“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
A final difficulty resulting from the belief Adam and Eve were the first two human beings is the identities of Cain’s wife and those who, upon finding Cain, would kill him. Where did Cain’s wife come from, and who were the people who would kill Cain? Obviously, by the time Cain had killed Abel, more people were living than Adam and Eve and their two sons. So, who were these people? Did Cain marry, as some have said, his sister? (Did God allow with Cain what he disallowed for all Israel? See. Lev. 18.1-18 Also, Gen. 4.25 stands against such an idea.) Further, who were the people who would kill Cain if they found him? Where did they come from?
If, as geneticists argue, modern humans arose from a “bottleneck” population of a minimum of several thousand hominids 150,000 years ago, then the Adam and Eve as the historical parents of all humans is unreliable, at best. Further, if Adam and Eve were not real, a host of biblical propositions fall on their faces. In fact, the integrity of Scripture could be seriously challenged, and the foundations of both Judaism and Christianity would begin to crumble.
As has been argued already, Adam and Eve do not have to be viewed as the literal first human beings, and thus, the parents of all human beings. What is known from Scripture about Adam and Eve is their place in the lineage of the Israelites. From them descended Abraham through the line of Shem, son of Noah and direct descendant of Adam. Through Ham and Japheth and their descendants, who are/were Gentiles (see Gen. 10.1-20), we find a link between all non-Jews and Adam. In that way, one could argue Adam was the father of all humans. A problem, though, might exist with that line of reasoning. If Noah’s wife was not directly descended from Adam as Noah was, she would have represented a genetic line outside the Adamic gene pool.
We turn back to the identities of Cain’s wife and the people Cain feared, who upon finding him would kill him. Again, we ask, who were those people? Where did they come from? The obvious answer to that question is found in the first two chapters of Genesis. If, as we have argued, Genesis 1.1-2.4 is the account of the original creation of the universe, and Genesis 2.5-2.25 is the “story of Israelite origins,” the identity of Cain’s wife and the other people living in the world of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel can be discovered.
Genesis 1.26-28 tells a unique story of the creation of human life. First of all, human life has a connection with all other animal life. In Gen. 1.24, animal life was described as being brought forth from the earth. The words “living creatures” is the translation of the Hebrew word nephesh chayah, meaning, living being. Further, Adam himself was called a living being. Yet, human beings hold a distinct place in the realm of “living beings,” since, when God created human life, he created human beings “in His own image.” Believing God created an original population of human beings does not conflict at all with Gen. 1.26-28. For, in creating human life, God told “them” to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule.” Not only do humans have in their essential being a special relationship with God, we also have a special relationship with our world and all life within that world. So, not only did Cain marry into a existing human community, Ham, Shem and Japheth must have done so as well.
Based on the view God could have created, and I believe did create, an original human population of at least several thousands, no conflict can exist between the conclusions of “population genomics” researchers and what the Bible teaches. Thus, we can argue Cain found his wife in an existing population of human beings. Further, this population had existed in communities, villages, towns and, perhaps, cities. Adam and Eve were not alone in their world.
Ostling, in his Christianity Today article, “The Search for Historical Adam,” indicates one important issue: whatever position we take, problems exist. In attempting to understand the biblical story of human beginnings, we all “see through a glass, darkly.” Our knowledge is limited. Yet, if we take Scripture seriously, we must, in some consistent manner, come to terms with its affirmations, including its declaration, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Likewise, we must decide how we will stand with regard to the equally important declaration, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Friday, August 26, 2011
Adam and Eve, Part 4
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
Not everything Genesis 1 tells us was called into existence was created out of nothing. For instance, dry land appeared when God called into being the expanse separating the waters above from the waters below. After the dry land appeared, God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation. . . . The earth brought forth vegetation.” (Gen. 1.11-12) Further, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: . . . God made the beasts of the earth after their kind.” (Gen. 1.24-25). Plants and trees, along with the beasts of the earth, seem to fit. Fish, sea monsters and birds are a sort of anomaly: they do not fit (how can something live in water and fly in the air?).
Now, making appears to be, and probably is, synonymous in some contexts in Gen. 1 with create. For instance, Gen. 1.31 says “God saw all that the had made.” So, what he created, he made. Yet, as with vegetation and animals, the making was different from when God created. The earth sprouted vegetation and brought forth animals. A direct connection is made in both those contexts between the earth and what came into being. Vegetation and animal life did not come from nothing, but from the earth (both seem to “fit” the earth). Here, though, we face another paradox.
Genesis 2.7 says, “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” If the word create implies something is brought into being out of nothing, the “seeable” from the “unseeable,” then a fundamental conflict exists between Genesis 1.27 and 2.7 (God created, on the one hand, and formed from the dust of the earth on the other). A further conflict is found between 1.27 and 2.21-22 (Eve came from a rib, not nothing). Did God create human beings according to 1.27, or make them “from what is seeable,” according to 2.7 and 21-22? Genesis 1.27 declares God created human life, and when he did, he created both males and females simultaneously. Genesis 2.7 says God formed Adam from the dry dust of the earth, and later made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs.
In Genesis 1, a clear distinction is made between the appearance of animal life and the creation of human life. Further, Gen. 1.20-21 declares God created fish, sea monsters and birds. Genesis 2.19 says birds, like animals, were formed “out of the ground.” Is the Bible’s account of creation in conflict, if we indeed have two creation stories? If Genesis 1.1-2.4 is one story and 2.4-22 is another, irreconcilable differences do exist. Human beings were either created from what was not (Rom. 4.17; Heb. 11.3), or they were made from things already in existence (Gen. 2.7, 21-22). We must choose one or the other. Both cannot be true.
A more appropriate and defensible position is to see the creation account of Genesis 1 as the story of the coming into being of all things. In Genesis 2.4f, we have another story altogether. In the case of Adam and Eve, we have the account of the origin of the people of God, the “story of Israelite origins.” Even more compelling is the idea, based on the statements of Paul to the Corinthians, Adam was the first man in the story of sin and death and redemption and life, and Jesus was the last and second man in that progression. In Adam, sin and death entered into the human experience and cursed everyone. In Jesus, who “crushed” the serpent’s head (Gen. 2.15), forgiveness and life were made available to all.
One is not required to see in Adam and Eve the “historical parents of the entire human race,” but to see in their fall the beginning of the universal curse of sin and death.
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
Not everything Genesis 1 tells us was called into existence was created out of nothing. For instance, dry land appeared when God called into being the expanse separating the waters above from the waters below. After the dry land appeared, God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation. . . . The earth brought forth vegetation.” (Gen. 1.11-12) Further, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: . . . God made the beasts of the earth after their kind.” (Gen. 1.24-25). Plants and trees, along with the beasts of the earth, seem to fit. Fish, sea monsters and birds are a sort of anomaly: they do not fit (how can something live in water and fly in the air?).
