Jeremy Christian's Take on Adam

[Jeremy_Christian]

@jongarvey

The divine council seems less outlandish if you realize it is clearly present in the New Testament too - check out Revelation, especially chs 4 & 5, or Heb 12:22. Or in the OT Job 1:6; 2:1.

As it was stated above, we must be careful when looking to clarify something from the OT through something in the NT. Revelations in particular is written in a very symbolic kind of rhetoric.

It should also be considered that the authors of the NT did not have any sort of divinely imbued level of knowledge. Revelation in particular is given as accounts of visions experienced. Should those passages be viewed as accurate?

@swamidass

Don’t forget the Book of Enoch. It is really several “books” to, which flesh out the divine council understanding.

I do not put a lot of stock in the book of Enoch. It was written a century or two before Jesus. I view it more as a form of fan fiction that canonical text.

This is primarily due to it’s assertions about the role of angels in the ancient world and beyond the Earth.

@jongarvey

(b) in seeing the work of a divine author behind the separate human authors of Scripture, producing a coherent narrative over millennia © Integrating the whole Bible into a Christ-centred revelation begining before creation - the very thing described in the New Testament itself.

I feel it’s important to recognize the books of the bible, not as a perfect God-authored text, but to recognize it as a man-made imperfect text depicting points in history when this God interacted with humanity.

The most telling example of this, I feel, is the duplicated wife-sister narratives in Genesis 12, 20 and 26. Clearly an error in editing and clearly not authored by God.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Jeremy_Christian

Don’t forget the Book of Enoch. It is really several “books” to, which flesh out the divine council understanding.

I do not put a lot of stock in the book of Enoch. It was written a century or two before Jesus. I view it more as a form of fan fiction that canonical text.

Yup, and it shows you how they were reading Genesis. They read it with a well developed concept of a divine council. This becomes all the more clear when we remember that Jewish theology was pre-trinitarian.

@Jeremy_Christian

I feel it’s important to recognize the books of the bible, not as a perfect God-authored text, but to recognize it as a man-made imperfect text depicting points in history when this God interacted with humanity.

Just to be clear, you do not believe Scripture is infallible and inspired? That is surprising.

@Jeremy_Christian

The most telling example of this, I feel, is the duplicated wife-sister narratives in Genesis 12, 20 and 26. Clearly an error in editing and clearly not authored by God.

I don’t see your point. That does not look an error in editing to me.

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

@Jeremy_Christian, the quotes and responses are getting a bit unmanageable, so I’ll try to summarize a few points.

First, nothing you’ve said comes across as dismissive or disrespectful. I hope you feel the same. Nor do I pretend that my position is immune to criticism or push back. I too am simply a pursuer of truth, not trying to win an argument. (This format of back-and-forth tends to focus on the differences…but I hope we’re all mindful that much of the agreements go unspoken.) I would not engage you if I thought it wasn’t worth it…for both of us.

Second, I’m confused about your reading of Gen 1:26-27. Do you dismiss this as a quote from God? If so, why? (i.e., do you not accept the truth claim of the text as stated, or are you somehow trying to construe the grammar & syntax in a unique way?) If not, please clarify. These questions are more basic/fundamental than consideing the “us.”

Third, divine council is pretty standard in my field. Michael Heiser (and here) is the best (sometimes only) one at popularizing the concept, but nothing he says is rare in OT and ANE studies (and he often represents the majority/consensus). It doesn’t make his views right, but it means they must be seriously considered. Neither @jongarvey or I agree wholly with Heiser (or each other, e.g., the ID of “sons of God” in Genesis 6), but we’ve found his work worth wrestling with and considering.

