illustrates the type of work based in theology and anthropology that must be done to create the next generation of ideas that support a harmony between science and Christianity.
Note: I do not know how long Hoeh held this view of God as a kind of Demiurge. The Doctrine of God changed substantially in the Worldwide Church of God (later to become Grace Communion International) during the post-1995 period, though not in the splinter groups maintaining traditional Armstrongism. Since Herman Hoeh was affiliated with Grace Communion International, I would expect that his view of God changed over time from the demiurgic view of god expressed in point 2 above to the orthodox Christian view of God.
Non_Ecliptic_Orbit
I really enjoyed this piece. I've been posting on Banned along these lines regarding Adam.
ReplyDeleteI do believe God did use some kind of agile/scrum type of method rather than random evolution.
A) Otherwise we might have turned out like green martians. There is no evolutionary reason for us not to be butterflies with a brain.
B) God IS limited. Why admit mistakes/listen or take advice from Noah, Moses or Jesus or any characterbuilding at all?
The other proof of Gods limitation is that NO GOD in their right mind would come up with man.
At one point in time God must have concluded, "this will do", or "viable product....... for now".
Even my limited thinking can think of a few enhancements to this product. But hey, God dedided this would be the "latest year 12000 bc product" good enough for certain time frame but CERTAINLY NOT perfect.
God revealed his plan for a limited time in the early seventies when he let Arnie Schwarzenegger wander the Pasadena Campus for training and set the perfect example for the Kingdom.
Nck
NEO,
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a brave post. And, although you will probably take fire from both evolutionists and creationists, I find your speculation to be interesting and worthy of further exploration and discussion. As you know, I have long rejected the either/or perspective from which most folks regard these questions.
While the Fundamentalist/Traditionalist view of Scripture is inconsistent with the scientific evidence and cannot be reconciled with the findings of science, there is another view of Scripture extant within the Christian community that does not reject the findings of science and maintains that it is possible to reconcile them with our faith. Many Christians (probably greater in number than those subscribing to the Fundamentalist/Traditionalist view) do not believe that the Judeo-Christian Bible was ever intended to be a scientific or historical textbook. In our view, Scripture was intended to be a Spiritual guide - pointing humans to an awareness of (and relationship with) the Divine.
It is my view that the book of Genesis should be regarded as an allegory which points to some profound truths about the origins of mankind, our nature, the foundations of our alienation from the Divine, and the origins of the Hebrews (and their introduction to God). Such a view of Scripture makes it possible for one to entertain and accept the findings of science without rejecting/dismissing the Bible as an irrelevant and superstitious relic of our ignorant past.
From the perspective of genetic science, we know that a Y Chromosome "Adam" and a Mitochondrial "Eve" actually existed (although, it's doubtful that they were a couple in the biblical sense - that is, existing in the same time and space). Nevertheless, the notion that all Y haplogroups originate in a single patrilineal ancestor, and that all Mitochondrial haplogroups originate in a single matrilineal ancestor is absolutely based in sound scientific evidence. Hence, although it is entirely possible that there could have been a historical Adam and Eve that were not the literal ancestors of the whole of humankind (and that may account for the story in Genesis), it is not the only possibility available to us for reconciling the allegory with the scientific reality.
It is unfortunate that so many folks have been persuaded to think of Scripture as something that it was NEVER intended to be and to view science as the enemy of their faith. Such a view is illogical and unsustainable. Evolution is a plausible explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, and it is based in scientific evidence. The Bible does NOT have to be viewed as excluding/prohibiting the possibility/probability that this was the vehicle/method which God used to arrive at this diversity - where each species reproduces after its own kind. Likewise, who are we to suggest that God couldn't have used a primordial soup of chemicals to begin the entire process!
Faith is a wonderful thing, and it should embrace the infinite. Faith doesn't have to be a narrow and willfully ignorant exercise in futility. Faith can embrace science and the new possibilities/horizons that it opens to our exploration and understanding of ourselves and the universe which we inhabit. For me, it is sad that some folks seem incapable of embracing the stories in Genesis and the possibility that we may be living in a multiverse! So many of us seem to be utterly incapable of entertaining that both faith and science have legitimate roles to play in our growth/development as human souls.
