Marshall Janzen
Formerly known as Mercury
I really don't have a fixed opinion about Adam and Eve. I voted for "Adam represents the first humans, the Fall the first sin they collectively committed" because that's the option I lean to, and "I have no problem with Adam and the Fall being literal historical" because I do indeed have no problem with them being literal and historical. I also have no problem with them representing all humanity.
If a person accepts common descent, as I do, then one of the first questions is how a certain creature is determined to be human. I think it's important to realize that the gauge of humanness is God, not scientific classification systems. Perhaps the criteria had more to do with how these creatures communicated, cooperated and learned from each other. If so, then the criteria of being human wouldn't be strictly about genes but rather would involve a larger group of people who together were living in a way that was "human". Put any of those people in isolation, and they'd lose the attributes that made them distinctly human.
And so, this group is what I think Adam and Eve represent. I have no idea how literal the story is. Did God place this group in a sheltered environment and walk and talk amongst them? Did God give them immortality as long as they remained in his presence? I don't know. But, somehow God allowed this group to gain an awareness of him, and somehow they rebelled against it. They chose to serve themselves rather than reaching out to their Creator. And again, I think that would have been a collective action rather than something an individual did. Even if there were ringleaders for the rebellion, it would have affected the entire group, and the entire group would have been cast from God's presence. The results are graphically described and summarized in Romans 1:18-32.
After the Fall, sin and rebellion would continue to affect every person born into that group. Sin would not be a disease inherited through their genes but rather a sickness in their culture that every newborn would be forced to face. So, in my opinion, every human being would encounter this sickness -- even Jesus -- because it is something external that acts on a person rather than something inside them. I think this gives added depth to what we read in Hebrews 2:14-18 and Hebrews 4:15: Jesus "had to be made like his brothers in every way" in order that he "might make atonement for the sins of the people". He "has been tempted in every way, just as we are -- yet was without sin". Those verses only seem to make sense if Jesus experienced the full power and temptation of sin the same as we do.
Anyway, that's my take on Adam, the Fall, and sin. One more thing: I do not believe it is crucial to have a proper understanding of Adam in order to understand sin. I know that in my own case, my awareness of sin came from acknowledging what I had done, not from learning what an ancestor thousands of years ago did. I'd go so far as to say that it is dangerous to tie sin so closely to Adam that we lose sight of our own sinfulness and need of a Saviour. Even the oft-quoted Romans 5:12 doesn't leave off with "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin", but continues to say "death came to all men, because all sinned". Even if Genesis was not in the Bible, we'd still have no excuse for not recognizing how we fall short of the glory of God.
If a person accepts common descent, as I do, then one of the first questions is how a certain creature is determined to be human. I think it's important to realize that the gauge of humanness is God, not scientific classification systems. Perhaps the criteria had more to do with how these creatures communicated, cooperated and learned from each other. If so, then the criteria of being human wouldn't be strictly about genes but rather would involve a larger group of people who together were living in a way that was "human". Put any of those people in isolation, and they'd lose the attributes that made them distinctly human.
And so, this group is what I think Adam and Eve represent. I have no idea how literal the story is. Did God place this group in a sheltered environment and walk and talk amongst them? Did God give them immortality as long as they remained in his presence? I don't know. But, somehow God allowed this group to gain an awareness of him, and somehow they rebelled against it. They chose to serve themselves rather than reaching out to their Creator. And again, I think that would have been a collective action rather than something an individual did. Even if there were ringleaders for the rebellion, it would have affected the entire group, and the entire group would have been cast from God's presence. The results are graphically described and summarized in Romans 1:18-32.
After the Fall, sin and rebellion would continue to affect every person born into that group. Sin would not be a disease inherited through their genes but rather a sickness in their culture that every newborn would be forced to face. So, in my opinion, every human being would encounter this sickness -- even Jesus -- because it is something external that acts on a person rather than something inside them. I think this gives added depth to what we read in Hebrews 2:14-18 and Hebrews 4:15: Jesus "had to be made like his brothers in every way" in order that he "might make atonement for the sins of the people". He "has been tempted in every way, just as we are -- yet was without sin". Those verses only seem to make sense if Jesus experienced the full power and temptation of sin the same as we do.
Anyway, that's my take on Adam, the Fall, and sin. One more thing: I do not believe it is crucial to have a proper understanding of Adam in order to understand sin. I know that in my own case, my awareness of sin came from acknowledging what I had done, not from learning what an ancestor thousands of years ago did. I'd go so far as to say that it is dangerous to tie sin so closely to Adam that we lose sight of our own sinfulness and need of a Saviour. Even the oft-quoted Romans 5:12 doesn't leave off with "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin", but continues to say "death came to all men, because all sinned". Even if Genesis was not in the Bible, we'd still have no excuse for not recognizing how we fall short of the glory of God.
Upvote
0
