The Counterarguments to reading Genesis 1 and 2 as Recapitulatory

15 posts were split to a new topic: Considering Cain, Marriage Customs, and Borrowed Myth

I’m generally in agreement with you that the argument against a sequential reading is not definitive. I wonder if it the current attachment to a recapitulatory reading is partly a reaction against the documentary hypothesis. Post Sailhammer’s compositional approach, I’m not sure if we should be defensively reading Genesis with a rebuttal of the documentary hypothesis in mind.

That being said, even though I’m personally drawn to the sequential reading, it is not a hill I’m going to die on. I am not sure precisely why it is so important to everyone either way. I’m writing the book to acknowledge several ways, all of which are consistent with the Genealogical Adam.

So, in the end, I’m not sure if I really have a dog in this fight. I suppose you can fight it out with them, and I’ll just be a big tent.

Perhaps @Andrew_Loke might join in too. He has a book coming out very soon on the Genealogical Adam, and we are doing the an event together in Hong Kong in October.

@Andrew_Loke, minus the sharpness in this segment, it is exactly what I have wondered. I’m not sure how Jesus’ words somehow foreclose on a sequential reading. That does not appear to be what the passage is saying. How would you respond to this critique?

1 Like

My concern is, first and foremost, to interpret and exegete well, and to find the Bible’s grounding in the midst of popular or populist notions which undermine it, instead.
Of second importance, but still vital, is the biblical grounding for the notion of humanity’s universal identity as “made in God’s image,” with a monogenetic origin, rather than simply asserting that only Adam’s lineage are truly human.
That error has been a seedbed for racism, historically, and the concomitant dangers of elitist ethnic notions are not benign.
The sharpness was intended!

1 Like

My thoughts are as follows:

Matthew 19:4-6 portrays Jesus as saying ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

This passage portrays Jesus to be speaking about a particular beginning when he says ‘at the beginning’, and he identifies both ’made them male and female’ (Gen 1:27) and ‘for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ (Gen 2:24) with this one and the same beginning in response to the Jews. If Genesis 2:4-25 refers to a couple which existed a long time after the creation of God’s-Image-Bearers in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and is understood as such by the Matthean Jesus, he would not have formulated an argument against divorce by basing it on the situation ‘at the beginning’. Thus Matthew’s passage implies the view that Genesis 2:4-25 retells part of the same story of beginning in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

Moreover, Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11:8 ‘man was not made from woman, but woman from man’ would be void if there were already God’s-Image-Bearing females existing in Genesis 1:1-2:3 before the creation of Adam as well as Eve’s creation from Adam in Genesis 2:4-25.

Van Kuiken notes that other Second Temple Jewish texts also understood Adam to be the ‘first-formed’ human and the progenitor of all others (Wis 7:1; 10:1; Tob 8:6). ‘Since Paul concludes by speaking of all people’s judgment by one man, Christ (Acts 17:31), taking ‘one ancestor’ as referring to Adam fits Paul’s usual Adam-Christ correlation. Nowhere else does Paul mention Noah’ (2015, p. 686). Additionally, the interpretation that Adam is not the ancestor of every human being cannot be found in the earliest commentaries of the relevant texts.

3 Likes

@Andrew_Loke,

I dont really follow the logic for this interpretation (nor for the logic in your preceding paragraph).

Neither Adam & Eve … nor the pre-adamites… appear to have invoked any wedding ritual…so either grouping seems equally valid.

@swamidass

We obviously need some sort of
Entry - Survey tool… so that people literally understand who we are from the beginning!

How long has @Andrew_Loke been a member… and still doesnt understand that Genealogical Adam includes Universal Common Ancestry for all humans alive at the time of the birth of Jesus!

@Andrew_Loke is a leading philosopher who knows exactly this. We are lucky to have him here. He knows that the GA includes UCA and will have first book on this out soon. Are you sure you read him correctly?

@Andrew_Loke thanks for you response. I will be thinking about it.

1 Like

Jesus’ argument doesn’t depend upon a first human couple; it is directed at all human couples, who Genesis 1 states were literally made for each other so that they could experience and reflect the image of God more fully, and carry out their mutual creation mandate to be “fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”
That Adam and Eve were a particular, later instance of such, does nothing to weaken the force of His argument. As the first biblical couple we can specifically identify, they are a model, but not thereby the first instance.
Including the summary statement from Genesis 2 does not thereby convey that Jesus would have agreed that Adam and Eve must have been created on day six for His exegesis to work.
As for the “unprecedented” objection, viz. the supposed lack of the history of a sequential interpretation, we would have to then also throw out many of the early church’s Christological interpretations, which were attempts to rediscover the intended meanings within a more highly developed evidentiary context. The text must be allowed to speak for itself, not be delimited by traditional interpretation.
Thank you, @Andrew_Loke , for attempting a rebuttal. Iron sharpens iron. : )

1 Like

@swamidass

Above is @Andrew_Loke’s disjointed reference to Adam NOT being the ancestor of all humanity.