Now, making appears to be, and probably is, synonymous in some contexts in Gen. 1 with create. For instance, Gen. 1.31 says “God saw all that the had made.” So, what he created, he made. Yet, as with vegetation and animals, the making was different from when God created. The earth sprouted vegetation and brought forth animals. A direct connection is made in both those contexts between the earth and what came into being. Vegetation and animal life did not come from nothing, but from the earth (both seem to “fit” the earth). Here, though, we face another paradox.
Genesis 2.7 says, “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” If the word create implies something is brought into being out of nothing, the “seeable” from the “unseeable,” then a fundamental conflict exists between Genesis 1.27 and 2.7 (God created, on the one hand, and formed from the dust of the earth on the other). A further conflict is found between 1.27 and 2.21-22 (Eve came from a rib, not nothing). Did God create human beings according to 1.27, or make them “from what is seeable,” according to 2.7 and 21-22? Genesis 1.27 declares God created human life, and when he did, he created both males and females simultaneously. Genesis 2.7 says God formed Adam from the dry dust of the earth, and later made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs.
In Genesis 1, a clear distinction is made between the appearance of animal life and the creation of human life. Further, Gen. 1.20-21 declares God created fish, sea monsters and birds. Genesis 2.19 says birds, like animals, were formed “out of the ground.” Is the Bible’s account of creation in conflict, if we indeed have two creation stories? If Genesis 1.1-2.4 is one story and 2.4-22 is another, irreconcilable differences do exist. Human beings were either created from what was not (Rom. 4.17; Heb. 11.3), or they were made from things already in existence (Gen. 2.7, 21-22). We must choose one or the other. Both cannot be true.
A more appropriate and defensible position is to see the creation account of Genesis 1 as the story of the coming into being of all things. In Genesis 2.4f, we have another story altogether. In the case of Adam and Eve, we have the account of the origin of the people of God, the “story of Israelite origins.” Even more compelling is the idea, based on the statements of Paul to the Corinthians, Adam was the first man in the story of sin and death and redemption and life, and Jesus was the last and second man in that progression. In Adam, sin and death entered into the human experience and cursed everyone. In Jesus, who “crushed” the serpent’s head (Gen. 2.15), forgiveness and life were made available to all.
One is not required to see in Adam and Eve the “historical parents of the entire human race,” but to see in their fall the beginning of the universal curse of sin and death.
Adam and Eve, Part 3
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
An interesting statement is found in Hebrews 11.3: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” (See also Romans 4.17) This concept of creatio ex nihilo (literally, creation out of nothing) is thought to have originated with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. ca. 202). He and other early church thinkers were reacting to the Greek philosophical idea “that the cosmos had always existed, that there has always been matter out of which the world has come into its present form.”
God’s creative activity holds a special place in Jewish and Christian thinking and theology. In Scripture, creation is always the work of God and never the work of man. Further, when, in Genesis 1, God created, he did bring something from nothing. What did God create? He created the heavens and the earth; the great sea monsters, all living things in the waters of the earth (oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, etc.) and all the birds of the air. Further, God created human beings. Obviously, the creation of humans was so significant, the Spirit saw fit to inspire the writer of Genesis to use the word create three times in describing God’s work of bringing man into being. After the five uses of the verb create in Gen. 12.1, 21 and 27 (3X), all other uses of the word in Scripture refer back to God’s creative work “in the beginning.”
In other places in Genesis 1, we find evidence of something coming from nothing. Such is the case with light (1.3), the expanse of the heavens (1.6), and the sun, moon and stars (1.14-16). In each of these cases, God said, “Let there be . . . and it was so.” One way of thinking about those things Scripture says God created is when something did not fit its context, or could not be explained, the writer concluded God created those entities; God called something into being out of nothing. If the creation story of Genesis 1 is the result of the musings of a Hebrew writer, such an explanation might work. For those who rely on the concept of the divine inspiration of Scripture, such reasoning is inadequate.
Yet, the idea of things “not fitting” or being beyond explanation can help us understand the mystery and miracle of creation. Much of what we see in our world is beyond comprehension. Take, for instance, life itself. Some in the secular world of science are uncomfortable with the current, evolutionary model used to describe how life was generated on this planet. As evidence of this, we see increasing interest in and hope of finding life, or the evidence of life, on other planets. The paradox, though, is the question of the origin of life will remain unanswered even if life were to be found on another planet. Where did that life come from. A similar paradox exists with the Big Bang theory; what existed before the Big Bang? Life and the universe itself seem to not fit, to defy explanation.
.
The biblical declaration, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” affirms the belief some things only God can do. Only the Lord himself can be responsible for what is beyond human reason and comprehension. Such is the case with human life: who and what we are does not fit, and cannot be explained. So, the Spirit, in his work of inspiring the Bible writer, declared, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (author’s italics) Obviously, God wanted no questions to linger about human beings, neither about their origin nor their nature.
In a paradoxical kind of way, human beings, while brought into being out of nothing, did indeed come from something. Humans came from God himself, from his own image, in his likeness. “For in Him we live and move and exist”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
An interesting statement is found in Hebrews 11.3: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” (See also Romans 4.17) This concept of creatio ex nihilo (literally, creation out of nothing) is thought to have originated with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. ca. 202). He and other early church thinkers were reacting to the Greek philosophical idea “that the cosmos had always existed, that there has always been matter out of which the world has come into its present form.”
God’s creative activity holds a special place in Jewish and Christian thinking and theology. In Scripture, creation is always the work of God and never the work of man. Further, when, in Genesis 1, God created, he did bring something from nothing. What did God create? He created the heavens and the earth; the great sea monsters, all living things in the waters of the earth (oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, etc.) and all the birds of the air. Further, God created human beings. Obviously, the creation of humans was so significant, the Spirit saw fit to inspire the writer of Genesis to use the word create three times in describing God’s work of bringing man into being. After the five uses of the verb create in Gen. 12.1, 21 and 27 (3X), all other uses of the word in Scripture refer back to God’s creative work “in the beginning.”
In other places in Genesis 1, we find evidence of something coming from nothing. Such is the case with light (1.3), the expanse of the heavens (1.6), and the sun, moon and stars (1.14-16). In each of these cases, God said, “Let there be . . . and it was so.” One way of thinking about those things Scripture says God created is when something did not fit its context, or could not be explained, the writer concluded God created those entities; God called something into being out of nothing. If the creation story of Genesis 1 is the result of the musings of a Hebrew writer, such an explanation might work. For those who rely on the concept of the divine inspiration of Scripture, such reasoning is inadequate.
Yet, the idea of things “not fitting” or being beyond explanation can help us understand the mystery and miracle of creation. Much of what we see in our world is beyond comprehension. Take, for instance, life itself. Some in the secular world of science are uncomfortable with the current, evolutionary model used to describe how life was generated on this planet. As evidence of this, we see increasing interest in and hope of finding life, or the evidence of life, on other planets. The paradox, though, is the question of the origin of life will remain unanswered even if life were to be found on another planet. Where did that life come from. A similar paradox exists with the Big Bang theory; what existed before the Big Bang? Life and the universe itself seem to not fit, to defy explanation.
.
