Linguistics of Jesus on Adam and Eve

[Ashwin_s]

@Guy_Coe

It may, however, be a fool’s errand to try to determine exactly “when” this took place, as the Hebrew sense of “and God created them in His image; male and female created He them” cannot specify either the duration of this process, nor the preexisting “creatures,” “stuff,” “dust” (not mentioned 'til later) or whatever, from which humanity was created thus. The Hebrew verb does not --cannot --be forced into specifying an “instantaneous” semantic rubric.

Philo is said to have seen the “image of God” as a platonic ideal vis a vis the real humanity revealed in Adam and Eve.The second link i attached describes Philo’s views on the Image of God as below -

Within Philo’s framework of ideas, man is not himself the image of God, but he is created ‘after’ or ‘according to it’.7 When it comes to the interpretation of the image and likeness of God, Philo distinguishes between the man of Genesis 1:26-27 and the man of Genesis 2:7, the former being a platonic ideal and the latter, the concrete species of mankind.

Is this the point you want to make?

[Guy_Coe]

No, but thanks for asking. As an interpreter, Philo was asking and answering questions pertinent to his times and situation.
That he would arrive at this position must have been satisfying for him, at that time.
It simply fails to note that the account was written well before the establishment of Platonic philosophy.
All I’m saying, is that when I read my Bible (now; it wasn’t always this way, for me) I understand everything that happens in the first story, Genesis 1:1-2:3, as occurring first. Only then do I proceed to the second story, which begins at Gen. 2:5,’ and I personally take those events as occurring well after those in the first story.
I do not attempt to conflate the two.
Cheers!

[Ashwin_s]

@Guy_Coe

No, but thanks for asking.

If not, then surely there must have been some point where human beings started to bear the image of God?

Gen 1:26 gives this time as the time when human beings were created. So how do you justify saying that its impossible to say “when” humans came to bear the image of God? If its not some platonic ideal, tehn it must refer to an actual reality that occurred in space and time.

[Guy_Coe]

Yes, but at the culmination of a potentially gradual process, since the Hebrew verb 'bara (create) simply cannot specify the duration of the action mentioned. Nor does the English translation. And the text doesn’t specify when it happened. So, though I do agree it happened in “space and time,” no further dogmatism is possible, here.

[Ashwin_s]

@Guy_Coe

Yes, but at the culmination of a potentially gradual process, since the Hebrew verb 'bara (create) simply cannot specify the duration of the action mentioned.

So you understand the act of creating human beings in the image of God took a long time and finally culminated in Adam/Eve?

Is that what you are saying?
According to you, what is the image of God?
is it the ability to reason?

[Guy_Coe]

No. The culmination of God’s action, which was (almost certainly) not instantaneous, resulted in “imago Dei” humanity, well before Adam and Eve’s unique story even begins. That’s how I interpret it now.
The image of God, for me, emphasizes the God-given special ability of humanity to relate to one another, and to God, socially and spiritually, as a thumbnail sketch. We are not simply different in degree, but in kind, from the rest of the marvelous annimal kingdom. That would include reason, language, morality, spiritual awareness, etc. But, the Hebrew suggests something more, more like being charged with God’s agency, as accountable, imitative moral beings. We have an accountable purpose in God’s plan.

[Ashwin_s]

@Guy_Coe

That would include reason, language, morality, spiritual awareness, etc. But, the Hebrew suggests something more, more like being charged with God’s agency, as accountable, imitative moral beings. We have an accountable purpose in God’s plan.

It’s entirely possible for both to be true, ultimately being perfected in Jesus and through him in us.

@Guy_Coe

The culmination of God’s action, which was (almost certainly) not instantaneous, resulted in “imago Dei” humanity, well before Adam and Eve’s unique story even begins.

If I remember correctly, your earlier posts place Adam/Eve at about 50kya.
So the image of God would be around that time followed by God introducing himself to humanity through Adam/Eve?

In this case Adam/Eve would not be the first humans. Adams role would more in line of that of a priest/federal head.
Is this correct?

[Guy_Coe]

Roughly, yes. I am not dogmatic about a “date” for Gen. 1:27, I only note that we have good evidence for a human “cultural big bang” from between 50-40 kya, but “imago Dei” humanity could easily be much older still.
My guess is an Adam and Eve of about 15 kya, or so, with pretty much the special roles you outline, though without any personal inclination on my part for the “federal head” idea…
But I also postulate that their sin resulted in a permanently maladaptive change to their neurophysiology, which they passed on to their lineage. For me, the evidence of this change to humam neurophysiology is in the statement that “I will greatly increase your pain in childbirth” relating to the apparently newly developing inadequacy of the size of a mother’s birth canal, probably because of a “growth spurt” in the human neocortex, which accomodated the “knowledge of good and evil.” Again, not being dogmatic about this.

