Romans 5:12-21 proves to be one of the key texts in any discussion of
science and faith these days. We began a discussion of this passage last week with a consideration of the meaning and nature of the death introduced in Gen 3. Another issue in the conflict or reconciliation of scientific knowing with the gospel message strikes us full force in v. 14:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (NASB)
Now we have Adam named as a historical individual alongside Moses, another historical individual. Yet it is hard to reconcile the Adam of Gen 1-4 as a historical individual with our understanding of the age and development of the world.
There are six New Testament passages that deal explicitly with Adam and/or Eve. Only one of these is in the Gospels - in the genealogy of Luke 3. One is in Jude where Enoch is identified as "in the seventh generation from Adam." The other four references are in the letters of Paul: Romans 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-22 and 42-49; 2 Cor. 11:2-3; 1 Tim. 2:12-14. The passage in 2 Cor. 11 is an allusion in passing, but the other three are more substantive.
In his discussion of Romans 5:12-21 NT Wright notes:
Paul clearly believed that there had been a single first pair, whose male, Adam, had been given a commandment and had broken it. Paul was, we may be sure, aware of what we would call mythical or metaphorical dimensions to the story, but he would not have regarded these as throwing doubt on the existence, and primal sin, of the first historical pair. (p. 526, The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume 10)
) And this leads us to the key question of the day:
Does it matter that Paul thought Adam was a unique individual living ca. 4000 years earlier? Does the inspiration of scripture require us to assume that Paul was right?
The conflict or reconciliation of scientific knowing with the gospel message has several different facets. Some of these are theological - they deal with the essence of the Christian message, the gospel. The nature of death and decay as a result of the fall is a theological consideration. Incarnation and atonement are theological issues - including the interpretation of the atoning work of Christ. But some of the questions deal more with the nature of scripture and the inspiration of scripture than with roots of Christian theology. I know that some think that the lines are not so neat and clean - but this is a blog post not a doctoral dissertation - so please allow the distinction for the sake of the present discussion.
I don't find any fundamental theological conflict between science and faith, rather I think that the significant conflicts involve our understanding of the nature of inspiration and of scripture. Paul's belief in Adam and Eve as a unique first pair impacts first and foremost our understanding of the inspiration of scripture.
I am agnostic on the precise nature of the original humans graced with creation in the image of God, whether there was a unique pair or a community. I am convinced that the original sin was a rebellion against God and that the fall was inevitable but not preordained. I am convinced that Gen 1-3 is mytho-historical not literal-historical.
I think that we misunderstand the nature of scripture as the inspired word of God and the nature of scripture as authoritative when we insist on a literal precision of fact in all parts equally without a role for discernment, interpretation, and the Holy Spirit.
Paul was inspired to develop and write out an exploration of the theology and purpose behind the very real historical events of the life, death, resurrection of Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is inspired of God, formative and authoritative for the church. But the form of the document we have is in the context of an educated and intelligent first century Jew writing to a first century church of mixed heritage, Jew and Gentile. Inspiration is not dictation, and inspiration does not remove the author (in this case Paul) from his cultural context, located in time and place.
Paul is relating the gospel revealed to him, the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the atonement for sin, the victory over death, the turning point in human history, and the inaugral event ushering in the ultimate kingdom of God. There was no reason for anyone of the day and age to suspect that Adam and Eve were not historical and no reason for Paul to transcend that understanding. The essence of the story does not depend on the literal-historical or mytho-historical nature of Adam and Eve.
Scot talks in Blue Parakeet about discernment (why are some laws and commands for today and others not?) - with the suggestion that God spoke in Abraham's days in Abraham's ways; Moses's days in Moses's ways; David's days in David's ways, (Paul's days in Paul's ways), Peter's days in Peter's ways - a paraphrase (and interpolation) not a quote.
about discernment (why are some laws and commands for today and others not?) - with the suggestion that God spoke in Abraham's days in Abraham's ways; Moses's days in Moses's ways; David's days in David's ways, (Paul's days in Paul's ways), Peter's days in Peter's ways - a paraphrase (and interpolation) not a quote. I suggest that this applies not only to events and laws related in scripture, proscriptions and prescriptions, but to scripture itself. God accomodated his revelation to the forms and culture of the day, Those forms and that culture are not 20th and 21st century western forms or culture. We err when we expect to see 21st century science reflected in the details of the text and we err when we expect the modern ideals of history (hence the discrepancies and contrasts in Samuel, Kings, Chronicles; the diversity in the Gospels, especially the synoptics compared with John). We err when we expect God to have removed Paul from his context. With respect to Romans 5, God spoke in Paul's days in Paul's ways and through Paul in Paul's context.