So this is the 3rd person who has walked through the gates and stayed a while… who DID NOT understand the most important premise that is virtually our Title Premise!:

Genealogical Adam.

Hi George if you take my statements out of context you will misunderstand what I say.

1 Like

Hi Guy,

My argument concerns whether Genesis 1 and 2 should be understood sequentially. The context of Jesus’ statement concerns divorce. The citation from Genesis 1 by itself only says that male and female were (as you say) ‘made for each other so that they could experience and reflect the image of God more fully, and carry out their mutual creation mandate to be “fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it”’, but by itself it does not form an argument against divorce. It is only when taken together with the citation from Genesis 2 (‘become one flesh’) that the argument against divorce is formulated. Thus Jesus’ argument which is based on ‘the beginning’ (v.8) requires taking both the citation from Genesis 1 and the citation from Genesis 2 to be referring to one and same beginning. My argument is that in Matthew 19:4-6 Jesus’ citation of ‘Made them at the beginning’ qualifies both ‘made them male and female’ (Genesis 1) and ‘become one flesh’, (Genesis 2), thus implying that Genesis 1 and 2 should not be read sequentially.

Moreover, you did not answer my argument from 1 Corinthians 11:8.

Your citation of the early church’s Christological interpretations is a false analogy; it concerns how early Christians understood the earlier Christological statements in the NT which was written before them. Whereas my point not only concerns how the ancient Jews who wrote Wis 7:1; 10:1; Tob 8:6 understood Genesis which was written before them, it is also evidence of the background context of Jesus’ and Paul’s statements in the NT which were made AFTER them i.e. after Wis 7:1; 10:1; Tob 8:6 were written, and which is important for interpreting Jesus and Paul. In other words, Jesus’ and Paul’s statements assumed this background of understanding.

1 Like

In what manner does it negate a sequential reading? Taking bits and pieces from two different instances to make a point in no way means you don’t recognize they’re from two different instances. It implies nothing of the sort. It is an inane argument.
I will have to go back and look at your claims about 1 Corinthians 11:8. It will, of course, be a separate issue.
Are you so completely unacquainted with Christological interpretations of the OT that I need to specify further the relevance of my argument? Maybe simply asking that question will be enough?

1 Like

@Guy_Coe, please show some respect. You don’t like his argument. That is fine. Do not call it “inane”.

@Guy_Coe this is not fair either. Explain yourself. @Andrew_Loke might be right or wrong, but he is not uninformed.

1 Like

Call 'em like I see them. It is entirely unsupportable. I’m sure Andrew’s a good guy, though.
Webster’s says “inane” means 1) empty, insubstantial 2) lacking significance, meaning, or point; silly.
Not trying to be rude.

He is our guest, and do not insult him. Just tone it back and make your case.

Oh, I’ve already demonstrated my own ability to say inane things yet still be a good guy. Non-sequitur.
There are many books available on this topic; here’s a blogpost as introduction: https://secundumscripturas.com/2017/03/06/theological-moorings-for-canonical-readings/
What’s worse: to allow someone to blithely dismiss a possibilty by making an invalid argument, or to act provocatively to get that person to at least reconsider a potential mistake? Either way, my intentions are for the good.
Perhaps you didn’t notice that I meant OT Christological interpretation, and he only thought of NT?
Hope that clarifies, @Andrew_Loke !

As for 1 Corinthians 11, we ought not to break the symmetry of Paul’s presentation:
"For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake… However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. - 1 Corinthians 11:8-9,11-12, NASB
This affirms their mutuality, not a woman’s somehow inferior status. Don’t quote verse 8 without the rest of the context.
Now for the big shocker: the word inserted in the translation, “create,” is not really in the Greek original. Strong’s clarifies the semantic range for the Greek term employed, and it’s far from a slam dunk.
οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικός, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός· καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα.
If the argument is made that it’s implied, I’ll counterargue that since “bara” is missing from the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2:5 ff., at most all we could say is it implies “formed” in this instance, as is explicitly stated in 1 Timothy 2:13.
Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα·
These verses repeat the biblical claim as to who came first in the Adam and Eve story, without thereby committing the reader to interpret Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as if they were simultaneous stories.
Those facts, taken together, render this argument mistaken, as well.

But it was a nice try.

@Andrew_Loke… i think the reverse sequence is the usual culprit. Just explain your context … and your readers will have a better understanding.

@Guy_Coe,

I had the very same reaction to his assessment. It’s like he is disputing some other book or person…

Honestly, I too often encounter a disturbing lack of comprehension or originally reasoned rebuttal on the cogency of the sequential view.
Faz Rana’s quote to the effect of Jesus’ “convolving” of items from the two chapters is specious, although I respect and regard him otherwise.
As a student of rhetoric, I can tell you that this kind of argument suggests a lack of acquaintance with analyzing historical texts in context, and I am at a loss to understand why that’s not obvious.
In Andrew’s defense, he apparently misinterpreted my point about the novelty involved in Christological interpretive reformulations of the Old Testament (not the New).