[Ashwin_s]

@Guy_Coe

But I also postulate that their sin resulted in a permanently maladaptive change to their neurophysiology, which they passed on to their lineage.

how does that impact the need for Salvation? If Only Adam and Eve’s lineage fell, what about those who have the image of God and do not belong to this lineage?
Do they all automatically recieve eternal life… or do they have no part in this?

[Guy_Coe]

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.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. - Romans5:12-14 NASB
Without any "Thou shalt not " early “imago Dei humanity” was not culpable, yet nevertheless, not without sin. Adam and Eve were the first to intentionally defy a direct command of God. All of humanity, throughout time, has needed God’s Savior!!

[AJRoberts (Molecular Biologist/Virologist)]

@Guy_Coe

The view that only a committed TE or EC advocate would hold the sequential view is false

I agree with this statement. I never said what you are saying that ONLY a TE/EC would hold the sequential view. That is a vacuous point. Please go back and reread and don’t create false arguments. Or do, but then you can just argue with yourself.

@Guy_Coe

I think that is a misguided view itself,

This is obvious.

@Guy_Coe

Let me ask this, AJ: where in Scripture is the claim clearly made that Adam was the first “imago Dei” human being ever?

It doesn’t. But it is not found in the text itself that he was not. Your position is “allowed” by the text. Other positions are “allowed” by an explicit reading of the text too.

@Guy_Coe

That is, any identification of Adam with anything presented in chapter 1 is an inference , not clearly indicated by the text.

That is, any identification of Adam with anything presented in chapter 1 is an inference , not clearly prohibited by the text.

And this next sentence is an important sentence for you to understand why some will consistently choose a different inference than you. Some are not convinced by the physical data that hominid evolution is a foregone conclusion. Just because they chose a different inference does not disallow your inference of choice. We must learn to respect each others perspectives and believe that disagreement can result even when all parties are approaching nature and Scripture with integrity in regard to God’s revelation in both.

Stalemate.

We all use a variety of other reasons, data, assumptions, hermeneutics, traditions, values, and inferences to prefer some inferences over others.

To start with the assumptions that others are not or have not been serious about their study, approach, and breadth of scholarship is lacking, or that they somehow are misunderstanding, or not fully understanding, or not considering your perspective or they would clearly see your perspective and come to the same conclusion as you, which is often how it sounds to me in these threads (and the thread on Matthew 19 in dialogue with @Andrew_Loke), contradicts what you say is your heart and intent.

[Guy_Coe]

I pretty thoroughly denied such a construal. Both kinds of readings are “allowed.” One results in less “ambiguity,” but still remains a matter for cautious study by exegetes.
I appreciate you, too! Thanks for commenting!
If I made an error in another thread, I’d appreciate knowing to what you are referring. I’m certainly quite capable of errors! :o)

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@AJRoberts

That is, any identification of Adam with anything presented in chapter 1 is an inference , not clearly indicated by the text.

That is, any identification of Adam with anything presented in chapter 1 is an inference , not clearly prohibited by the text.

@AJRoberts

Stalemate.

I agree with this. I show how the GAE is compatible with either reading for this reason.

[Guy_Coe]

What concerns me is that there’s an entire Christian “industry” that thrives by portraying evolution, even TE, as incompatible with Christian faith, or the same goes for OEC. Such controversies are from the time when the resources of Hebrew grammar and semantics were not as widely available. Equipping minstries like RTB and PS do well to patiently explain why they take the approach they do, in the interests of the whole church.
While I appreciate the need for clarification in this area, I wish so much money wasn’t at stake, and that our intramural squabbles were less a priority, along with, too often, the castigation of secular scientists.
I support RTB (and PS) because they do NOT do this, but do add into the lively dialogue of the other intramural squabbles which arise as scientific knowledge increases.
I find it hardly a stalemate to point out that Christians have options for a faithful reading.
Kudos all around, as well as to Peaceful Science, for embracing this role!

[Guy_Coe]

@AJRoberts , this is what I originally read that gave me the impression I had about you suspecting that being a TE would probably predispose many to a sequential reading.

"But it seems at least one reason many here are arguing for a chronological 1:26 before 2:4ff - to the exclusion of views that differ from theirs - to be based on a desire to harmonize a historical Adam and Eve with the mainstream scientific view of hominid evolution.

With all due respect to my evolutionary colleagues, I am not saying that your interpretation is wrong or unfaithful or unwarranted or unbiblical or unscriptural. I am saying it is driven by a (albeit noble) desire to harmonize mainstream science and Scripture. And I support you in your effort. But disagreement and interpretive conclusions different from yours (not all of them, but certainly some of them) are not less valid or less supported by the texts, so it seems to me."

Perhaps I overgeneralized what you meant? If so, my apologies. It seemed to me that you were overgeneralizing.
Irony, much? :o)
In any case, that is not what led me down this interpretive road.
Seems you and I agree on most everything else? On two valid interpretive pathways?
Cheers!

