B+, try harder next time :)
Submitted by F.O.D. on March 28 1999 at 15:00:35
In reply to theological/biblical/psychological anthropology Submitted by Ray on March 23 1999 at 06:18:31
|
Well, I've finally got back to this one. That sounds quite fair, seeing all of Gen 1-11 as an integral whole. That would fit in with the change of focus and tone in Gen 12 when we turn to Abraham. "punishment as the natural consequence for sin rather than the effect of blind divine rage" - that idea seems to be consistent with Rom 1, where we find the phrase "God gave them over..." I'm not completely convinced about the notion of doing away with the Fall, though. It seems to miss a number of points. For instance, the verse you started with, Rom 5, refers to the sin of the one man, Adam, so that we, the many, died by the trespass of the one man. That seems to indicate that the consequence of the representative individual's sin flowed on to all people. Indeed, if you remove the Fall interpretation of Gen 3, then basically what you are saying is that we all have an equal a priori unblemished status of Adam, and therefore theoretically any one of us could be sinless, that without Jesus. Furthermore, the language of the punishment in Gen 3 indicates a universal changing of the order of creation, the beginning of suffering which had not previously been there - the pains of childbirth, the harshness of working the ground. All this indicates a change of state - what was has passed away, because of the sin of Adam. While it makes sense saying that the origin accounts demonstrate the consequence of exceeding our limits, the Fall is precisely that, a changing of the order things as a consequence of Adam's transgressing the boundaries God gave him. And, as I said, not tying this to the one act of rebellion by Adam seems to go against the one-man language of Rom 5. Looking forward to your correction of my correction :) F.O.D. |