The biblical declaration, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” affirms the belief some things only God can do. Only the Lord himself can be responsible for what is beyond human reason and comprehension. Such is the case with human life: who and what we are does not fit, and cannot be explained. So, the Spirit, in his work of inspiring the Bible writer, declared, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (author’s italics) Obviously, God wanted no questions to linger about human beings, neither about their origin nor their nature.
In a paradoxical kind of way, human beings, while brought into being out of nothing, did indeed come from something. Humans came from God himself, from his own image, in his likeness. “For in Him we live and move and exist”
Adam and Eve, Part 2
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
What do we do, then, about Adam and Eve in light of the fundamental conflicts between Genesis 1.26-28 and 2.7, 21-25? In fact, the seemingly natural process of creation described in 1.1-2.4 is thrown on its head by the entirely different sequence of events in 2.5f. Can we safely argue Adam and Eve were the “historical parents of the entire human race”? Is an alternative understanding of Adam and Eve possible? In his article, Ostling quoted Peter Enns, BioLogos staff biblical expert as “seeing passages on Adam as ‘a story of Israelite origins,’ not the origin of all humanity.” This idea must be developed. We look to Paul for help.
In the passage from 1 Corinthians cited above, we find some insight into the identity of Adam. Now, we must proceed on the basis of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture. 1Pet. 1.10-12 and 2 Pet. 1.16-21 provide two interesting facets of the inspiration of Scripture. First, the inspired writers did not fully understand all they were moved by the Spirit to write (1 Pet. 1.10-12). Second, the truth of Scripture is not limited by man’s understanding (either the writers or the interpreters), but by “the Holy Spirit [who] spoke from God.” (2 Pet. 1.21) So, we can conclude, what Paul understood is not the full extent of the truth in any of his writings, including 1 Corinthians 15.45-47.
In the Corinthian passage, Paul set up a first and last progression: Adam was the first in a series, Jesus was the last. Further, Jesus was not only the last in the progression, he was also the second, according to Paul. Was the Apostle speaking literally when he twice described Adam as the “first,” and described Jesus as both the “last Adam” and the “second man”? Obviously, from a literal historical point of view, Jesus was neither the last man nor the second man. He was the last and the second in a unique way. Jesus was the last Adam and the second man in the redemptive process of God.
When Paul wrote the statement, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” he was quoting Genesis 2.7. Yet, he added some words for emphasis. He added both the words “first” and “Adam.” While Paul might have understood Adam as the literal “first” man, he was not speaking in those terms. He was describing, instead, the origin of sin and death due to Adam’s rebellion, and the provision of forgiveness and life through Jesus. When sin and death entered into the human experience, the process of redemption was simultaneously begun. That process came to a conclusion in Jesus, the last and the second in that progression. When seeking to understand 1 Corinthians 15.45-47, we are no more required to view Adam as the literal first man than we are to understand Jesus as the last or second man. Paul was speaking symbolically in order to establish a theological truth.
Further, Paul may not have understood the full implications of what he wrote. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit was telling us something about Adam about which Paul was wholly unaware: Adam is not to be understood as the literal first man in a historical sense, but was the first man in a theological sense. What he started, Jesus finished.
We can further understand Adam and Eve by comparing what is declared in Genesis 1.25-27 and 2.7 and 21-25. In studying these two texts comparatively, we must focus on the words create, make and form, in particular. Each term is used in a distinctive way in Genesis 1 and 2.
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
What do we do, then, about Adam and Eve in light of the fundamental conflicts between Genesis 1.26-28 and 2.7, 21-25? In fact, the seemingly natural process of creation described in 1.1-2.4 is thrown on its head by the entirely different sequence of events in 2.5f. Can we safely argue Adam and Eve were the “historical parents of the entire human race”? Is an alternative understanding of Adam and Eve possible? In his article, Ostling quoted Peter Enns, BioLogos staff biblical expert as “seeing passages on Adam as ‘a story of Israelite origins,’ not the origin of all humanity.” This idea must be developed. We look to Paul for help.
In the passage from 1 Corinthians cited above, we find some insight into the identity of Adam. Now, we must proceed on the basis of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture. 1Pet. 1.10-12 and 2 Pet. 1.16-21 provide two interesting facets of the inspiration of Scripture. First, the inspired writers did not fully understand all they were moved by the Spirit to write (1 Pet. 1.10-12). Second, the truth of Scripture is not limited by man’s understanding (either the writers or the interpreters), but by “the Holy Spirit [who] spoke from God.” (2 Pet. 1.21) So, we can conclude, what Paul understood is not the full extent of the truth in any of his writings, including 1 Corinthians 15.45-47.
In the Corinthian passage, Paul set up a first and last progression: Adam was the first in a series, Jesus was the last. Further, Jesus was not only the last in the progression, he was also the second, according to Paul. Was the Apostle speaking literally when he twice described Adam as the “first,” and described Jesus as both the “last Adam” and the “second man”? Obviously, from a literal historical point of view, Jesus was neither the last man nor the second man. He was the last and the second in a unique way. Jesus was the last Adam and the second man in the redemptive process of God.
When Paul wrote the statement, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” he was quoting Genesis 2.7. Yet, he added some words for emphasis. He added both the words “first” and “Adam.” While Paul might have understood Adam as the literal “first” man, he was not speaking in those terms. He was describing, instead, the origin of sin and death due to Adam’s rebellion, and the provision of forgiveness and life through Jesus. When sin and death entered into the human experience, the process of redemption was simultaneously begun. That process came to a conclusion in Jesus, the last and the second in that progression. When seeking to understand 1 Corinthians 15.45-47, we are no more required to view Adam as the literal first man than we are to understand Jesus as the last or second man. Paul was speaking symbolically in order to establish a theological truth.
Further, Paul may not have understood the full implications of what he wrote. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit was telling us something about Adam about which Paul was wholly unaware: Adam is not to be understood as the literal first man in a historical sense, but was the first man in a theological sense. What he started, Jesus finished.
We can further understand Adam and Eve by comparing what is declared in Genesis 1.25-27 and 2.7 and 21-25. In studying these two texts comparatively, we must focus on the words create, make and form, in particular. Each term is used in a distinctive way in Genesis 1 and 2.
Adam and Eve, Part 1
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
In the Christianity Today Readers Choice digital issue (August 18, 2011), the lead article was “The Search for the Historical Adam.” I would like to respond to this article. The author, Richard N. Ostling, surveyed the state of the argument among Evangelical scientists and theologians and those in the secular scientific community about Adam and Eve. The debate swirls around the historical belief among Christians Adam and Eve were real human beings. That belief was summed up by Ostling as “the traditional tenet (summarized in the Wheaton College’s mandatory credo) that “God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race.”
In the article, Ostling highlighted the views of Dennis R. Venema, the BioLogos senior fellow for science and the biology chairman at Trinity Western University. Venema, and others associated with BioLogos, advocate theistic evolution and a rethinking of Adam. Venema contends modern humans come from a population “bottleneck” (probably thousands, see p.7) of hominids around 150,000 years ago. For him, the idea modern humans are derived from an original couple cannot be supported scientifically.