Fourth, my view of the “sons of God” as supernatural beings is based on (a) all other OT references to the phrase or similar (e.g., Deut 32:8; Psalms 82 and 89 [where “(divine) council” is actually used]; Job 1-2); (b) the consistent use in other ANE texts, particularly Ugaritic (the ancient language most similar to Hebrew); and © the earliest Jewish (e.g., Enoch; cf. LXX) and Christian (e.g., Peter and Jude) readings of Genesis 6. While the LXX is not an inspired interpretation of the OT (and its clear at points that the translators weren’t sure what they were reading), it does represent an early Jewish interpretation and thus deserves careful consideration (more so than most other sources).

Fifth, my problem with your reflections on Luke 3 is that you seem to be assuming (a) that Adam as “son of God” necessarily has anything to do with the meaning of “sons of God” in the OT; and (b) that Adam as “son of God” means all the individuals in the genealogy are “sons of God” as well. I don’t think you’ve made a credible argument for either of these, let alone for what the first-century Jewish consensus was.

As an aside, Pentateuchal source criticism is no longer a given, even by critical scholars. Both evangelical and non-evangelical scholars have provided many literary and theological reasons for the differences that used to be used as evidence for sources. I’m not denying sources and redaction, but the old JEDP model has only minority support these days.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@deuteroKJ

Third, divine council is pretty standard in my field. Michael Heiser (and here) is the best (sometimes only) one at popularizing the concept, but nothing he says is rare in OT and ANE studies (and he often represents the majority/consensus).

In terms at popularizing this notion, have you yet seen this seven-novel set?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/bookseries/B00PLI8RKG

Noah Primeval (Chronicles of the Nephilim) (Volume 1): Godawa, Brian:...

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

@swamidass

In terms at popularizing this notion, have you yet seen this seven-novel set?

Yes, but haven’t read it. I’ve listened to Godawa on a podcast discussing this.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@swamidass

The most telling example of this, I feel, is the duplicated wife-sister narratives in Genesis 12, 20 and 26. Clearly an error in editing and clearly not authored by God.

I don’t see your point. That does not look an error in editing to me.

@deuteroKJ, this one puzzles me. Have you heard this argument before? How do we determine something is an “error” in editing, versus intentional juxtaposition or parallelism?

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

@swamidass

The most telling example of this, I feel, is the duplicated wife-sister narratives in Genesis 12, 20 and 26. Clearly an error in editing and clearly not authored by God.

I don’t see your point. That does not look an error in editing to me.

@deuteroKJ, this one puzzles me. Have you heard this argument before? How do we determine something is an “error” in editing, versus intentional juxtaposition or parallelism?

The concept of “dupllicate narratives” is one of the six main pillars of early source criticism (the Documentary Hypothesis). Thus, two creation accounts, two toledoths of Esau, two (or three) wife-sister stories, etc. It was assumed that originally there was only one story, but the original mutated (like the telephone game) and somehow all the competing stories made it in through later redaction. What made the DH so compelling was that these duplicates also involved different names for God, different writing styles, etc. Though it’s largely debunked nowadays, it seemed so logical and “obvious” for so long (albeit with post-Enlightenment rationalistic lenses). What I’m surprised at is that @Jeremy_Christian finds this one the most compelling datum…other data would be more compelling to me if I were inclined to the overall project. Also, given Genesis 3, we have good theological warrant for a man doing the same evil thing twice, and his son repeating it. It’s also not surprising as a common ploy in that historical context.

Your note about juxtaposition/paralleling is exactly the type of literary counterargument made…and widely accepted (even by those who reject the historicity of the whole thing).

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

A helpful evangelical appropriation yet critique of critical methods is on pp. 35-48 of Iain Provan’s Discovering Genesis. I wrote a review of the book for BioLogos two years ago, but it ended up being too long for them to publish and I never could get it down to size for their liking (I can “publish” it here if someone tells me how). I’m now using the book in my Genesis class.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@deuteroKJ

I wrote a review of the book for BioLogos two years ago, but it ended up being too long for them to publish and I never could get it down to size for their liking (I can “publish” it here if someone tells me how). I

Can you email me a copy? If it is a good fit, we’ll publish it in the blog.

