Great, though we are going to avoid that term. It is associated with polygenesis, a falsified and racist view of origins. See here: Adam and adams, not Adamites. Instead, say “those outside the garden,” or “those outside” (Adam’s line or the garden) for short.
2 Likes
That’s a safe, shorthand way to avoid the issue of a sequential reading, but if you allow for “outside the garden imago Dei humanity” the sequential reading harmonizes it all nicely with monogenism. I don’t want to be seen as pushing for something that would negatively impinge upon GA.
1 Like
I tend to accept a sequential reading at this point (I think Walton’s textual arguments on how to assess each toledoth are sound here), but I still am not sure I understand the import. I don’t mean to sidetrack the discussion, but I’d love more clarity on why it matters so much. My general tendency is to teach, “well some say this and others say this,” simply to teach students and laypeople that the issues are complex and we should all have charity as we enter these discussions. But I am interested to bolster my personal opinion if I can.
1 Like
Thanks for that corrective. I’m not that knowledgeable of the historical use of terms of the past few centuries.
1 Like
First of all, the normal literary divisions in any text, unless literarily non-indicated, invite a sequential reading. An author organizes material around some rubric, building upon what comes before, and then what comes next. This is thoroughly in evidence throughout chapter 1 of Genesis. It mimics human thinking in this manner.
Upon what basis, other than a pre-concern with NT questions, would one even object to a sequential reading? We need to, first and foremost, read this as the ancients would have. Genesis 1, by virtue of being from a single tablet, and from among the earliest written source materials, must serve largely as its own context. What does it tell us, along those lines?
As the first toledot passes, what attempts, if any, does the second account /tablet make to relate to, or situate itself with regards to, or within, the content and context of the first? Is simultaneity indicated? Is continuity indicated? Is discontinuity indicated? The reader does all of this subconsciously, as a matter of beginning to interpret.
Thing is, different people see things differently, and so it is worth consciously assessing these things in dialogue. Bible study is meant to be mind-expanding and community-building.
Interpretation is not purely personal; it invites a seeking of a shared understanding. These are just the beginnings of the rock-solid dynamics which unite the “people of the book.” It’s civil dialogue in its most basic form.
1 Like
And @deuteroKJ I don’t see that it matters if “the law” referenced is Mosaic Law. I think it was too but the passage still saying what I and to some extent @swamidass are saying. Let me put the verse out there and then make a few observations…
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[e] because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
-
the reason death spread to all men was “because all sinned”, not because they were physical descendants of Adam.
-
Men did not live sinless lives even before the law of Moses came along to convict them of sin. I would extend that to any population which lived alongside or prior to Adam as well. They were in a state of innocence, not sinless perfection. After the fall, the state of innocence went away. Like Adam and Eve, they were aware that they were doing things that were shameful even without the law of Moses to codify it. They were self-condemned.
-
After the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened, they and all mankind realized that what they were doing was wrong. They hid themselves because they were naked whereas before they were naked and not ashamed. So death still reigned because men knew they were living out of faith once their eyes were opened. They may not have had it codified as in the Law of Moses, but even in their own eyes they knew. And that is what brought death. Man wanted to judge for himself what was good and evil and once he was able to see it he had a problem- he saw that he was evil. So before the law of Moses mankind was self-condemned, and death reigned. The law of Moses brought a way out of this trap- if someone could keep it. But of course all it did was bring more death. God’s standard for our conduct turned out to be even more exacting than our own standards- which we still failed.
-
Adam’s scriptural role is a “figure of Him who is to come” not the “father of the human race”.
-
God wanted to bring humanity from innocence to accountability. How do you do that? I think the man Adam was a stand-in for the race adam (another reason not to use "pre-adamites, adam is mankind there is just the race adam and the man Adam who is their representative who was given the most ‘privileged’ environment possible to give humanity the best odds and still blew it.) Once his eyes were opened, everyone’s eyes were opened. Humanity had an awareness that their conduct was sinful. I note that Gobe Telbeke came up right after the time I have for Adam. Religion became “bigger” because people wanted to know what happened to them and it reflected mankind’s new awareness of his true condition.
2 Likes
I think I agree with this. As a sideline, I take the preposition (eph ho) in Rom 5:12 as “so that” rather than “because” (i.e., I see the cause-effect relationship in the reverse direction, such that death [= mortality] caused sin); see Michael Heiser on Rom 5:12) but that’s another conversation and doesn’t distract from the larger point (e.g., that Augustine’s reading [“in whom” (i.e., Adam)] based on the wrongly-translated Latin was wrong and set some of the church on a wrong trajectory).
3 Likes
See my question on the other thread.
I found the Walton reference. Lost World of Adam and Eve, pp. 154-155. I will put up the quote when I can. So my take may be more mainstream than you give it credit.
1 Like
@swamidass and @deuteroKJ , Walton’s whole “Proposition 17” covers this (pp. 153-155 cover the Adam and Eve related issues). He makes some great distinctions there, but is rather veiled in an assertion of an “imago Dei” humanity before Adam, possibly to minimize pushback --but it’s there in his analysis.
1 Like
I look forward to rereading this when I can get back to the office. It’ll be interesting to see if he’s exegeting Rom 5:13 this way or using it as an analogy. He does come out explicitly (but I can’t cite where right now) and affirm that the original adam (before Adam) are image-bearers. I’ll try to find the reference, b/c I’m sure I made a note in the margin.
1 Like
I’m also curious what you think of my Dabar paper.