So, if Venema and others correct, what are modern believers to do? If Adam and Eve were not real, how can the integrity of the biblical account stand? What do we do with Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15.45-47 if we cannot rely on the evidence of Scripture?
Two questions arise. First, were Adam and Eve real? Second, were they the “historical parents of the entire human race”? I must describe my own position on Scripture in order to answer both questions. My own view is Scripture was inspired by God and, thus, is inerrant, infallible and sufficient. I am an “old-earth” creationist; I believe God created all things (see Gen. 1.1), being directly responsible for life upon this earth, including human beings. I reject theistic evolution as fundamentally in conflict with the First Chapter of Genesis. Having made those statements means, for me, Adam and Eve were real human beings.
My divergence with traditional creationists comes at the belief Adam and Eve as the first two human beings. Believing Adam and Eve were the first two human beings requires one to accept Genesis Chapter One and Chapter Two as two independent accounts of creation. The documentary hypothesis views Genesis 1.1-2.4b as the work of one redactor (the Priestly editor) and 2.2b-3.24 as the work of another (Yahwist). According to this view, these two sections of Genesis 1-3 give two distinct views of creation.
Do we have two creation stories in Genesis? If so, how are the disparities between the two reconciled, for reconciled they must be? Added to this mix is the statement by Paul to the Corinthians Adam was the “first” man. We are faced with a demanding problem. We must reconcile the entirely different Genesis accounts of creation if the Bible’s affirmation, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is to have any authority at all.
Genesis 1.1, 27
“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22
“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
In the Christianity Today Readers Choice digital issue (August 18, 2011), the lead article was “The Search for the Historical Adam.” I would like to respond to this article. The author, Richard N. Ostling, surveyed the state of the argument among Evangelical scientists and theologians and those in the secular scientific community about Adam and Eve. The debate swirls around the historical belief among Christians Adam and Eve were real human beings. That belief was summed up by Ostling as “the traditional tenet (summarized in the Wheaton College’s mandatory credo) that “God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race.”
In the article, Ostling highlighted the views of Dennis R. Venema, the BioLogos senior fellow for science and the biology chairman at Trinity Western University. Venema, and others associated with BioLogos, advocate theistic evolution and a rethinking of Adam. Venema contends modern humans come from a population “bottleneck” (probably thousands, see p.7) of hominids around 150,000 years ago. For him, the idea modern humans are derived from an original couple cannot be supported scientifically.
So, if Venema and others correct, what are modern believers to do? If Adam and Eve were not real, how can the integrity of the biblical account stand? What do we do with Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15.45-47 if we cannot rely on the evidence of Scripture?
Two questions arise. First, were Adam and Eve real? Second, were they the “historical parents of the entire human race”? I must describe my own position on Scripture in order to answer both questions. My own view is Scripture was inspired by God and, thus, is inerrant, infallible and sufficient. I am an “old-earth” creationist; I believe God created all things (see Gen. 1.1), being directly responsible for life upon this earth, including human beings. I reject theistic evolution as fundamentally in conflict with the First Chapter of Genesis. Having made those statements means, for me, Adam and Eve were real human beings.
My divergence with traditional creationists comes at the belief Adam and Eve as the first two human beings. Believing Adam and Eve were the first two human beings requires one to accept Genesis Chapter One and Chapter Two as two independent accounts of creation. The documentary hypothesis views Genesis 1.1-2.4b as the work of one redactor (the Priestly editor) and 2.2b-3.24 as the work of another (Yahwist). According to this view, these two sections of Genesis 1-3 give two distinct views of creation.
Do we have two creation stories in Genesis? If so, how are the disparities between the two reconciled, for reconciled they must be? Added to this mix is the statement by Paul to the Corinthians Adam was the “first” man. We are faced with a demanding problem. We must reconcile the entirely different Genesis accounts of creation if the Bible’s affirmation, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is to have any authority at all.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 4
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
How do we reconcile our biblical rights and our freedoms as human beings under the sovereignty of God? Do we have the right to act in any way we choose? Or, do we have the freedom to choose to act as we wish. Being free to do something does not mean a particular way of acting is a right.
In Galatians 5, Paul spoke at length about the freedom of believers. Paul began his comments with this statement: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” With that declaration and those following, Paul established clearly the tension between being free to decide and act, and acting on the basis of one’s right to act.
Paul also said, “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” At that point, Paul moved from his discussion of the inefficacy of law-observance to other, more potentially dangerous ways of acting, based on the desires of the flesh. In 5.19-21, Paul listed an array of fleshly ways of acting, which were opposed to the way of the Spirit. What he wanted to make clear was how these sinful deeds were unlawful. No believer has the right to act in disobedience, yet, a believer is free to act according to the desires of the flesh (5.1, 13). Following that list of behaviors, Paul outlined the Fruit of the Spirit, the character qualities and attendant behaviors the Spirit produces in the life of an obedient believer.
Following the listing of the Fruit of the Spirit, Paul made a curious statement. “Against such things there is no law.” Thus, we can conclude, the Fruit of the Spirit are the biblical rights of believers. When God made laws against some things, he was saying, in effect, his people have no right to act in unlawful ways. Yet, Scripture is clear; on many occasions in the biblical record, and into the current era, believers have exercised their freedom to do what God has outlawed. To be free to disobey does not mean one has the right to be disobedient.
Some free acts we take are of less consequence than others. For instance, Baptist, in their freedom, have chosen to observe the Lord’s Supper in a manner inconsistent with the biblical model. We do not use one cup of wine and one loaf of bread. We have chosen to use grape juice (for social, not biblical reasons) and have platters of little crackers. We maintain the meaning of the “meal,” but we do not observe the biblical form. Jesus and the Disciples used one cup of wine and one loaf of bread in the original supper. Do we have the right to ignore the biblical model? Or, are we acting in freedom? We have chosen freedom.
The same principle applies to a church in its calling of a woman as pastor. Does a church have the “right” to ask a woman to serve as its pastor? The overwhelming evidence of Scripture says no. Does a church have the freedom to make such a decisions? Obviously, yes. When a Baptist church elects, in freedom, to call a woman as pastor, is that congregation acting in a way consistent with long-held Baptist beliefs and doctrine? Obviously, no. Should a church, having made that decision, accept the consequences of its decision? Yes, even when the cost is the loss of fellowship with other Baptist churches and bodies.
To act in freedom does not mean one is being sinful or disobedient. While the Bible seems to be clear about women serving as pastors, some have found what they believe is the authority to act in a particular manner. Flat Creek Baptist Church exercised its freedom to call a woman as pastor; one cannot say with certainty or with biblical authority that congregation had the freedom to act as it did. Was Surry Association correct in the actions it took against Flat Creek church? Yes it was. Surry Association upheld the traditional role and responsibility of a general body of Baptists: it called for doctrinal accountability and acted to propagate Baptist teachings, and sought to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches in its association.
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
How do we reconcile our biblical rights and our freedoms as human beings under the sovereignty of God? Do we have the right to act in any way we choose? Or, do we have the freedom to choose to act as we wish. Being free to do something does not mean a particular way of acting is a right.