[Jeremy_Christian]

@deuteroKJ

I’m confused about your reading of Gen 1:26-27. Do you dismiss this as a quote from God?

Well, like I said, God’s the only being who’d be capable of recounting the “days” of creation. And Genesis depicts multiple people of Adam’s family walking/talking with Him. So it would seem to me the author of Genesis, the storyteller, is recounting the events of creation. So you’re sitting around a fire telling this story, how do you say it? You refer to yourself to say "let us make human in ‘our’ image and likeness. It’s surprising how prevalent this idea of a council is. I just can’t understand what God would need with a council. Who are they? Angels? What council could they provide an all-knowing God?

@deuteroKJ

my view of the “sons of God” as supernatural beings

Here’s my immediate problem with that. You agree, from what I understand, that the Nephilim are offspring of this mixing of the ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’. So… why would a supernatural being have the capability to procreate with a human? Procreation is only really necessary where there’s death. If this council participated in creation then they’d have to have lived for millions of years.

I think it’s pretty clear this intermingling between these two lines was the reason for the flood. Caused God to “regret”. Yet Satan, presumably part of the council according to Job, had to ask permission to jack with Job. This tells me he does not have free will. Is he the only one on the council that needs permission? Is needing permission a new rule after the whole intermingling debacle?

@deuteroKJ

I don’t think you’ve made a credible argument for either of these, let alone for what the first-century Jewish consensus was.

I think the strongest case is that it fits the overall arc of the story. What this interpretation makes clear is the story arc being told. The purpose for God’s actions.

First, Eve having to endure the pains of childbirth. I don’t think this means childbirth just wasn’t going to hurt before the fall, it’s that she wasn’t going to have to procreate. But their choice at the garden warranted it.

This bit I think you’re familiar enough with the material to see what I’m talking about. God is clearly breeding Jesus throughout the OT. First, He chooses Noah and works with his descendants. Then he chooses one, Abraham, tests him, then breeds through him. This is how breeding is done. You choose the breeders that have the characteristics you’re trying to breed and breed through them. You separate the groups. You control breeding. Like all the rules He gave the Israelites in the wilderness. Who to breed with, who not to, who to hang out and interact with, what to wear, what to eat. Isolated them from others as slaves in Egypt or in the wilderness on their own. God is breeding.

Ezra 9:2 - For they have taken their daughters for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands;

The sons of God are exactly that. The sons bred by God, taking care not to mix/dilute that “holy seed”. As God said " My Spirit will not contend with humans forever". A whole world going on but God’s focused right here. The sons of God are the literal starring cast of the Tanakh. The line that eventually birthed Jesus.

Another place where I differ is that I don’t think Jesus was immaculately conceived. What made Jesus significant was that He was human. Flesh. How significant would it really be if he was half-God? Not a god. The God. I mean, He sets up all of creation, worked “hands on” with the Israelites, plagues, all of that, to then just miracle Jesus into existence? That’s not how God works.

As for Luke 3, in the same way Enoch and other texts give insights into ancient Jewish beliefs and views, does this not as well? They directly tie, from one link to the next, tie Jesus directly to all the patriarchs of the bible, and then connects Adam to God in the same way.

That’s another thing about the immaculate conception. Joseph. A direct descendant of that line. Why choose him but not breed him? What’s the point? He presumably could have chosen any woman, yet He chooses from this same line. What was the point of all that other stuff? God’s a creator. Always creating things that are working towards something greater. Evolving. Here He’s still doing that. Only, this time, He’s working with an element He has no control over.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Jeremy_Christian

my view of the “sons of God” as supernatural beings

Here’s my immediate problem with that. You agree, from what I understand, that the Nephilim are offspring of this mixing of the ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men’.

The grammar is unclear on this. Nephilim can be referent to Sons of Elohim, Daughters of Adam or their offspring. There is no “dauthers of men” in the text.