Lonnie
If the first Adam was just a fable, and not an actual person, what does it make the "second" Adam?
ReplyDeleteAlso, in order to have a functional God-like beings, at some point human memory capacity was vastly expanded from that of animals using unknown exotic computer science (quantum computing, holography?)
ReplyDeleteNEO
ReplyDeleteI had several postings on Banned, theorizing the "Adam" narrative fitted the transition period from hunter gatherers to farmers.
All the "genesis curses", fit that time phrame.
A) a flood. What hunter gatherer cares? That's a farmers problem
B) disease. Typical for farmer communities living in close quarters with lifestock (search for the hadza tribe and health in hunter societies)
C) Painful birthing process.
Skeletons of farmers shrunk as did pelvis area for women.
D) War. Typical for city societies
E) religious organisation reflecting farming practices and social stratification for city dwellers
F) Specialisation in trade. Genesis describes this proces with Tubal, Jubal etc first this first that. Impossible to economically specialize in hunter gatherer societies.
G) Adam cannot have been first man. Never EVER would I believe the bible would endorse the practice of marrying brothers and sisters which is condemned by all societies backward or advanced. Unless God is a perverse contrarian.
Et.etc etc
Nck
"2. God was unable to create Adam by fiat. It was instead necessary for God to experiment with various hominid forms prior to creating Adam. "
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
Translation: God is a kid with thick black eyeglasses that performs troubling experiments.
Of course, if the Jewish scribes who penned the story of Adam just simply made up the entire story, that would fit in with our current understanding of science so much better.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteIt might better fit with your worldview, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're right (or that you're applying Occam's Razor in this instance). First, it's not very likely that those "Jewish scribes who penned the story of Adam simply made up the entire story." The available evidence suggest that they took some older oral traditions and combined and/or elaborated on them. Finally, it's very often the case that these kinds of origin stories (like other myths and legends) represent at least a kernel of some ancient human memory, and that they very often reflect a more profound underlying truth about the human experience. Your statement is indicative of that either/or mindset I referred to in my earlier comments. However, if it's easier for you to sort things out by refusing to entertain any thesis, evidence or concepts which might complicate, contradict or modify your thesis, you're certainly entitled to do that and arrive at your own conclusion/opinion (but please don't insult the rest of us by implying that such reasoning is more plausible or scientific).
Lonnie
Michael:
ReplyDeleteThe dissimilarities between the Genesis account and other contemporaneous Semitic creation stories lead me to believe that the Biblical Adam event was not made up. It seems to be cut from a different cloth. But that does not mean that it can be proved. It means that the author believed what he was writing. To him the account was factual. I believe it was also factual to Paul. We may read it as allegory, as a retrofit, from our modern perspective with scientific discovery to inform our understanding. But for the ancient author of Genesis and later Paul it was not allegory.
I do not believe there is direct evidence of the Biblical Adam's existence but there is circumstantial evidence. And the Adam that science gives us is a Black man living in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 to 300,000 years ago who was haplogroup A. We are all descended from him (see "Y-chromosomal Adam" in Wikipedia). In the last analysis, the Biblical Adam is a matter of faith.
THE ARTICLE SAID --"This model envisions that at some threshold in past time, God enhanced the sentience of mankind and made mankind able to comprehend advanced spiritual and physical concepts.
ReplyDeleteGod dealt directly with Adam but this was accompanied by a miraculous, God generated watershed in intellectual development for all mankind."
COMMENT: It appears that sentience, comprehension of spiritual and physical concepts, and Intellectual development somehow escaped the likes of Thiel, Pack, Weinland and Flurry etc.
What ever happened to "the Lord Most High is awesome?" So God was capable of creating spirit beings with perfect bodies, but He messed up making man. This is so ridiculous. I assume this is how people justify disobeying many of Gods laws since He messed up in other areas as well.
ReplyDeleteIt's sinful people who have messed up by lowing God to the human level, then claiming that some of His laws are unjust.
And since God is a human now, He can be bullied to return in 1975 or give Trump a second term.
