For many Christians the creation narratives in Genesis 1-2 and the fall in Genesis 3 are key passages in conversations concerning science and faith. The significance of our knowledge of the age of the earth and the theory of evolution hinges on the interpretation of these passages as literal, figurative, mythical, or mytho-historical. The impact is not in the narratives themselves, but in their implication for key doctrines. One useful approach to this problem is to look carefully at the early Christian interpretations of the creation narratives.
The third chapter of Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives by Peter Bouteneff deals with the second century apologists - Ignatius (ok ~ 1st century), Justin, Melito, Theophilus, and most importantly Irenaeus of Lyon. Here we will highlight only Justin and Irenaeus - and concentrate only on their views of Adam and Eve and the primordial sin. In many respects the doctrine of Original Sin is the key conflict in the science and faith debate for many Christians. Adam as primordial man - through whom sin entered into the world, and death through sin - is a central figure. But is is not clear that Adam and Eve as unique individuals played such a key role in the thinking of the early church fathers.
by Peter Bouteneff deals with the second century apologists - Ignatius (ok ~ 1st century), Justin, Melito, Theophilus, and most importantly Irenaeus of Lyon. Here we will highlight only Justin and Irenaeus - and concentrate only on their views of Adam and Eve and the primordial sin. In many respects the doctrine of Original Sin is the key conflict in the science and faith debate for many Christians. Adam as primordial man - through whom sin entered into the world, and death through sin - is a central figure. But is is not clear that Adam and Eve as unique individuals played such a key role in the thinking of the early church fathers. How much stock do you think that we should put in the readings and interpretations of the early church fathers? Did they simply err and it took ca. 300 years until Jerome and Augustine, or ca. 1400 years until Luther, Calvin and the reformers to get the gospel right?
Both Justin and Irenaeus have a Christ-centered view of
history and a Christ centered approach to the scriptures - primarily
the OT; they both preach the crucified and risen Lord; they both have
a trinitarian outlook - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; they both
describe salvation through Christ alone. Justin died for his faith.
Irenaeus may have - but whether he did or not he was certainly willing
to face death for his faith.
Justin Martyr (ca. 110 - 165 AD) considered Christ the key to the OT and read the OT in the light of Christ Crucified. He saw the cross in everything. One notable example is in his interpretation of Exodus 17:8-16 where he finds significance in Moses's outstretched arms making the form of a cross:
For it was not because Moses so prayed that the people were stronger, but because, while one who bore the name of Jesus (Joshua) was in the forefront of the battle, he himself made the sign of the cross. (Dial. 90)
Justin refers to Gen 1-3 several times in his Dialogue with Trypho. Adam is seen as the first man and, with Eve, the first sinner. There is no doubt that Justin took the primeval history in Genesis 1-11 both literally and figuratively.
[Jesus was born of a virgin] in order that, when the event should take place,it might be known as the operation of the power and will of the Maker of all things; just as Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs, and as all living beings were created in the beginning by the word of God. (Dial 84)
Justin does not discuss Adam as the type for Christ despite the fact that he saw types of the cross in everything. Justin also makes it clear that he does not interpret the sin of Adam as infecting the entire human race. Adam and Eve were the first - and all who follow also sin and become like Adam and Eve, judged and condemned and in need of Christ. Speaking of Jesus and his baptism by John Justin says: (Dial 88)
Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression.
In Dial. 124 Justin says:
But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods," and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve. Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God.
A literal interpretation of Genesis is part of Justin's hermeneutic - but Original Sin is not a part of his anthropology or Christology. Adam sinned and all sin of their own free will.
Irenaeus of Lyon (ca. 120-140? - ca. 202?) also read the OT with Christ at the center - and coined the term "Old Testament" (in Greek of course). The subject of Genesis, creation, and Adam and Eve comes up fairly often in the writings of Irenaeus - especially his best known work "Against Heresies" (AH). As a counter to Gnostic heresies Irenaeus was emphatic on creation ex nihilo - out of nothing.
