“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment