• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What Jesus Said About Adam and Eve

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
409
272
Vancouver
✟61,912.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
DialecticSkeptic said:
You need to explain WHY [my view] is problematic, and HOW it pushes covenant theology to the breaking point—because it's not obvious.

Because it declares there were humans who may well have engaged in acts which are obviously sinful, acts which are not aligned with the will of God, who is infinitely loving, but these humans, who according to Genesis 1 bore the divine image, were innocent of sin because of what amounts to a technicality: a lack of a covenant which would define their actions as sinful.

Then I agree with you: That view is certainly problematic.

It also differs from my view significantly, which holds that being an image-bearer is likewise a covenantal reality, not an ontological one per se. In other words, prior to God's covenant relationship with mankind established with Adam in the garden of Eden 6,000 years ago, humans were not his image-bearers. My view assumes that the imago Dei in humanity is best understood as a covenantal reality grounded in divine election and expressed in royal-priestly vocation. According to the sovereign purpose of God, mankind was chosen not on the basis of intrinsic capacities but by the sheer grace of divine appointment, an election that conferred a unique status and a corresponding calling: to represent God by exercising dominion over creation, cultivating its fruitfulness, and mediating his presence within it.

Thus, the imago Dei is not a static essence possessed by nature, nor merely a set of human faculties, but a dynamic identity rooted in God's electing love and ordered toward an eschatalogical mission. In Adam, this elect vocation was defiled and forfeited; in Christ, the true and perfect image (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3), it is restored and fulfilled. Those united to Christ are recreated in that image (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), renewed in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and called to fulfill the original mandate now transfigured by the cross and directed toward the eschatological new creation.

To better understand my view of being an image-bearer, see J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Brazos Press, 2005).


Thus, in that according to your proposal, it is not inherently sinful for a human to commit murder, despite the fact that all humans are created in and bear the divine image, but rather the sinfulness requires a covenant relationship, and makes this not be a mere theoretical observation but an actual reality by declaring there were humans who existed outside of a covenant relationship with God, it takes an already problematic form of covenant theology and renders it inconsistent with everything God has taught us about himself and about morality.

You seem to think that my view has image-bearing humans doing morally wrong things without being guilty of sin because there was no covenant relationship (and therefore covenant theology is not only flawed but contradicts what God has revealed about morality and himself). But, as I said, this fails to reflect my view because they weren't image-bearing humans.

We appear to be working from two very different anthropological frameworks. My view is at home within a Reformed, federal, covenantal framework. You seem to be approaching this from an Orthodox, essentialist, participatory framework. In my view, the imago Dei is not an intrinsic property possessed by every human as such; it is a covenantal identity, an office and vocation conferred by divine appointment within the structure of God's covenantal relationship with man.

This is not to deny that God's moral character is eternal, immutable, and universally binding (it is). However, it does say that moral accountability in a judicial sense presupposes a covenantal structure to God's relationship with man. Prior to that relationship established in Eden, human acts may have violated God's eternal moral character but they were not counted as transgressions due to the absence of covenantal structure (cf. Rom 5:13, "sin is not taken into account when there is no law").

I am not denying human dignity or the moral law; I am saying those realities are ultimately anchored in Christ, not nature. Christ does not merely restore a lost image; he is the true image into whose likeness the saints are being renewed. That is the coherence and strength of covenant theology; it is not a liability.

In the final analysis, this doesn't "push covenant theology to the breaking point," but is rather entirely consistent with it. This all flows from the redemptive-historical framework of scripture. I get that your system cannot absorb it, but that does not amount to a critique of it. Your anthropology may sound more plausible to certain strands of tradition, but mine does align with the logic of redemptive history as revealed in the text.


In other words, there is a reason why it is wrong to murder (violence against the divine image, causation of suffering, unnatural cause of death, and so on), ...

If we are dealing with humans as image-bearers, then it is not just wrongdoing but sin. Prior to that covenant relationship, it was moral wrongdoing but not sin.


Also, insofar as it ties all hamartia to covenant relationships, it is at least unconsciously legalistic in the extreme on an ontological level, ...