Miller, you wrote "It is unfortunate that so many folks have been persuaded to think of Scripture as something that it was NEVER intended to be and to view science as the enemy of their faith."
ReplyDeleteWhen politics is applied to exegesis some unusual viewpoints emerge. To add to your statement I quoted above, there are people who somehow define conservatism in every respect as being good. And Biblical literalism somehow is defined as the prescribed position of all loyal conservatives. So there is a lot of patriotic flag waving from the ramparts of purported conservatism about the literalist version of the creation story of Adam. I have never understood how literalism is supposed to fit into the conservative-liberal model. I am not sure why some who wear the label "conservative" must wage polemical war against science. I can think of another label.
Genesis is a compilation of written fragments that had been circulating in the Jewish community for some time and that were consolidated by post-Exilic scribal editors. Some fragments refer to God by one name and other fragments use other names. And scholars have pretty much identified which fragments are which. This process of human curation and textual integration does not preclude God getting his essential message to us. This view implies a trust in the omnipotence of God. Might that not be considered conservative?
The subtext of my little article is that Armstrongists had historically an atypical doctrine of god that affected both their exegesis and their interpretation of history.
I find myself in agreement with your viewpoint.
******* Click on icon for Disclaimer
Revealing quite alot NEO.
ReplyDeleteBelow is what Derek Kidner wrote over fifty years ago:
ReplyDelete“The answer may lie in our definition of man.
“Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less. It follows that Scripture and science may well differ in the boundaries they would draw around early humanity: the intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam. It, as the text of Genesis would by no means disallow, God initially shaped man by a process of evolution, it would follow that a considerable stock of near-humans preceded the first true man, and it would be arbitrary to picture these as mindless brutes. Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity, with already a long history of practical intelligence, artistic sensibility and the capacity for awe and reflection.
“On this view, Adam the first true man, will have had as contemporaries many creatures of comparable intelligence, widely distributed over the world. One might conjecture that these were destined to die out, like the Neanderthalers (if indeed these did), or to perish in the flood, leaving Adam’s lineal descendants, through Noah, in sole possession. Against this, however, there must be borne in mind the apparent continuity between the main races of the present and those of the distant past, already mentioned, which seems to suggest either a stupendous antiquity for Adam (unless the whole accepted dating of prehistory is radically mistaken...) or the continuous existence of ‘pre-Adamites’ alongside ‘Adamites’.
“If this second alternative implied any doubt of the unity of mankind, it would be of course quite untenable. God, we have seen, has made all nations ‘from one’ (Acts 17:26). Genetically indeed, on this view, these two groups would be of a single stock; but by itself that would avail nothing, as Adam’s fruitless search for a helpmeet makes abundantly clear. [My note: This fruitless search may have been restricted to the Garden only]. Yet is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God’s viceregents (Ge 1:27, 28) and clinched the fact that there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outward to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinheriting both alike.
See next post:
Ge 4:8b Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
ReplyDeleteGe 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Ge 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
Ge 4:17a And Cain knew his wife;
“There may be a biblical hint of such a situation in the surprising impression of an already populous earth given by the words and deeds of Cain in 4:14, 17. Even Augustine had to devote a chapter to answering those who ‘find this a difficulty,’ and although the traditional answer is valid enough, the persistence of this old objection could be a sign that our presuppositions have been inadequate. Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception, the unity of mankind ‘in Adam’ and our common status as sinners through his offence are expressed in terms not of heredity but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical descent such as that of Hebrew 7:9, 10 (where Levi shares in Abraham’s act through being ‘still in the loins of his ancestor’). Rather Adam’s sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity, somewhat as in Christ’s death ‘one died for all, therefore all died’ (2 Cor 5:14). Paternity plays no part in making Adam ‘the figure of him that was to come’ (Rom 5:14).
“... the exploratory suggestion above is only tentative, as it must be, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis; meanwhile it may serve as a reminder that when the revealed and the observed seem hard to combine, it is because we know too little, not too much - as our Lord impressed on the Sadducees about their conundrum on the resurrection. What is quite clear from these chapters in the light of other scriptures is their doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God’s image, and fallen in Adam by the one act of disobedience; and these things are as strongly asserted on this understanding of God’s word as any other...” (Derek Kidner, Genesis, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), pp.28-34).
