January 8, 2013 at 11:39 #565
Followup on discussion of article by Dave Snoke on Adam and EveJanuary 8, 2013 at 18:27 #567
In Dave’s article an Adam, he makes the assumption that Adam is the federal head of all mankind.
I’d like to discuss that assumption and suggest that Adam was a federal head, but not the federal head of all mankind.
For example, The King of Tyre, Ez. 28:13-14, appears to have inherited a covenant from his federal head, one of the cherubs that was guarding the way to the Tree of Life in Gen. 3:24.
People generally assume that a cherub is some sort of angel, yet we know that the Greek word angelos, merely means messenger and doesn’t carry any “angelic” or supernatural connotation. Similarly, we should apply the same consideration for cherub.
Cherub may be a loan worn from Sumerian, where a cher was essentially a customs agent and a rib was an officer. Thus a cher-rib would have been a customs officer.
We read that cherub of Ez. 28 has the spoils of Eden. He was made rich by taking the riches of the garden for himself and he had God’s blessings to do so at that time. A customs officer would have had many men under him.
This of course suggests that Adam was not the first human, but rather Adam lived in a populated, well-settled land. Ancient Sumer, sometime before 3000 BC fits the biblical description.
It also suggests that God made covenants with people other than Adam and his descendants. Each of these covenants was made with a new, separate federal head. The final covenant was made with Christ as the federal head. This would imply that Adam’s covenant has ended and that no one today is in Adam. Instead we are either in Christ, or completely outside of covenant with God.
In response, Dave claimed “2 Esdras and Tobit in the Apocrypha have very clear teaching that Adam was the progenitor of all humans.” I do not know Dave’s reference. However, 2 Esdras 6:54 reads, “And after these, Adam also, whom thou madest lord of all thy creatures: of him come we all, and the people also whom thou hast chosen.” This verse does not say all mankind comes from Adam, but that “we,” Esdras and his intended audience, come from Adam. Care needs to be made to not read ourselves into ancient letters.
Similarly, Tobit 8:6 reads, “Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for an helper and stay: of them came mankind: thou hast said, It is not good that man should be alone; let us make unto him an aid like unto himself.”
I am reminded of Jesus’ statement, “And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” What man was the sabbath made for? Adam? Certainly. Israel? Also certainly. The rest of mankind? That is debatable at best. Neither my ancestors in the British Isles nor my wife’s ancestors in western Africa knew anything of the sabbath. If the sabbath was made for all mankind, God didn’t do a good job of informing us until after the sabbath law was rescinded.
Ancient man, and most modern tribes in the world today, use “man” to describe themselves. We are men. The rest of you are something else. In ancient Hebrew, there are two words commonly translated “man,” one is Adam, the other is ish. One refers to “us,” the other refers to “them.”
Dave also countered with Acts 17:26 is similar: “from one man he made every nation.” The Greek root is haima, “blood” not “man.” Dave makes the claim that its the specific form of haima, specifically henos, that requires the verse to speak of a single masculine individual. Okay then, how does that work with Acts 1:19, 15:20, 20:26, 28 1 Cor. 10:16, 11:27, Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, 20, Heb. 2:14, 9:7, 12, 18, 11:28, 13:12, etc., where the same form of the same Greek word is also translated “blood?” And where besides Acts 17:26, has henos been translated into something other than blood?January 10, 2013 at 11:17 #571
Very interesting little fact that comes up here. Jeff is citing the “received text” which indeed has “one blood” in Acts 17:26. My Greek computer Bible just has “one” (masculine pronoun) with no word “blood”. It is the Nestle-Aland version which I believe is called the “majority text”. The latter is taken as more trustworthy since it uses many sources instead of just one, as the received text does (which is the basis of the King James). So basically, if you hold to the King James, Jeff’s point may be valid, though I would still like to hear from a Greek scholar about the usage here.January 10, 2013 at 18:28 #572
I might add, all three translate the rest of the verse slightly different, but this part is essentially the same.
January 12, 2013 at 06:49 #575
- This reply was modified 6 years, 6 months ago by Jeffrey Vaughn.
Haimatos or blood is present a number of manuscripts but not in Aleph, A & B. Given the priority that Westcott and Hort give to these MS, then, it would be left out. AT Robertson regards haimatos as a later explanatory addition. If one is inclined towards the textus receptus as with the KJV, then haimatos is present. However, even without it, “one” without an article gives us a qualitative sense. So Paul is affirming the unity of humanity. In that sense, adding “blood” , even if not in the autograph, serves a purpose of conveying that qualitative sense rather than pointing directly to Adam.January 12, 2013 at 07:27 #576
I would add a note to my comment. The battle between textual traditions – the Western versus Westcott-Hort MS traditions covers a long history. It has also moved beyond that to some degree. The Nestle-Alund Green NT is mostly Westcott-Hort but additional scholarship/judgement has weighed in. Yet W-H have been criticized for their excessive dependence on a few MS such as B which are not as good as they once thought. So ultimately, what you do with haimatos will come down to a battle over these two traditions, which will no doubt be futile and unreasonable for people here. My feeling is that haimatos, regardless of whether it is in the autograph or not, serves an important function, one that was recognized early on, as to clarifying and preserving how they understood “one”. In other words, in the event that haimatos was a later addition (and I will not take sides) it accurately clarified the intended sense of “one”.January 12, 2013 at 18:12 #579
Okay then David, even if Nestle-Aland is correct, it doesn’t require a reading that all descended from Adam, neither biologically nor covenantally. That is, it doesn’t require Adam to be the federal head of all mankind.
Do you have any other reasons for rejecting consideration of Adam as federal head of a bibically important subset of mankind? There’s tradition of course, but do you have any other biblical reasons?January 14, 2013 at 08:47 #580
I do not think this is very easy to resolve from the Biblical data. Gen 3 refers to two seeds, one from Eve one from the Serpent. Reference is made to this in the NT (John 8:44, 1 John 3:16, Jude 1:11 – see Num 16). That Eve is the mother of all the living needs definition. All the living would include all animal life if not restricted. Furthermore the use of the perfect tense suggests this is completed before she has a child or else a prophetic perfect pointing to Christ perhaps.January 14, 2013 at 11:20 #581
All very true Gandaulf.
Add to that, in the NT, the living are those in Christ and the dead are those outside of Christ. and we have a possible definition of “living” that is very restricted and denies the frequently assumed biology of Gen. 3.
If living is covenantally defined as this suggests, then Cain was not Eve’s son in the “living” sense, and all those who are part of true Israel are Eve’s sons whether they share her mitochondrial DNA or not. By accepting Christ, you become part of Eve’s seed.January 15, 2013 at 07:11 #582
Just a correction – I posted 1 John 3:16 but should have been 1 John 3:12
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.