How can it be extreme on an ontological level if sin is defined not ontologically but covenantally (vis-a-vis the eternal moral character of God)? I am not defining sin as ontological failure in the journey toward likeness (homoiosis) and deification (theosis)—that's the Eastern view—but as lawlessness (1 John 3:4), transgression (Rom 4:15), and covenantal breach (Hos 6:7; Rom 5:14). It would be question-begging to presuppose your own hamartiology when criticizing mine for not sharing it.

To clarify, covenant doesn't create morality, it administrates accountability: Moral reality is grounded in God himself, whereas covenant is God's chosen means to formally structure, express, and administer his eternal moral character. It is not an arbitrary addition to reality; it makes explicit and judicially actionable what was already implicit morally. In other words, moral wrongdoing existed before Eden but sin did not, which is to say that acts contrary to God's holy nature were objectively wrong even before Eden but they were not judicially reckoned as transgressions (Rom 4:15; 5:13) until Eden. Covenant makes moral wrongdoing accountable, i.e., sin is moral wrongdoing counted, imputed, and judicially actionable.


... you have some humans who can sin because of their covenantal relationship with God interbreeding with other humans who cannot sin because of the technicality that they lack such a covenant relationship with God, ...

No, I do not. As Derek Kidner explained, Adam would've had contemporaries distributed throughout the world, and at Eden God would have "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, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike" (Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (InterVarsity Press, 1967), pp. 28-29.) There was never a time, in my view, when some humans were image-bearers while other humans were not.


Simply, that God created the universe in its existing condition, as if it had existed for as long as science indicates it did, without the need for it to actually exist that long (which is well within his power).

Is this proposing an omphalos hypothesis?

Incidentally, I have no idea what it means to say that humans "evolved virtually" (i.e., not in actuality). How can something evolve without existing? I can understand (but ultimately reject) the idea that God created humans in their current form a few thousand years ago and that man has wrongly supposed from his observations that we evolved, but I cannot yet grasp how something can be said to evolve in a virtual sense.

Also, the recreation of mankind by Christ as the last Adam did not occur in the same pattern if, in the one case, man existed virtually and, in the second case, man existed in actuality. The pattern would be similar, but not the same—which is fine—whereas in my theologoumenon the pattern is the same: The first Adam takes existing mankind down through the fall, the last Adam raises existing mankind up through the cross (literally reverses the fall), both through federal headship (in Adam vs. in Christ).

(Just to be clear, "the cross" is a synecdoche for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.)


Note that as a theologoumenon—which is loosely translated as “theological opinion”—this is not official doctrine, …

While I appreciate the clarity, I did know what that term means. Being an avid student of theology, church history, and philosophy has expanded my vocabulary tremendously.


What is widely believed to be the longest word in the dictionary (in most historic dictionaries) is known to occur—not as a joke, or at least not entirely in jest, but with relevance to its original meaning—with some frequency in the Anglican forums, that being antidisestablishmentarianism (which refers to opposition to efforts to make the Church of England cease to be the established church, as happened to the Anglican Churches in Wales and Ireland, which were disestablished in the 19th century).

That word has 28 letters. There is a much longer word in major English dictionaries, comprised of 45 letters—
  • pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis,
—which refers to a lung disease caused by inhaling very fine silicate or quartz dust. It was coined in the 1930s mainly as a curiosity to serve as the longest English word, and it appears in several dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,009.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I greatly appreciate that you share that view, and indeed am aware of it (this being the great strength of Reformed theology over the very problematic Restorationist theologies of the 19th century, the problem being some of those theologies, such as ideas of John Nelson Darby, have been picked up by some Reformed churches and denomnations).

I don’t believe that J.N. Darby had anything to do with Restorationism. Darby is known as the father of Dispensationalism. Darby was actually an Anglo-Catholic before he decided that they didn’t have the answer and he founded his own church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,489
1,319
72
Sebring, FL
✟823,009.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but there are problems with the specific way in which you expressed it.

It is the case that through the transgression of Adam, humanity became corrupt and mortal, and through the salvific work of Christ on the Cross, who, to quote St. Athanasius, became man so that we could become god, that is to say, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature, for He trampled down death by death, and on those in the tombs bestows life at the Eschaton, when we will be raised incorruptible before the Last Judgement.

It is also the case that the Church is the mystical body of Christ.

However, the fall of Adam caused us to become mortal and sinful through inheritance - this understanding of original sin as ancestral sin was explained very well by St. John Cassian, a contemporary of St. Augustine whose anti-Pelagian exposition on hamartiology was strongly preferred by the early church, even the Western church, with St. Augustine venerated for other reasons (his piety, humility and his work The City of God which reassured the people of Rome about the meaning of their lives even as the Western Roman Empire collapsed, causing them to realize an important lesson that St. Solomon the Royal Prophet also teaches us in Ecclesiastes, and that Christ teaches us in the Gospels, about the importance of treasure in heaven vs. spiritual treasure.

Conversely, our salvation through Jesus Christ does involve our membership in the Church, which is the mystical Body of Christ, but that does not mean that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is a multi-personal compound entity into which each Christian is somehow joined, nor does it mean Adam was that (for if Adam was that, Adam would not be human, and there is no way that he would be able to cause the spread of the disease of sin and death to his offspring). Likewise, if Christ were created of a whole multitude He would be neither human nor God, and thus unable to save us.

Let us pause to remember, according to the Nicene Creed / CF Statement of Faith, Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made, begotten of the Father before all ages, who put on our created human nature by means of his miraculous conception through the actions of God the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. According to John 1:1-18, He is God, the Incarnate Word of God, through whom the Father is revealed. Thus, while He put on our created humanity in order to restore and glorify it, uniting it in one hypostasis with HIs divinity, He remains fully God, an uncreated person, coequal to and coeternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. He put on our humanity, uniting it with His divinity without change, confusion, separation or division (these four key words are the basis of Christological orthodoxy that underlines the faith of the Chalcedonian churches, the Oriental Orthodox or miaphysite churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East*).

If Christ is not fully human, and not fully divine, He would not be in a position to save it, because His salvation of us on the Cross involved remaking us in His image, as the Son of Man, in whom the invisible God dwells bodily, to quote the Gospels of St. Mark and St. John.

Through His incarnation, baptism, transfiguration, passion, resurrection and ascension, Christ our True God put on our humanity and glorified it.

We become mystically united with Him by partaking of His body and blood in the Eucharist - this is what St. Paul meant, if we refer the sections of 1 Corinthians and elsewhere where He describes the Church as the Body of Christ with 1 Corinthians 11 where he describes the institution of Holy Communion in the Cenacle at the Last Supper, in which we participate Eucharistically through the sacrament of Holy Communion (and we see an early example of this in the ending of the Gospel according to Luke, where our Risen Lord became known to the Apostles in the breaking of bread).

Thus, it is incorrect to say that either Adam or Jesus Christ was created as a multi-personal being, and it is even more incorrect to say that Jesus Christ was created at all, for althoug He put on our created nature, He is an uncreated person.

Nestorius tried to argue that there was a difference between the uncreated Christ and the man Jesus, that they were two persons united by a single will (and he did this in order to come up with a theological rationale for suppressing the use of the term “Theotokos” in the Patriarchate of Constantinople), but this clearly contradicts the Nicene Creed which speaks of One Lord Jesus Christ and not two, and interestingly enough it was later discerned from Scripture at the Sixth Ecumenical Synod that our Lord has a human will and a divine will, in response to the heresy of Monothelitism (which itself was in many respects a sort of neo-Apollinarianism; Apollinarius was a fourth century heretic who taught falsely that our Lord had a human body with a divine soul, which is a confusion of His humanity and divinity, rather, it is more accurate to say that He is fully man and fully God, without change, confusion, separation or division, having united humanity hypostatically with his uncreated divinity, thus becoming fully human, (arguably the prototypical human, for on the Cross He recreated us in His image) while remaining fully God.

I hope this helps clarify this point, because what you said was very close to being correct, and indeed much closer than the doctrine of many members who seem to gloss over St. Paul’s description of the Church as the Body of Christ.