Anonymous (9:44)
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing this. Kidner has all the main features of my pet theory. It is interesting that he developed this idea before genetics and the human genome were well understood. The science of genetics is what caused me to think along these lines.
This represents only one scenario for a theological anthropology but it seems to me to be very plausible. It is good to know that someone else sees the same possibility.
******* Click on my icon to view Disclaimer
In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of mitochondrial haplogroups, the mt-MRCA is situated at the divergence of macro-haplogroup L into L0 and L1–6. As of 2013, estimates on the age of this split ranged at around 150,000 years ago,[note 3] consistent with a date later than the speciation of Homo sapiens but earlier than the recent out-of-Africa dispersal.[4][1][5]
The male analog to the "Mitochondrial Eve" is the "Y-chromosomal Adam" (or Y-MRCA), the individual from whom all living humans are patrilineally descended. As the identity of both matrilineal and patrilineal MRCAs is dependent on genealogical history (pedigree collapse), they need not have lived at the same time. As of 2013, estimates for the age Y-MRCA are subject to substantial uncertainty, with a wide range of times from 180,000 to 580,000 years ago[6][7][8] (with an estimated age of between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the estimate for mt-MRCA.).[2][9]
If you follow NEO'S pet theory through, then Christians would be reduced to calling Moses a liar.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (1:12)
ReplyDeleteCould you unpack that statement? At this point, what you wrote is just an unsupported assertion.
It is more likely that my theory challenges what you believe Moses wrote (or probably what some post-Exilic scribe edited into the text from an unspecified source).
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Err no NEO but please do keep revealing your crackpot beliefs, it's highly entertaining and fascinating to see what lies beneath.
ReplyDeleteBelow are some highlights to:
ReplyDeleteWas Eden the new heaven and earth in Genesis?
Ge 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights [me’or] in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;...
Ge 1:15 And let them be for lights [me’or] in the firmament of the heaven to give light [’or] upon the earth:...
Ex 35:14 The candlestick also for the light [me’or], and his furniture, and his lamps, with the oil for the light [me’or],
“The Hebrew word translated “lights” (me’orot) is not used frequently (19x in its various forms). Most occurrences are in the Pentateuch (15x)... What is intriguing is that the ten occurrences in the Pentateuch outside of Genesis (Ex 25:6; 27:20; 35:8, 14[2x], 28; 39:7; Lev 24:2; Num 4:9, 16) all refer to the light of the lampstand that lights up the tabernacle. The use of the word “lights” may then be our first clue that there is another whole dimension to this text... the description of the cosmos as a temple or sanctuary of God” (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.123-24)
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
“The Old Testament does communicate to us and it was written for us, and for all mankind. But it was not written to us. It was written to Israel... when we read a text written in another language and addressed to another culture, we must translate the culture as well as the language if we hope to understand the text fully” (John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, p.9)...
What then did God actually ‘create’?
Ge 2:5 no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field sprouted: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man [’adam] to till the ground [’adama] .
... The traditional view is that God created or recreated the entire heavens and earth. Genesis 1 may be a presentation of an ideal ‘creation’ in accordance with the ancient worldview..
“YHWH is building a new Temple, therefore creating a new world” (Jon D. Levenson, The Temple and the World, p.295).
Da 2:35b and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
“In the ancient Near East [ANE], temples were thought of as microcosms of the created world” (John H. Stek, “Psalms”,NIVSB, p.808).
This ‘scribble’ would like to suggest an additional and/or alternative explanation; that it wasn’t the entire creation of the heaven and earth, but a ‘creation’ of the microcosm for the new world, which was intended to expand to fill the whole earth - that microcosm being Eden...
Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
“... we are brought to the conclusion that Genesis 6-9 pertains to a local flood described rhetorically as a worldwide flood to make a theological point. Such a view honors both the biblical text when read in its literary and cultural context as well as the geological evidence (or lack thereof)” (Tremper Longman III & John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood, p.93)...
While the food was ‘local’ it had global implications.
While the “heaven and earth” was local it also had “global implications”...