For Irenaeus, the key was that God does not work from preexisting matter; God creates and shapes matter in a single act in a manner unexplained by Scripture and best left unexplored (AH 2.28.7) (p. 77)
Like Justin, Irenaeus interpreted Gen 1-3 literally - but his interpretation was shaped by his understanding of recapitulation in Christ. Fall and redemption are not bookends in Irenaeus's view of history rather:
For him, Adam is not the real beginning nor is Christ the end. Rather, the passion and resurrection of Christ are the recapitulating center and underlying sense of trajectory of human personhood. (p.81)
In the divine scheme of things, Christ comes first, then Adam. In effect the crucified and risen Lord comes first, and Adam is made with reference to him.The nature of the recapitulation, which puts Christ at the center of the human trajectory from creation to salvation, is therefore such that Irenaeus can speak of Adam as being made in the image of the incarnate Christ (AH 4.33.4)(p. 82).
Irenaeus viewed Adam and his sin gently - the blame is transferred to the serpent. In AH 4.40.3 we read that the apostate angel and the enemy is cast from God's presence as the one who brought about the transgression. God had compassion on the man, he removed his anger from the man, and cast it upon the serpent - whose head was crushed by the seed of the woman in the recapitulation of the crucified and risen Lord. As for Justin, Original Sin is not a part of Irenaeus's anthropology or Christology.
Both Justin and Irenaeus read the creation narratives with a christ-centered focus using hermeneutical methods considered appropriate in their day and age. Both, along with their contemporaries not considered here, read the narratives literally and figuratively. Neither found "Original Sin" in the narratives.
Is this significant for the way we think about the gospel and the creation narratives today? Or is it irrelevant?
If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Joe B,
Repentance and humble faith are not dumb and we all need repentance.
The tone of your first comment gave the impression that it was intended to belittle many of us, including both ScottM and me, since I wrote the post in the first place, for thinking through and wrestling with the nature of our faith and the implications of our faith. That attitude, whether you intended it or not, is damaging and counterproductive.
I think Scot's book, A Community Called Atonement is helpful in an indirect way, in seeing how we need the breadth of theologies throughout the church's history, on atonement. We need to consider them together as we read Scripture.
Even if one is off in the way it was formulated, maybe out of balance, that doesn't mean that it's not getting at a truth that needs to be understood, and that we need to work on, perhaps, to keep better understanding.
Odd that Athanasius isn't mentioned here. His treatise "The Incarnation of the Word of God" is important for the pre-Augustinian view of human nature and sin. (My summary here: http://www.tgdarkly.com/blog/?p=747) Athanasius says some interesting things about Adam, including the idea that Adam was "by nature mortal" but that mortality was Divinely stayed before the fall. Sin results in a sort of lack of access to God's sustaining power, allowing man's "brutish" nature to control. The atonement is God's final victory over this dissolution, giving man again access to God's presence so that man can acheive his telos of becoming like God ("theosis").
Personally, I think there's no reason -- scientific, historical, or otherwise -- to oppose the Christus Victor and satisfaction views of the atonement or to oppose the Patristic view of Adam as diverted from theosis against the Augustinian view of Adam as fallen from innocence. All of these are important ways in which the Spirit has lead the Church to reflect on the mystery of human nature, the incarnation, and the atonement. (A great book on the various threads of atonement theory, BTW: Hans Boersma, "Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross.")
What we need to do, and what many theologians of various types are now doing, is to think about what these traditional models of Adam and the atonement mean in light of current scientific knowledge. We don't discard the Tradition, we allow it shape how we think theologically about the world, and in the process we shape and extend the unfolding Tradition. Given that we're only in the beginning decades of serious theological reflection on biological evolution from within historically Orthodox Christianity, it's not surprising that we don't yet know what shape the Tradition will take. Maybe we need to have some patience, to live with some tension, during our brief time with it.
dopderbeck,
Chronology.
Athanasius is ca. 292-373 AD, we're only at ca. 202... Next Origen, then Athanasius and the Cappadocians.
Ah.. Always getting ahead of myself.
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.