*In the case of the Church of the East, this happened, after it realized, during the reign of Mar Babai the Great in the early 7th century that the Nestorian Christology promoted within it by Bar Sauma of Nisibis (the city to which those theologians from Antioch who were allied to Nestorius emigrated after the Council of Ephesus anathematized Nestorianism in 433 AD) who had in the previous century wrested control of the Church of the East uncanonically with the help of the Sassanian Persian king from the legitimate Catholicos, that Nestorianism is inherently flawed, thus Mar Babai the Great essentially translated Chalcedonian Christology into Syriac (there are some differences with regards to terminology that cause some people to accuse the Church of the East of still being Nestorian, but since the Church of the East stresses the unity of Christ in one person, and uses the same four words as the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians to describe the relationship of His humanity and divinity - without change, confusion, separation or division, it is clear that it is not, and this point was made very clear about a thousand years ago, give or take 200 years, I can’t remember off the top of my head, Mar Gregory bar Hebraeus, a Syriac Orthodox Maphrian (Archbishop with vice-Patriarchal duties in charge of the Eastern half of the Syriac Orthodox church), who sought to foster strong relations with the Church of the East and desired the same happen with the Western half of the church in its relationship with the Antiochian Orthodox (which did eventually happen, in both cases, to the extent that St. Gregory bar Hebraeus when he reposed while travelling from Tikrit back to his monastery in the hills above Mosul, which miraculously survived the ISIS occupation of that city and is still extant, the Monastery of St. Matthew, his funeral was attended by the Patriarch of the Church of the East and 4,000 Assyrian laity).

Liturgist: “Nestorius tried to argue that there was a difference between the uncreated Christ and the man Jesus, that they were two persons united by a single will (and he did this in order to come up with a theological rationale for suppressing the use of the term “Theotokos” in the Patriarchate of Constantinople), but this clearly contradicts the Nicene Creed which speaks of One Lord Jesus Christ and not two ...”

I don’t believe your claims about Archbishop Nestor, or Nestorius. Scholars can find no evidence in the writings of Nestorius that he ever taught the thing that the RCC/EO condemned him for teaching. I learned that from the Encyclopedia Britannica (1946). Nestorius did not suppress the use of “Mary, Mother of God,” the term was just beginning to be used and he rightly objected to it.

Liturgist: “If Christ is not fully human, and not fully divine, He would not be in a position to save it, because His salvation of us on the Cross involved remaking us in His image, as the Son of Man, in whom the invisible God dwells bodily, to quote the Gospels of St. Mark and St. John.”

The only thing necessary for Christ to give us salvation is that He has the power to forgive sins.
I have heard a Greek Orthodox speaker say that salvation is a mystery. Maybe you should leave it at that.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
9,915
7,123
70
Midwest
✟364,672.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You can have an historical Adam and Eve who were not the first humans.
But if one wants to take the Genesis creation accounts literally to argue for historical Adam and Eve, one also must take them as the first since that is the context and intention of the narratives. Or so it seems to me. I can imagine the emergence of moral consciousness in and evolving species and the first who awaken to it. But that is not Biblical either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
5,894
2,455
45
San jacinto
✟196,433.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But if one wants to take the Genesis creation accounts literally to argue for historical Adam and Eve, one also must take them as the first since that is the context and intention of the narratives. Or so it seems to me. I can imagine the emergence of morel consciousness in and evolving species and the first who awaken to it. But that is not Biblical either.
I'd disagree with this, though with a bit of nuance. We need not take them to be the first, but perhaps the first to commune with God. The Genesis narratives serve not necessarily as a literal historical narrative, but as a way of connecting Israel with the God that is ultimately responsible for all of creation. As such, we can accept Adam and Eve as genuine historical figures and the founders of the family line that led to the nation of Israel. Even within the first few chapters of Genesis there are hints that there are people whose existence is omitted from the narrative, such as the sudden appearance of cities that might pose a threat to Cain.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
9,915
7,123
70
Midwest
✟364,672.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'd disagree with this, though with a bit of nuance. We need not take them to be the first, but perhaps the first to commune with God. The Genesis narratives serve not necessarily as a literal historical narrative, but as a way of connecting Israel with the God that is ultimately responsible for all of creation. As such, we can accept Adam and Eve as genuine historical figures and the founders of the family line that led to the nation of Israel. Even within the first few chapters of Genesis there are hints that there are people whose existence is omitted from the narrative, such as the sudden appearance of cities that might pose a threat to Cain.
It makes more sense to me to see them as representatives of all those early humans who responded to a sense of conscience and relationship with God.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
5,894
2,455
45
San jacinto
✟196,433.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It makes more sense to me to see them as representatives of all those early humans who responded to a sense of conscience and relationship with God.
Fair enough, I was just pointing out that the question of Adam and Eve's historical existence is independent from their status as sole human progenitors. Both textually and secularly we have reason to suspect that there's something else going on in the Genesis narratives than a straightforward historical account.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
9,915
7,123
70
Midwest
✟364,672.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Fair enough, I was just pointing out that the question of Adam and Eve's historical existence is independent from their status as sole human progenitors. Both textually and secularly we have reason to suspect that there's something else going on in the Genesis narratives than a straightforward historical account.
Yes, without doubt. Especially if it was put into written form after the exile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