Priestly Conception of the World
Ge 1:4b and God separated [badal] between the light the light and darkness
Lev 10:10a and to make a distinction [badal] between the holy and unholy
“The Priests [read Moses] present the creative work of God as the establishing of order and they contrast the order of creation with the ever present threat of chaos. Von Rad characterizes the Priestly creation account as a movement from chaos to cosmos...
“... the order of creation was brought about through the separation and classifications of the basic elements of creation. Order is brought about through divisions, separations, and distinctions between one element and another. It is only as these lines of demarcation, or boundaries, are established that order is realized.
Part 2
ReplyDelete“If true, it means that divisions must be recognized and maintained if the created order is to continue and exist and not collapse into confusion and chaos...
"In the priestly writings the two most significant threats to order are sin and defilement..." (Frank H. Gorman, Jr. Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology, pp.39-42).
Ge 1:2 And the earth was without form [tohu], and void [bohu]; and darkness was upon the face of the deep...
The ‘earth’ or more likely a certain part of the earth was “without form, and void” due to ‘sin’ in the pre-Adamic cosmos. God was therefore forced to take action to correct the situation by creating a new world, with the inhabitants made in God’s image and likeness...
The failure of the pre-flood generation and the failure of the immediate post-flood generations may provide a ‘type’ for the failure of the pre-Adamic generation.
One explanation of the cause of the Neolithic bottle-neck, presented below hints from the Bible, though unintentionally of what may have contributed to the earth being without form and void prior to Adam:
“The Neolithic period or “New Stone Age,” developed at different times in different regions, but is generally thought to have taken place between 7,000-9,000 years ago. An important era in human development, this time period is best known for the Neolithic revolution. Here, humans began to take part in large-scale agriculture, domesticating large herds of animals, building megalithic architecture, and using polished stone tools.
“Then, starting around 7,000 years ago and taking place over the next two millennia, something odd happened. The diversity of the Y-chromosome plummeted. This took place across the continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe. It’s the major reason why humans are 99.9% identical in genetic makeup today. The Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck (as it’s called) has stymied anthropologists and biologists since it was first discovered in 2015. Now, the mystery may have been solved...
“Those clans successful in warfare grew wealthy and powerful. As such, the monarch and his sons had exclusive mating rights. They could have many wives, concubines, and/or courtesans each, and so the genetic diversity of our species dwindled...” (Philip Perry, The mystery of the Neolithic bottleneck may be over, thanks to one plucky undergrad, bigthink.com, June 10, 2018)...
Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Ge 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
“Genesis 6:1-4, therefore, is best understood as depicting ambitious, despotic and autocratic rulers seizing both women and power in an attempt to gain all authority and notoriety within their reach... Every inclination of the hearts and thought of humanity was evil. Thus the flood had to come to judge humankind for the perversions of authority, the state, justice and human sexuality” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., et. al., “6:1-4 Who Married the Daughters of Men?” Hard Sayings of the Bible p.108).
The Genesis account does not describe how a certain part of the pre-Adamic world came to be “without form and void,” but with Genesis 1-11 providing the background to the covenant of making Abraham into a great nation, the pre-Adamic world may have conformed to a similar pattern in the post-Adamic world. Not only does Jeremiah ... point to ‘sin’ leading to judgment, he also has ‘warfare’ leading to a state of tohu and bohu,...
Part 3
ReplyDelete‘Heaven and earth’ functions as another name for ‘Jerusalem’
Rev 21:1a And I saw [eido] a new [kanios] heaven and a new [kanios] earth...
Rev 21:2a And I John saw [eido] the holy city, new [kanios] Jerusalem...
“... Why does John see ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ in Revelation 21:1 and yet in 21:2-3, 10-22:3 he sees a city that is garden-like, in the shape of a temple? Why does not John see a full panorama of the new heavens and earth? Why does he not see the many forests, rivers, mountains, streams, valleys and the many other features of fertile worldwide creation?
“... after initially saying that he saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth’, John focuses only on an arboreal city-temple in the remainder of the vision...