In Galatians 5, Paul spoke at length about the freedom of believers. Paul began his comments with this statement: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” With that declaration and those following, Paul established clearly the tension between being free to decide and act, and acting on the basis of one’s right to act.
Paul also said, “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” At that point, Paul moved from his discussion of the inefficacy of law-observance to other, more potentially dangerous ways of acting, based on the desires of the flesh. In 5.19-21, Paul listed an array of fleshly ways of acting, which were opposed to the way of the Spirit. What he wanted to make clear was how these sinful deeds were unlawful. No believer has the right to act in disobedience, yet, a believer is free to act according to the desires of the flesh (5.1, 13). Following that list of behaviors, Paul outlined the Fruit of the Spirit, the character qualities and attendant behaviors the Spirit produces in the life of an obedient believer.
Following the listing of the Fruit of the Spirit, Paul made a curious statement. “Against such things there is no law.” Thus, we can conclude, the Fruit of the Spirit are the biblical rights of believers. When God made laws against some things, he was saying, in effect, his people have no right to act in unlawful ways. Yet, Scripture is clear; on many occasions in the biblical record, and into the current era, believers have exercised their freedom to do what God has outlawed. To be free to disobey does not mean one has the right to be disobedient.
Some free acts we take are of less consequence than others. For instance, Baptist, in their freedom, have chosen to observe the Lord’s Supper in a manner inconsistent with the biblical model. We do not use one cup of wine and one loaf of bread. We have chosen to use grape juice (for social, not biblical reasons) and have platters of little crackers. We maintain the meaning of the “meal,” but we do not observe the biblical form. Jesus and the Disciples used one cup of wine and one loaf of bread in the original supper. Do we have the right to ignore the biblical model? Or, are we acting in freedom? We have chosen freedom.
The same principle applies to a church in its calling of a woman as pastor. Does a church have the “right” to ask a woman to serve as its pastor? The overwhelming evidence of Scripture says no. Does a church have the freedom to make such a decisions? Obviously, yes. When a Baptist church elects, in freedom, to call a woman as pastor, is that congregation acting in a way consistent with long-held Baptist beliefs and doctrine? Obviously, no. Should a church, having made that decision, accept the consequences of its decision? Yes, even when the cost is the loss of fellowship with other Baptist churches and bodies.
To act in freedom does not mean one is being sinful or disobedient. While the Bible seems to be clear about women serving as pastors, some have found what they believe is the authority to act in a particular manner. Flat Creek Baptist Church exercised its freedom to call a woman as pastor; one cannot say with certainty or with biblical authority that congregation had the freedom to act as it did. Was Surry Association correct in the actions it took against Flat Creek church? Yes it was. Surry Association upheld the traditional role and responsibility of a general body of Baptists: it called for doctrinal accountability and acted to propagate Baptist teachings, and sought to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches in its association.
Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 3
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
What does the Bible say about women in roles of leadership in the church. We look to three examples from Scripture: two positive and one negative. First, we have Phoebe, the deaconess. Paul recommended her to the church in Rome with the following statement. “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” (Romans 16:1-2) Most likely, Phoebe was more than a simple servant in the congregation of Cenchrea. She was probably a wealthy merchant, who had come to Rome on a business trip. She also might have served as the patroness of the Cenchrean church. Although we do not know how she functioned in the church, she was, at least, an influential member of the congregation.
Next, we look at Priscilla (Prisca in Paul’s writings). She and her husband Aquila had been expelled from Rome along with other Jews by the Edict of Claudius (ca. 49 AD). In every case but one (1 Cor. 16.19), when this couple is mentioned, Priscilla is named first. Many have concluded she had come from a well-to-do Jewish family in Rome and may have been the source of hers and Aquila’s wealth. On two occasions, (1 Cor. 16.19; Rom. 16.3), a church is said to have been meeting in their house. Only the wealthy had houses large enough to accommodate a meeting of a group of any size. Priscilla and Aquila had come to Paul’s aid and journeyed with him. Further, after hearing Apollos preach in Ephesus, “Priscilla and Aquila . . . took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Priscilla was also a teacher.
Last, we consider Jezebel. In Revelation 2.20, we read of the Lord’s condemnation of Jezebel, “who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.” Jezebel (we do not know her real name) was also a powerful, wealthy woman. She had risen to a position of prominence and power in the Thyatiran church, becoming a teacher and an advocate of social accommodation. She is condemned for the same thing Satan is said to do: she led astray those whom she taught. She taught those who followed her to engage in sexual immorality and to take a lenient view of idolatry. Probably, she told her followers participation in ritual acts in local pagan temples was not a bad thing (what her namesake had done in ancient Israel).
Added to these might be Junias (Rom. 16.7), who some believe was actually the wife of Andronicus (Junia), and was an early believer in Jesus and counted among the Apostles. Certainly, though, with Priscilla, Phoebe and Jezebel, we find three examples of women who held influential leadership positions in their own congregations. At no time does Paul or Luke appear to think these women were acting sinfully or unlawfully; indeed, both endorsed these women in the highest of terms. The failure of Jezebel was her leading members of the Thyatiran church to do unbiblical things. While her claim to be prophetess was rejected by the Lord, her acting as a teacher was not. What she taught was the problem.
Unfortunately, neither Priscilla or Phoebe are described as pastors. We are left to wonder about the true extent of their leadership roles in their respective congregations. No doubt, Priscilla taught on one occasion at least. What can we conclude? With the best evidence before us, no clear and unarguable evidence exists in Scripture to support the idea of a woman serving as the pastor of a church. Given the high regard in which Paul held both Priscilla and Phoebe, if they had functioned in pastoral roles, surely, he would have clearly stated that fact. He did not.
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
What does the Bible say about women in roles of leadership in the church. We look to three examples from Scripture: two positive and one negative. First, we have Phoebe, the deaconess. Paul recommended her to the church in Rome with the following statement. “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” (Romans 16:1-2) Most likely, Phoebe was more than a simple servant in the congregation of Cenchrea. She was probably a wealthy merchant, who had come to Rome on a business trip. She also might have served as the patroness of the Cenchrean church. Although we do not know how she functioned in the church, she was, at least, an influential member of the congregation.
Next, we look at Priscilla (Prisca in Paul’s writings). She and her husband Aquila had been expelled from Rome along with other Jews by the Edict of Claudius (ca. 49 AD). In every case but one (1 Cor. 16.19), when this couple is mentioned, Priscilla is named first. Many have concluded she had come from a well-to-do Jewish family in Rome and may have been the source of hers and Aquila’s wealth. On two occasions, (1 Cor. 16.19; Rom. 16.3), a church is said to have been meeting in their house. Only the wealthy had houses large enough to accommodate a meeting of a group of any size. Priscilla and Aquila had come to Paul’s aid and journeyed with him. Further, after hearing Apollos preach in Ephesus, “Priscilla and Aquila . . . took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Priscilla was also a teacher.