My answer to the question: No it doesn't matter. What do you think?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I disagree with the notion that we should accommodate the Bible to 21st century science. We would do better to begin with the Bible and use science to help us get the story right. In this case the notion that death began with human sin is crucial to the Gospel and a key to understanding the operations of the physical universe. As I demonstrate in my book, The Physics of Genesis, the assumption that human observations play a huge role in determining the physical shape of reality is a crucial part of quantum physics. With that in mind, it is clear that the sin of Adam was the necessary foundation for the death ridden condition of the world as we experience it today. The connection between Genesis 2-3 and Genesis 1 becomes clear when we understand that in its own words Genesis 1 is describing the construction of a blueprint or software package for a potential universe, a universe actualized by human observation. The healing of the human heart by way of the Gospel begins the healing of the whole universe by going to the heart of the cosmic problem, just as Paul contends in Romans 8.
"I ask you, if you develop a serious illness, who do you want to see? A) a doctor with ancient Greek knowledge of medicine or B) a modern doctor using present day medical knowledge, using modern state of the art equipment? Why?"
My first choice would be Dr. Luke the gospel writer, when he was hanging tight with the Apostle Paul.
2nd choice would be Dr. Ben Carson.
I get your point.
Jesus knew how He wanted to allow the world develope even before He created it. I can take much comfort in our sovereign eternal infinte Lord. He is sovereign over every cancer cell that ever existed. He knows every thought of every man that has been, and that will ever be.
And it's this same "God who works in us both to will and to do, and so we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling."
A bit of a rabbit trail I know, but I shall be pondering the challenges you have given me. Thanks.
To Christ be all glory in my life, heart, and mind.
So all I’m saying is that People in Moses’ day had an exceedingly limited understanding of what we would today call medicine, biology, geology, astronomy, etc. This presents a challenge from the standpoint of special revelation at those points where such revelation touches on issues related to these bodies of knowledge. Does God,
A) bring the hearers of the story entirely up to speed on these bodies of knowledge so he can give them a precise accurate accounting of something like how life came to be? (Keeping in mind that the “how” is peripheral to the revelation.)
B) present the timeless truths he needs to communicate to hearers of the story in concepts and forms that will be comprehensible to them but imprecise and sometimes inaccurate to an audience more knowledgeable on these bodies of knowledge?
I’m saying it is the latter. Revelation is always delivered into a socio-historical context. When we read scripture we are not reading something written to 21st Century westerners. We are “listening in” on a conversation from another socio-historical context, the record of which was superintended by God so that, as Doperdeck wrote in #69, “God does not err and the scriptures accomplish every purpose for which they were given without leading us into error.”
Therefore, we can boldly and confidently claim that this record of revelation is an authoritative accurate account of God revealing himself into a particular socio-historical context. We live in a different socio-historical context and it is reasonable to expect that if God was giving such special revelation today he would use different concepts and forms appropriate to us. It would have to accommodated to our level of understanding on many issues. Since he is not giving special revelation in the form of new scripture, we read scripture, ever mindful we are “listening in” on revelation in another socio-historical context accommodated to their ignorance of medicine, biology, geology and astronomy.
The strict literalist position makes no allowance for the contextual accommodation for ignorance of these scientific bodies of knowledge and ends up making the accommodating explanations the supreme measure of truth for all time. It metaphorically sets up the story given to the four year old as the measure to which all scientific knowledge must now conform.
Just wondering if anyone else had seen Channel 4 (UK) recent series "Christianity: A History". The most recent episode was presented by Colin Blakemore. See his article in the Guardian this week: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/genetics-religion
No denying where this chap sits on the continuum. . . .
So, what do you make of all the genealogies throughout the bible?
What is the purpose of a genealogy in a quasi-historical setting?
Wouldn't it better not to put such genealogy if
the stories are not meant to be taken as historically accurate?
I think there is only one interpretation possible for any culture
to record actual genealogies, that is to be historically accurate
in the description of their lineage
I mean think of the all the implications in any culture if one were
to make a genealogy!
I think genealogies were seriously (meaning literally) taken
for many issues (legal, property, authority)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.