DialecticSkeptic

Reformed
Jul 21, 2022
409
272
Vancouver
✟61,912.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
But if one wants to take the Genesis creation accounts literally to argue for historical Adam and Eve, one also must take them as the first since that is the context and intention of the narratives. Or so it seems to me. I can imagine the emergence of moral consciousness in and evolving species and the first who awaken to it. But that is not Biblical either.

That just raises the question for me, "Why does it seem that way to him? Is it an exegetical conclusion he drew from the text?" And that's the first question that occurs to me because I do take the accounts literally and don't see a context or intention for them being the first humans; I am left to wonder where you do, and whether it's in the Hebrew original or English translation.
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
9,915
7,123
70
Midwest
✟364,672.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That just raises the question for me, "Why does it seem that way to him? Is it an exegetical conclusion he drew from the text?" And that's the first question that occurs to me because I do take the accounts literally and don't see a context or intention for them being the first humans; I am left to wonder where you do, and whether it's in the Hebrew original or English translation.
Don't you see a sequence presented in the creation accounts that culminates in Adam and Eve?
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,251
8,019
50
The Wild West
✟741,088.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Liturgist: “If Christ is not fully human, and not fully divine, He would not be in a position to save it, because His salvation of us on the Cross involved remaking us in His image, as the Son of Man, in whom the invisible God dwells bodily, to quote the Gospels of St. Mark and St. John.”

The only thing necessary for Christ to give us salvation is that He has the power to forgive sins.
I have heard a Greek Orthodox speaker say that salvation is a mystery. Maybe you should leave it at that.

What the Greek priest meant is not what you think he meant - the word Mystery in an Orthodox context can have the meaning of sacrament, and there are also aspects of salvation that we do not fully understand, but everything I have stated is Greek Orthodox doctrine, which you would know if you were to read say, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s classic The Orthodox Way.

Nestorianism was rejected because it posed a direct threat to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,251
8,019
50
The Wild West
✟741,088.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I don’t believe that J.N. Darby had anything to do with Restorationism. Darby is known as the father of Dispensationalism. Darby was actually an Anglo-Catholic before he decided that they didn’t have the answer and he founded his own church.

His own church is wldely regarded a Restorationist denomination, in that the Plymouth Brethren believed they were restoring the ancient form of the church, which was Restorationism in a nutshell.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,251
8,019
50
The Wild West
✟741,088.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Scholars can find no evidence in the writings of Nestorius that he ever taught the thing that the RCC/EO condemned him for teaching.

That’s because the only writings of Nestorius that survive are his self-serving memoirs, the Bazaar of Heraclides, and he had a specific motivation to stir up trouble by fueling the EO/OO schism between the Pope of Alexandria and the Archbishop of Rome whose predecessors had deposed him; it was also later discovered that one of the operatives at Chalcedon, Ibas, was a crypto-Nestorian.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,251
8,019
50
The Wild West
✟741,088.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I learned that from the Encyclopedia Britannica (1946). Nestorius did not suppress the use of “Mary, Mother of God,” the term was just beginning to be used and he rightly objected to it.

An obsolete version of an encyclopedia may or may not be trustworthy, but the phrase that he suppressed was not “Mary, Mother of God” but rather “Theotokos”, and it was in widespread use in Constantinople - particularly since one of his predecessors, St. John Chrysostom, used the word routinely, and included it in his recension of the ancient Antiochene Divine Liturgy (known as the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, but the version modified by St. Chrysostom, which features more intense language, is called the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in his honor).
 
Upvote 0