Last, we consider Jezebel. In Revelation 2.20, we read of the Lord’s condemnation of Jezebel, “who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.” Jezebel (we do not know her real name) was also a powerful, wealthy woman. She had risen to a position of prominence and power in the Thyatiran church, becoming a teacher and an advocate of social accommodation. She is condemned for the same thing Satan is said to do: she led astray those whom she taught. She taught those who followed her to engage in sexual immorality and to take a lenient view of idolatry. Probably, she told her followers participation in ritual acts in local pagan temples was not a bad thing (what her namesake had done in ancient Israel).
Added to these might be Junias (Rom. 16.7), who some believe was actually the wife of Andronicus (Junia), and was an early believer in Jesus and counted among the Apostles. Certainly, though, with Priscilla, Phoebe and Jezebel, we find three examples of women who held influential leadership positions in their own congregations. At no time does Paul or Luke appear to think these women were acting sinfully or unlawfully; indeed, both endorsed these women in the highest of terms. The failure of Jezebel was her leading members of the Thyatiran church to do unbiblical things. While her claim to be prophetess was rejected by the Lord, her acting as a teacher was not. What she taught was the problem.
Unfortunately, neither Priscilla or Phoebe are described as pastors. We are left to wonder about the true extent of their leadership roles in their respective congregations. No doubt, Priscilla taught on one occasion at least. What can we conclude? With the best evidence before us, no clear and unarguable evidence exists in Scripture to support the idea of a woman serving as the pastor of a church. Given the high regard in which Paul held both Priscilla and Phoebe, if they had functioned in pastoral roles, surely, he would have clearly stated that fact. He did not.
Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 2
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
Does a church have the “right” to call a woman as pastor? Many Christian denominations have answered the question in the affirmative. Historically, Baptists, and Southern Baptists in particular, have answered in the negative. The decision by the Surry Association in North Carolina to expel Flat Rock Baptist Church from its fellowship, based on the church’s decision to call a woman as pastor, shows this issue remains, to some degree, unresolved. For the larger Southern Baptist family, most believe such a decision is neither biblically nor theologically sound. Obviously, not all Southern Baptists agree.
In the modern era, much of what Scripture has to say about male and female roles is controversial for many contemporary thinkers. Many women chafe at the role of the wife as found in Ephesians 5. The verse from 1 Timothy cited above is equally troubling. Many view these statements as culturally bound: they were based on first-century understandings of men, women, marriage and the family. On the other hand, those who hold a more conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture reject out of hand such an argument. We do not believe the Spirit of God was affirming a first-century view of men, women, marriage and the family when he directed Paul to write the letter to Timothy.
Further, one must ask the question, what is a Baptist? Are we, as a confessional community, defined by theological distinctives, or, are we not? Is our claim to fame merely our emphasis on baptism by immersion, or, do we have other beliefs marking us a believing body? We rightly expect those who profess to be Baptist to operate within the scope of Baptist doctrine. In our understanding of our doctrinal distinctives, we look to both our history as Baptists and the positions outlined by general bodies. Our historical beliefs and the doctrinal positions our general bodies have clarified, to be legitimate, must be biblically-based.
Historically, Baptists have had to rethink and redefine some of our doctrinal positions. Most notable among these is how we have thought and acted with regard to race. We have been wrong in the past, but have sought to correct our errors and be more biblical in our approach to race. Currently, we face the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Would a church be excluded from membership in an association if it chose to bless same-sex unions? One would hope so. Scripture leaves no “wiggle-room” on the issue of homosexuality or marriage and the family.
Some churches might claim the “right” to bless homosexual unions. One would be justified in arguing a church does not have such a right. Not all decisions we make are within the bounds of what we have a “right” to do as bodies of believers. We might exercise the freedom to act in some ways, but acting in freedom does not mean we have a right to act. As Baptists, like it or not, we have chosen to reject some things as biblically legitimate. When a person elects to become a part of a Baptist church, he has chosen to place himself under the authority of that church and the doctrinal positions held by that congregation. When a church elects to become a part of an association or general body of Baptists, that church has chosen to accept and abide by the doctrinal positions affirmed by those bodies.
One cannot be a Baptist and believe anything. One is not a Baptist just because he has been immersed in a baptismal pool, lake or river. Being a Baptist is much more comprehensive. Being a Baptist means the acceptance of traditional (yes, traditional) Baptist doctrines. We Baptists have refused, for the most part, to resist the revisionist views of some contemporary Christian groups. We have held tenaciously to our historic Baptist faith. We have been correct.
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
Does a church have the “right” to call a woman as pastor? Many Christian denominations have answered the question in the affirmative. Historically, Baptists, and Southern Baptists in particular, have answered in the negative. The decision by the Surry Association in North Carolina to expel Flat Rock Baptist Church from its fellowship, based on the church’s decision to call a woman as pastor, shows this issue remains, to some degree, unresolved. For the larger Southern Baptist family, most believe such a decision is neither biblically nor theologically sound. Obviously, not all Southern Baptists agree.
In the modern era, much of what Scripture has to say about male and female roles is controversial for many contemporary thinkers. Many women chafe at the role of the wife as found in Ephesians 5. The verse from 1 Timothy cited above is equally troubling. Many view these statements as culturally bound: they were based on first-century understandings of men, women, marriage and the family. On the other hand, those who hold a more conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture reject out of hand such an argument. We do not believe the Spirit of God was affirming a first-century view of men, women, marriage and the family when he directed Paul to write the letter to Timothy.
Further, one must ask the question, what is a Baptist? Are we, as a confessional community, defined by theological distinctives, or, are we not? Is our claim to fame merely our emphasis on baptism by immersion, or, do we have other beliefs marking us a believing body? We rightly expect those who profess to be Baptist to operate within the scope of Baptist doctrine. In our understanding of our doctrinal distinctives, we look to both our history as Baptists and the positions outlined by general bodies. Our historical beliefs and the doctrinal positions our general bodies have clarified, to be legitimate, must be biblically-based.
Historically, Baptists have had to rethink and redefine some of our doctrinal positions. Most notable among these is how we have thought and acted with regard to race. We have been wrong in the past, but have sought to correct our errors and be more biblical in our approach to race. Currently, we face the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Would a church be excluded from membership in an association if it chose to bless same-sex unions? One would hope so. Scripture leaves no “wiggle-room” on the issue of homosexuality or marriage and the family.
Some churches might claim the “right” to bless homosexual unions. One would be justified in arguing a church does not have such a right. Not all decisions we make are within the bounds of what we have a “right” to do as bodies of believers. We might exercise the freedom to act in some ways, but acting in freedom does not mean we have a right to act. As Baptists, like it or not, we have chosen to reject some things as biblically legitimate. When a person elects to become a part of a Baptist church, he has chosen to place himself under the authority of that church and the doctrinal positions held by that congregation. When a church elects to become a part of an association or general body of Baptists, that church has chosen to accept and abide by the doctrinal positions affirmed by those bodies.
One cannot be a Baptist and believe anything. One is not a Baptist just because he has been immersed in a baptismal pool, lake or river. Being a Baptist is much more comprehensive. Being a Baptist means the acceptance of traditional (yes, traditional) Baptist doctrines. We Baptists have refused, for the most part, to resist the revisionist views of some contemporary Christian groups. We have held tenaciously to our historic Baptist faith. We have been correct.
Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 1
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
(The quotations above are provided as a context for the following observations.)
Flat Rock Baptist Church in Mount Airy North Carolina was expelled recently from the Surry Baptist Association because the church had called a female pastor (see the related story at http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6626/53/). Two important questions are at stake in this event. First, does a church have the “right” to call a woman as a pastor? Second, does a larger Baptist body (an association, state or national convention) have the “right” to expel a church for calling a woman as pastor?
Let’s look first at the issue of the larger body and its right and responsibility to respond to member churches on the basis of biblical and theological questions. As noted above, the motion at the 1999 meeting of the SBC took into consideration both the right and responsibility of churches, associations and general bodies to expect member bodies to adhere to Baptist doctrine. From the beginning of the church in Jerusalem, doctrinal issues have been defined and enforced. Acts 15 gives an account of an early discussion about proper doctrine.
Early in the life of Baptists, associations played a large role in defining who Baptist were and what they believed. “The oldest form of organization, beyond the local church, was the association, and it remains a vital part of Baptist denominational structure today. From the first, Baptists entered into fellowship and common cause with other believers who shared their faith. As early as 1624 and again in 1630, several General Baptist churches in London acted together in discussing doctrine and in corresponding with other believers. Though they had no formal association, they showed a sense of cooperation and common identity.
“By 1650, the Baptist association was well established. The name and geographical concept probably were adaptations of a civil unit in England, much like a county. During the English Civil War (1642-45), much of the country was divided into "associations" for political purposes. After the war Baptists continued to use this concept and name for their regional fellowship of churches.
“The associations were extremely important to early Baptists. They provided Christian fellowship, a forum for discussion of Baptist concerns, a means to propagate Baptist teachings, and an effective way to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches. Associations also participated together in common causes, such as issuing confessions of faith and working for religious liberty.” (http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm, Baptist Beginnings, by Leon McBeth)
As McBeth noted, “The associations were extremely important to early Baptists. . . . They provided . . . an effective way to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches.” No doubt, the Surry Association understood itself to be functioning in such a manner. Flat Rock church had been invited to the meeting at which the Surry Association discussed the church’s decision. The pastor, Bailey Nelson, “said Flat Rock's leadership knew no ‘solution’ short of withdrawing her call as pastor would satisfy the membership committee, so they declined the meeting.” (see APB News story).
Was the Surry Association’s decision the right one? From their perspective, and the perspective of many Baptists, their decision was correct. The association was fulfilling one of its most important functions: monitoring and maintaining correct Baptist doctrine, and calling a member church into accountability for a biblical and theological decision the association believed was inconsistent with Baptist doctrine. Given the fact the SBC has repeatedly affirmed the pastoral role as “limited to men as qualified by Scripture,” the decision to expel Flat Rock church from the association was correct.
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
(The quotations above are provided as a context for the following observations.)
Flat Rock Baptist Church in Mount Airy North Carolina was expelled recently from the Surry Baptist Association because the church had called a female pastor (see the related story at http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6626/53/). Two important questions are at stake in this event. First, does a church have the “right” to call a woman as a pastor? Second, does a larger Baptist body (an association, state or national convention) have the “right” to expel a church for calling a woman as pastor?
Let’s look first at the issue of the larger body and its right and responsibility to respond to member churches on the basis of biblical and theological questions. As noted above, the motion at the 1999 meeting of the SBC took into consideration both the right and responsibility of churches, associations and general bodies to expect member bodies to adhere to Baptist doctrine. From the beginning of the church in Jerusalem, doctrinal issues have been defined and enforced. Acts 15 gives an account of an early discussion about proper doctrine.
Early in the life of Baptists, associations played a large role in defining who Baptist were and what they believed. “The oldest form of organization, beyond the local church, was the association, and it remains a vital part of Baptist denominational structure today. From the first, Baptists entered into fellowship and common cause with other believers who shared their faith. As early as 1624 and again in 1630, several General Baptist churches in London acted together in discussing doctrine and in corresponding with other believers. Though they had no formal association, they showed a sense of cooperation and common identity.
“By 1650, the Baptist association was well established. The name and geographical concept probably were adaptations of a civil unit in England, much like a county. During the English Civil War (1642-45), much of the country was divided into "associations" for political purposes. After the war Baptists continued to use this concept and name for their regional fellowship of churches.
“The associations were extremely important to early Baptists. They provided Christian fellowship, a forum for discussion of Baptist concerns, a means to propagate Baptist teachings, and an effective way to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches. Associations also participated together in common causes, such as issuing confessions of faith and working for religious liberty.” (http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm, Baptist Beginnings, by Leon McBeth)
As McBeth noted, “The associations were extremely important to early Baptists. . . . They provided . . . an effective way to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches.” No doubt, the Surry Association understood itself to be functioning in such a manner. Flat Rock church had been invited to the meeting at which the Surry Association discussed the church’s decision. The pastor, Bailey Nelson, “said Flat Rock's leadership knew no ‘solution’ short of withdrawing her call as pastor would satisfy the membership committee, so they declined the meeting.” (see APB News story).
Was the Surry Association’s decision the right one? From their perspective, and the perspective of many Baptists, their decision was correct. The association was fulfilling one of its most important functions: monitoring and maintaining correct Baptist doctrine, and calling a member church into accountability for a biblical and theological decision the association believed was inconsistent with Baptist doctrine. Given the fact the SBC has repeatedly affirmed the pastoral role as “limited to men as qualified by Scripture,” the decision to expel Flat Rock church from the association was correct.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
A Theory of Everything, or the Truth about Everything
“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”
In two episodes of the Science Channel’s “Through the Wormhole” a few nights ago, two intriguing issues were raised. In “How Does the Universe Work?”, the question of a theory of everything was addressed. This “final theory,” a single mathematical formula that governs and explains the workings of the entire universe, is a kind of Holy Grail for the scientific community. Thus far, the theory has eluded the best scientific minds of human history. In “Faster than Light,” the discussion was about how scientists are grappling with the limitations of speed. Supposedly, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The program highlighted the theories of those who have developed ideas about how the limitations of the speed of light can be circumvented. What does all this have to do with the image and likeness of God in man?
First of all, the problems of space travel associated with the limitations imposed by the law of the speed of light highlight an interesting feature of the creation story in Genesis 1. God imposed limiting categories when he created the physical universe. The physical laws God instituted in creation are universal: they apply at all times and all places. To work well and efficiently, we all must honor and conform to these laws (the same is true of ethical and spiritual laws). For instance, in flying, mankind uses the laws of aerodynamics to help him overcome, in a sense, the law of gravity. These laws of aerodynamics must be honored and obeyed if we are to fly. Further, the law of gravity cannot be ignored when “flying machines” are constructed.
The laws of gravity and aerodynamics are, in essence, mathematical formulas. These formulas are immutable and sovereign; we ignore them at our peril. Additionally, some see in these formulas the hope of identifying a theory of everything. If such a theory could be advanced, some argue, then we would be able to understand how our universe and all its constituent parts work. Interestingly, Scripture gives us a “theory of everything,” or, we would argue, the truth about everything. The biblical truth of everything is rooted in the person of God himself.