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
"Another observation points to the equation of the new cosmos with the city-temple. Revelation 21:1 commences, as we have seen, with John's vision of ‘a new heaven and a new earth', followed by his vision of the ‘new Jerusalem, coming down of heaven' (v.2), after which he hears a ‘loud great voice' proclaiming that ‘the tabernacle of God is among men, and he shall dwell among them'. It is likely that the second vision in verse 2 interprets the first vision of the new cosmos, and that what is heard about the tabernacle in verse 3 interprets both 1 and 2. If so, the new creation of verse 1 is identical to the ‘new Jerusalem' of verse 2 and both represent the same reality as the ‘tabernacle' of verse 3.
"... the new creation and Jerusalem are none other than God's tabernacle. This tabernacle is the true temple of God's special presence portrayed throughout chapter 21" (G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, New Studies in Biblical Theology (NSBT) 17, Series Editor, D. A. Carson, (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004), pp.24-25)...
Ge 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work [‘abad] it and take care of [shamer] it (NIV).
Nu 3:8 They are to take care of [shamar] all the furnishings of the Tent of Meeting, fulfilling the obligations of the Israelites by doing [‘abad] the work of the tabernacle (NIV).
"Genesis 2 reflects the concept of sacred space and the sacred compass, and it served as the model for the tabernacle and later the temple" (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.193).
“If Ezekiel and Revelation are developments of the first garden-temple ... then Eden, the area where the source of water is located, may be comparable to the inner sanctuary of Israel's later temple and the adjoining garden to the holy place...” (G. K Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, NSBT, p.74).
"It is necessary, however, to move beyond the "serving and preserving" role. If people were going to fill the earth, we must conclude that they were not intended to stay in the garden in a static situation. Yet moving out of the garden would appear a hardship since the land outside of the garden was not as hospitable as that inside the garden (otherwise the garden would not be distinguishable). Perhaps, then we should surmise that people were gradually supposed to extend the garden as they went about subduing and ruling. Extending the garden would ... [be] extending sacred space (since that is what the garden represented)" (John Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, p.186)...
It is suggested that there is more to the ideal creation account of Gen 1:1-2:3 when it is informed by Gen 2:4-17. It is suggested that “the heavens and the earth,” at the terrestrial level, functions as a name for Eden - the tabernacle of God’s presence.
[Adam and his family were intended to be a blessing to present and future generations].
What does Dr Tkach have to say about this? After all, he has "Dr" in front of his name, and he's one of America's highest paid Skypilots...
ReplyDeleteAnon, January 26, 2021 at 9:44 PM, said:
ReplyDelete******
"...Below is what Derek Kidner wrote over fifty years ago:
“The answer may lie in our definition of man.
“Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less. It follows that Scripture and science may well differ in the boundaries they would draw around early humanity: the intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam..."
******
I agree that: "Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools: he is constituted man by God’s image and breath, nothing less..."
How so? Using some OT scripture to prove that statement appears true:
I Kings 11:28 "And the man Jeroboam [was] a mighty man of valour:..."
Job 1:8 "...Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man,..."
What do these verses tell us about MAN? These all refer to mortal human (flesh) beings!
The word for MAN is Strong's Concordance # 376 (iysh = A man AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR A MALE PERSON).
That was simple enough! Why don’t we just close our Bibles now and go home. No, there are some more verses about man:
Ex 15:3 “The Lord is a MAN of war...”
Dan 10:5 MAN clothed in linen
Dan 9:21 "Yea, whiles I [was] speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel,..."
What does the above tell us about "man?" The word MAN mentioned, in each case, is clearly a reference to spirit beings. Oh, incidentally, the Strong’s Concordance number is again 376. What does this tell us? What does this mean?
Overall, it means that it is possible that in a number of places in the Bible where the word MAN is written it refers, not to a man, a human, but to a spirit being!
Context means a lot. God is consistent in the NT, too. A study of the word "man" in the New Testament will show us similar results.
One quick EXAMPLE:
Mark 16:5 "And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted."
Luke 24:4 "And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:"
John 20:11,12 Identifies those men to be two spirit beings.
One more interesting NT example:
Rev 21:17 "And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel."
So, can all, using the OT and NT, agree that: "Man in Scripture is much more than homo faber, the maker of tools...?"
Time will tell...
John