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Ashwin_s

Philo is said to have seen the “image of God” as a platonic ideal vis a vis the real humanity revealed in Adam and Eve.The second link i attached describes Philo’s views on the Image of God as below -

Very interesting, @Ashwin_s:

The following discussion dealing with Philo’s view on the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) is based on De Lacey’s research.[FN: 6 De Lacey, D.R. 1979. Image and incarnation in Pauline Christology: A search for origins. Tyndale Bulletin (TB) 30: 12-15 ]

Philo refers to the image of God in his discussion of the logos. Within Philo’s framework of ideas, man is not himself the image of God, but he is created ‘after’ or ‘according to it’.7

When it comes to the interpretation of the image and likeness of God, Philo distinguishes between the man of Genesis 1:26-27 and the man of Genesis 2:7, the former being a platonic ideal and the latter, the concrete species of mankind.

Philo equates the ideal man with the logos which comes close to identifying man with the image, but he does not explicitly identify man with the image or logos because he strongly believes that God cannot be conceived of as physical.8

According to Philo, the image consists of the mind or reason, which is spoken of in terms of a divine spirit breathed by the Maker into the individual.9

Philo’s interpretation of the image and likeness of God in Genesis 1:26-27 is based on Greek philosophy. Philo was influenced by the Greek philosopher Plato. He makes no reference to the Scriptures when he explains what the image of God is.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php

Ashwin, I particularly enjoyed the Summary of the survey of all the theories! I do favor Philo’s ideas.

CONCLUSION
“Philo, Irenaeus, Augustine, and Aquinas interpreted the image of God in man as the power of reason.”

“Luther and Calvin interpreted the image of God in man as moral likeness to God. The fall corrupted the image of God and redemption restores the shattered image of God.”

“The modern period shows a wide range of opinions regarding the image of God. The image and likeness of God in Genesis 1:26-27 are interpreted from the functional, relational and substantive perspectives or a combination of these.”

[Guy_Coe]

Okay, @AJRoberts , I’ve reread the entire Matthew 19 thread with Andrew Loke and myself going back and forth in conversation.
He was trying to tell me I was being eisegetic, while I was trying to tell him he was doing faulty discourse analysis.
The thread did seem to, as you put it, “stalemate.”
But Andrew’s conclusion is that any “pre-Adamic human males or females” is not allowable by virtue of Jesus’ inner logic in His argument against divorce in Matt. 19. My replies were attempts to show just the opposite.
And now you’ve gone on to say that both kinds of readings are “allowable.”
So, do you then disagree with his argument, or just find it unpersuasive?
You’ve also said that one approach leaves ambiguities of chronology --presumably, by that, you mean that the other does not.
I’ll take that as a positive, for while the ancients didn’t concern themselves quite as much with chronology as we moderns do, it is not thereby an illegitimate desire to do so.
Chronology is a valid concern for sorting out history.
Therefore, the “motive” for preferring a sequential reading is as much about harmonizing the texts with each other, as it supposedly is about harmonizing them with science.
I’m looking for a negative here, and can’t seem to find one.
So, was it my irenic tone with Andrew that put you off?
That would be understandable, but possibly still necessary, at least to some extent.
By the end of thread, we’d both affirmed each other in the LORD.
Help me see my failing more clearly, okay?
For the record, I had encountered an irenic tone coming from him, and would not simply be dismissed because I am not a “professional.” That was my honest experience of that early impasse.
I’d be happy to find I was mistaken.
Cheers!

[Ashwin_s]

@Guy_Coe

Without any "Thou shalt not " early “imago Dei humanity” was not culpable, yet nevertheless, not without sin. Adam and Eve were the first to intentionally defy a direct command of God. All of humanity, throughout time, has needed God’s Savior!!

I wonder if they can be said to be “not without Sin” if they are unaware of “good” and “evil”.
It would seem to me that in the scenario you propose where there is no federal headship, the people who were outside the Garden,their ancestors and everyone who were not descendants of Adam were without sin just the way a Dog or cat or Lion would be without Sin. They would have been innocent (i.e not having knowledge of Good and Evil).

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Ashwin_s

They would have been innocent (i.e not having knowledge of Good and Evil)

@Ashwin_s

I concur.

[Guy_Coe]

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.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.But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. - Romans 5:12-15 NASB
To be absolutely clear, once again, the GAE perspective does not include favoring one of these interpretive approaches to the exclusion of the other. It is unclear to me at this time whether the same holds true for RTB officially as a whole, although apparently at least one of their major spokespersons is willing to call the sequential reading an “allowable” one, which I find a great encouragement overall, as I remain a monthly supporter of their ministry to understand both biblical faith and modern science as the result of the direct handiwork of God --which, when approached together, will sometimes (perhaps even often) mutually inform both.
Cheers!