At this point, we encounter the “image and likeness of God” in man and the paradox of man and the theory of everything. First, if the theory of everything, the final theory, can be stated as a mathematical formula, then all things in the universe can be expressed in terms of mathematics. The paradox for theoretical scientists and their final theory, as I see it, is the wholly irrational behavior of human beings. How can our illogical and irrational behavior, based on decisions in themselves irrational and illogical, be reduced to a mathematical formula?
“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Interestingly, both image and likeness are words referring to physical expressions. The term “likeness” is found in Exodus 20.4: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” Further, Paul used the equivalent Greek term for likeness in Romans 1.23 where he stated mankind had “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”
We believe, though, the image and likeness of God is more than a simple physical manifestation. We look for something deeper, something internal, something by which we humans are defined and distinguished from all other life forms. Perhaps, the paradox of man’s irrational and illogical behavior is a clue to understanding the image of God. We are free to choose to obey or disobey God’s laws. We have a will; we are capable of making decisions. We can choose to do one thing or the other. All other life forms are without the ability to make these kinds of decisions.
We are sentient beings, so, we are conscious of ourselves and others. We choose to interact with others or not to interact with them. The great apes, for instance, operate within the laws of nature, their every behavior being predetermined and scripted. Apes do not choose to interact with humans; we choose to interact with them. Gorillas and chimpanzees do not gather for the purpose of deciding which group will live where, or how they will share food resources. The life and behavior of apes might be expressed in a mathematical formula. We humans, on the other hand, cannot be described with a formula. Too much of our behavior is unscripted and surprising. Some kill animals, some do not. Some give their lives to preserve life, while others take life to preserve their own. We humans are, as Mr. Spock often observed, illogical beings.
We are the way we are because of how God made us. When we recognize and accept the image of God in ourselves, we then live productive and healthy lives. When we ignore that image and likeness, we sin, and pay the price for our freedom to choose. As a result of our freedom to act, we have incurred a terrible consequence: death. This consequence of our sin resulted in another mathematically irrational act: the vicarious death of Jesus on the Cross. If law was supreme, we would all be without hope and would die the ultimate death: eternal separation from our Creator.
Fortunately for us, God is sovereign, not the laws he instituted. Thus, he was able to solve the problem of our irrational and illogical behavior, our sin, and offer to us the opportunity to accept that solution and avoid the consequence of our sin.
The sad truth about any final theory scientists might articulate is the utter hopelessness of such a theory. If all we are can be reduced to a mathematical formula, then, all we can do is live and die. That is what physical law alone demands. Thankfully, God, not physical law, is sovereign. “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The law of Grace, not a theory of everything, is our hope.
Genesis 1.26
In two episodes of the Science Channel’s “Through the Wormhole” a few nights ago, two intriguing issues were raised. In “How Does the Universe Work?”, the question of a theory of everything was addressed. This “final theory,” a single mathematical formula that governs and explains the workings of the entire universe, is a kind of Holy Grail for the scientific community. Thus far, the theory has eluded the best scientific minds of human history. In “Faster than Light,” the discussion was about how scientists are grappling with the limitations of speed. Supposedly, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The program highlighted the theories of those who have developed ideas about how the limitations of the speed of light can be circumvented. What does all this have to do with the image and likeness of God in man?
First of all, the problems of space travel associated with the limitations imposed by the law of the speed of light highlight an interesting feature of the creation story in Genesis 1. God imposed limiting categories when he created the physical universe. The physical laws God instituted in creation are universal: they apply at all times and all places. To work well and efficiently, we all must honor and conform to these laws (the same is true of ethical and spiritual laws). For instance, in flying, mankind uses the laws of aerodynamics to help him overcome, in a sense, the law of gravity. These laws of aerodynamics must be honored and obeyed if we are to fly. Further, the law of gravity cannot be ignored when “flying machines” are constructed.
The laws of gravity and aerodynamics are, in essence, mathematical formulas. These formulas are immutable and sovereign; we ignore them at our peril. Additionally, some see in these formulas the hope of identifying a theory of everything. If such a theory could be advanced, some argue, then we would be able to understand how our universe and all its constituent parts work. Interestingly, Scripture gives us a “theory of everything,” or, we would argue, the truth about everything. The biblical truth of everything is rooted in the person of God himself.
At this point, we encounter the “image and likeness of God” in man and the paradox of man and the theory of everything. First, if the theory of everything, the final theory, can be stated as a mathematical formula, then all things in the universe can be expressed in terms of mathematics. The paradox for theoretical scientists and their final theory, as I see it, is the wholly irrational behavior of human beings. How can our illogical and irrational behavior, based on decisions in themselves irrational and illogical, be reduced to a mathematical formula?
“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Interestingly, both image and likeness are words referring to physical expressions. The term “likeness” is found in Exodus 20.4: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” Further, Paul used the equivalent Greek term for likeness in Romans 1.23 where he stated mankind had “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”
We believe, though, the image and likeness of God is more than a simple physical manifestation. We look for something deeper, something internal, something by which we humans are defined and distinguished from all other life forms. Perhaps, the paradox of man’s irrational and illogical behavior is a clue to understanding the image of God. We are free to choose to obey or disobey God’s laws. We have a will; we are capable of making decisions. We can choose to do one thing or the other. All other life forms are without the ability to make these kinds of decisions.
We are sentient beings, so, we are conscious of ourselves and others. We choose to interact with others or not to interact with them. The great apes, for instance, operate within the laws of nature, their every behavior being predetermined and scripted. Apes do not choose to interact with humans; we choose to interact with them. Gorillas and chimpanzees do not gather for the purpose of deciding which group will live where, or how they will share food resources. The life and behavior of apes might be expressed in a mathematical formula. We humans, on the other hand, cannot be described with a formula. Too much of our behavior is unscripted and surprising. Some kill animals, some do not. Some give their lives to preserve life, while others take life to preserve their own. We humans are, as Mr. Spock often observed, illogical beings.
We are the way we are because of how God made us. When we recognize and accept the image of God in ourselves, we then live productive and healthy lives. When we ignore that image and likeness, we sin, and pay the price for our freedom to choose. As a result of our freedom to act, we have incurred a terrible consequence: death. This consequence of our sin resulted in another mathematically irrational act: the vicarious death of Jesus on the Cross. If law was supreme, we would all be without hope and would die the ultimate death: eternal separation from our Creator.
Fortunately for us, God is sovereign, not the laws he instituted. Thus, he was able to solve the problem of our irrational and illogical behavior, our sin, and offer to us the opportunity to accept that solution and avoid the consequence of our sin.
The sad truth about any final theory scientists might articulate is the utter hopelessness of such a theory. If all we are can be reduced to a mathematical formula, then, all we can do is live and die. That is what physical law alone demands. Thankfully, God, not physical law, is sovereign. “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The law of Grace, not a theory of everything, is our hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)