@Jeremy_Christian

I think the strongest case is that it fits the overall arc of the story. What this interpretation makes clear is the story arc being told. The purpose for God’s actions.

It is important, but the grammar makes it unclear. It is not clear to whom the “men of old” are referent either. So there are several terms:

1. Men of old (gibowr)
2. Nelphilim
3. Daughters of Adam (adam)
4. Sons of God (elohim)
5. Offspring of 3 and 4

So #4 and #3 have children #5. It is not clear to which these three groups #2 and #1 are referent, or if they are referent to each other. Also, there are no “daughters of men.”

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

@Jeremy_Christian

Well, like I said, God’s the only being who’d be capable of recounting the “days” of creation.

Why assume Genesis 1 is historical in a strict sense? Even if, God could’ve revealed it.

@Jeremy_Christian

And Genesis depicts multiple people of Adam’s family walking/talking with Him.

Obviously post-creation

@Jeremy_Christian

You refer to yourself to say "let us make human in ‘our’ image and likeness

I still don’t see how you take the introductory formulas “And God said” and “So God created.” Are you taking these as quotes from the human storyteller? I still don’t see how the “us” includes humans in this scenario (and how do you account for the tension between plural “us” in v. 26 and singular agent of creation in v. 27?).

@Jeremy_Christian

t’s surprising how prevalent this idea of a council is. I just can’t understand what God would need with a council. Who are they? Angels? What council could they provide an all-knowing God?

It’s prevalent because of the evidence. It’s not about what God needs but what he chooses to do. He doesn’t need us either, but chose to create us and allow us to cooperate/participate with him. Apparently, God chooses shared governance to some degree (see 1 Kings 22:19-23 and, of course, Isaiah 6). As I said before, the word “angels” is overly simplistic, but we can keep it simple for the sake of argument.

@Jeremy_Christian

So… why would a supernatural being have the capability to procreate with a human?

Beats me how it worked. But when divine beings come to earth, they take on human appearance/flesh. Apparently they take on the same physical capabilities as well (like eating and mating).

@Jeremy_Christian

Procreation is only really necessary where there’s death. If this council participated in creation then they’d have to have lived for millions of years.

They weren’t supposed to do this. These are rebel divine beings.

@Jeremy_Christian

I think it’s pretty clear this intermingling between these two lines was the reason for the flood.

It’s definitely one of the major reasons.

@Jeremy_Christian

Yet Satan, presumably part of the council according to Job,

The satan (“accuser”) in Job is a member of the council, but he’s not the (capital S) Satan of NT fame. Personal names don’t take the definite article (as it is in all OT references to satan except 1 Chron 21:1). Also, Job is not historical narrative, so we need to be careful about using the opening story of Job to dictate the historical reality of the council.

BTW, the satan didn’t really ask for permission. Messing with Job was initially God’s idea.

@Jeremy_Christian

I think the strongest case is that it fits the overall arc of the story.

I get this. This is how models work. It’s why I hold my position as well.

@Jeremy_Christian

it’s that she wasn’t going to have to procreate

How does this square with the cultural mandate to “be fruitful and multiply” in Gen 1:28. I’m assuming you’ve explained this elsewhere and I just haven’t read it.

@Jeremy_Christian

You choose the breeders that have the characteristics you’re trying to breed and breed through them.

Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1, then, must seem surprising. Lots of “surprises” in that motley crew!

@Jeremy_Christian

Another place where I differ is that I don’t think Jesus was immaculately conceived.

Take that up with Matthew. Theologically, I don’t think an immaculate conception or a virgin birth was necessary to produce Jesus, but I take the traditional view based on the textual evidence.

@Jeremy_Christian

How significant would it really be if he was half-God?

Since it’d be heresy, it’d be quite significant IMO.

@Jeremy_Christian

That’s not how God works.

God is capable of working in a myriad of ways. Do you deny all miracles (of the unilateral sort)?

@Jeremy_Christian

That’s another thing about the immaculate conception. Joseph. A direct descendant of that line. Why choose him but not breed him? What’s the point? He presumably could have chosen any woman, yet He chooses from this same line. What was the point of all that other stuff?

Expectations perhaps.

[Jeremy_Christian]

It just makes sense, doesn’t it? First off, this story had to a be popular one around the fire. The little man gets one over on a Pharoah? Rides off in the sunset with riches? Tell that one again!

Over time, just as you said, like a game of telephone. The details change. Names change. One generation the story is told as Abraham. Another generation he’s known as Abram. Another generation Lot’s more familiar. The popular story is recorded multiple times. In multiple forms.

During redaction, this one obviously goes during the “Abraham” portion, this one in the “Abram” section, this one in “Lot’s”.

The concept of an “inspired” bible just doesn’t work. God can’t make the Israelites do what He wills but He can write a book? “Inspiration” as I’m sure @jongarvey can attest being a fellow musician, there’s a lot of human interpretation involved in that. The same source of inspiration can yield very different results from person to person.

I don’t feel it’s wise to hold the bible to the standards of being words directly from God. Human hands have been all over it. Created it, changed it, translated it hundreds of different ways. It should be recognized, I feel, for what it is. The product of an era in human history when the creator of the universe directly interacted with humanity. But human history, everything we’ve made, including the bible, it’s ours. We were given the ability to create and that’s what we do. Now, in this modern age, we’re lucky enough to get to reverse engineer the whole thing and figure out how it all happened. This, in my eyes, is the most likely, the most consistent with the story and with all the modern knowledge we’ve gathered.

It often takes a bit of time. But as the details begin to flesh out and it all continues to remain consistent, it’ll become more apparent. I’m excited about all the insights I’m likely to gain discussing it with you lot.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Jeremy_Christian

The concept of an “inspired” bible just doesn’t work. God can’t make the Israelites do what He wills but He can write a book? “Inspiration” as I’m sure @jongarvey can attest being a fellow musician, there’s a lot of human interpretation involved in that. The same source of inspiration can yield very different results from person to person.

I for one hold that the Bible is inspired. I’m sure @deuteroKJ and @jongarvey do too. How do you think we understand inspiration?

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

@Jeremy_Christian

It just makes sense, doesn’t it?

No, not really. There’s a reason it’s lost favor in the academy by all theological stripes.

@Jeremy_Christian

The concept of an “inspired” bible just doesn’t work. God can’t make the Israelites do what He wills but He can write a book? “Inspiration” as I’m sure @jongarvey can attest being a fellow musician, there’s a lot of human interpretation involved in that. The same source of inspiration can yield very different results from person to person.

Do you fully understand the doctrine of inspiration?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@deuteroKJ

The concept of an “inspired” bible just doesn’t work. God can’t make the Israelites do what He wills but He can write a book? “Inspiration” as I’m sure @jongarvey can attest being a fellow musician, there’s a lot of human interpretation involved in that. The same source of inspiration can yield very different results from person to person.

Do you fully understand the doctrine of inspiration?

The question in my head too.

[Jeremy_Christian]

So, which way do you see the duplicate stories? Are these fictional parables that God authored using real people as characters or do you think these are actual accounts of multiple events orchestrated by God for the purpose of teaching?

[Jeremy_Christian]

@swamidass

How do you think we understand inspiration?

Not dictation

[Jeremy_Christian]

@deuteroKJ

Do you fully understand the doctrine of inspiration?

I’m not sure there’s a consensus view to understand. It seems to vary pretty dramatically depending on who you ask.

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

@Jeremy_Christian

So, which way do you see the duplicate stories? Are these fictional parables that God authored using real people as characters or do you think these are actual accounts of multiple events orchestrated by God for the purpose of teaching?

I consider them as historical occurrences that were recorded under the sovereign yet mysterious work of God’s Spirit. I wouldn’t use the loaded phrase “orchestrated by God.”