Weaver1has's Blog

Since Adam sinned things in the world got progressively worse.  By the time we get to Genesis 6 2 the Sons of God (rebellious angels) had relations with women and giants (Nephilim) came into being.

My main question is, who were these sons of God and what were their nature? 

This first discussion is a general overview of Angels from two theologians: Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg.  Karl Barth represents Theology from above par excellence and Pannenberg with his theology from below.

In Genesis 6² It is a sorry state of affairs as the Wickedness of Man has reached new heights of sin:

“Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”“ Genesis 6:1-7

I have chosen two theologians to begin with to try to find out the answer to this.  I may hit some dead ends, but it is better to have tried and failed than not to try at all.   I am starting with Pannenberg as he critiques Karl Barth but does Pannenberg’s own hypothesis stand up to theological scrutiny?

Pannenberg’s critique of Barth on ‘Angels’ and his ideas of ‘field’

Pannenberg begins by saying that Barth’s treatment of Angels in the 20^th century as he begins the section:

 “Karl Barth’s doctrine of angels in CD, 111/ 3 § 51 is the most important discussion of the theme in modern theology, but in the very full exposition of the biblical statements about the function of angels it does not go into this aspect.” (Systematic Theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg, volume 2 page 103)

Anyhow let us continue to look at Pannenberg’s view in closer detail.  In that same paragraph Pannenberg says that Barth was not interested in:

• The nature of Angels

But was interested in their:

• Function and ministry (cited Barth volume 3. 3 page 459)

For Barth the more important aspect was the ‘witness of angels’ to that of what angels actually did.  Thus the paragraph finishes with:

“It is understandable, then, that in Barth the cosmic functions of angels are in the background and receive only incidental mention (pp. 462f., 497).”

(From Systematic Theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg, volume 2 page 103)

Pannenberg makes some interesting points on Barth that, Barth wasn’t as interested as much in the nature of the angels but Pannenberg’s own point of view wants to smooth over his own epistemic cracks.  He goes on to say that:

“If we define forces like wind or fire or stars as angels of God, then we are relating them to God their Creator and to the human experience of being affected by them as servants of God or as demonic powers that oppose his will. Why should not natural forces in the forms in which we now know them be viewed as God’s servants and messengers, i.e., as angels?”

I have a problem with this as it appears to me Pannenberg is doing eisegesis… (Reading a 20^th -21^st century mindset into ancient documents). This also feeds into his use of ‘field’ which completely alien to the Biblical world. The Bible differentiated between natural forces and spiritual beings for example:

“11 The Lord said to Elijah, “Go, stand in front of me on the mountain, and I will pass by you.” Then a very strong wind blew until it caused the mountains to fall apart and large rocks to break in front of the Lord. But the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind, there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake, there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. After the fire, there was a quiet, gentle sound. 13 When Elijah heard it, he covered his face with his coat and went out and stood at the entrance to the cave.”

As well as natural phenomena angels in the Bible are very personal:

“God heard the lad crying; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter with you, Hagar? Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is.” Genesis 21:17

Instead Pannenberg emphasises impersonal aspects and reading ‘thermodynamic description of conditions for the rise and evolution of life.”

In reality, Pannenberg’s angelology brings us to a dead end, and it does not bring me any closer to understand what Genesis 6 2 was all about with the sons of God. 

However, from Pannenberg’s point of view that Barth was not interested as much in the nature of angels other that ‘witness’.

Reflection on Pannenberg’s thesis on angels.

He started to critique Barth on the nature of angels but instead Pannenberg builds on his own eisegetical foundations and builds up a new myth. The myth that Natural phenomena were described as angels in the ancient world mind using terms from physics such as thermodynamics and field are better ways to explain God and creation.

This is nonsense and it makes a complete mockery of the Old Testament.  It shows no empathy to the original writers of the Bible and usurps key ideas with the above foreign concepts. Just to clarify the ancient mind certainly differentiated between natural phenomena and angels.  Six days of creation is a lot easier to understands than force fields and thermodynamics,

Karl Barth on the limits of Angelology

The limits of Angelology

Karl Barth sets the limits of angelology between the two extremes of  mythologising and demythologising. Page 79 (See Bibliography at the end)

Barth  says “How are we to steer a way between this Scylla and Charybdis, between the far too interesting mythology of the ancients and the far too uninteresting “demythologisation” of most of the moderns? How are we to advance without becoming rash, exercising discretion without overlooking what has to be seen, not saying too much and yet not failing to say what has to be said?”

 He has a point and being aware of scholastic tradition of asking questions such as how many angels dance on the end of a needle, I can understand his concerns. 

Barth continues to say that

“The limit is to be seen in the fact that the name and concept of angels denotes a reality which is distinct both from God and man, and therefore distinct from the true and central content of the Word of God although intimately related to it.” Page 80

In this section Barth delineates two dangers into looking at angelology:

1. We might not do any research on angels because we are on uncertain superfluous territory

2. We allow fear to exclude from the dogmatic investigation and hence miss out on what God can teach us about God’s Kingdom truths.

Barth then gives us some information under subheadings for researchin angels

1. We must allow our knowledge to come from the Holy Scriptures. For example Barth writes “According to the witness of the Old and New Testaments, to this revelation and work of God there belongs also the character of the kingdom of God as the kingdom of heaven, and the angels as His heavenly messengers. They belong to it in a particular way, not as leading but subsidiary characters, and these not as autonomous subjects but merging as it were into their function, which is wholly and exemplarily that of service.”(Page 82)

He quotes Calvin at the end of this subsidiary first point (Instit.,I, 14,4):,”The existence of angels is not established by probable arguments derived from philosophy, or by speculations on possible levels of creaturely being and the structure of the universe …. or by human testimony or by various experiencs, but apodictically, by the absolutely clear and repeated assertion of Scripture”

2.  The question of how to interpret scripture is also important.  Barth is aware of movements that would attempt to say that particular text is more historical than others.  Barth even talks about differences in false and true mythologies and sagas.  Just because something cannot be verified as historical does not make it less historical.  I think what Barth is getting at the importance to allow the text of Scripture to talk to us by the Holy Spirit and not to water down its content.  Here the agenda is ‘faith seeking understanding’ which went in the opposite direction of contemporary scholarship which was to disect eveything and come from my point of view to false conclusions. On page 85 Barth says:

“The whole history of the Bible, while it intends to be and is real spatio-temporal history, has a constant bias towards the sphere where it cannot be verified by the ordinary analogies of world history but can be seen and grasped only imaginatively and represented in the form of poetry. How can it be otherwise when it is the history of the work and revelation of God, which as such, as the history of the action and lordship of the Lord of heaven and earth, although it can also take place in the comparatively narrow sphere of historically verifiable occurrence, is not confined to the sphere of ordinary earthly analogies? To some extent the angels mark this transition, this reaching of the incommensurable into the commensurable, of mystery into the sphere of known possibilities. For this reason they particularly are figures of biblical saga and legend. This does not count against them. It is a factual explanation of their distinctive being and action not is it a concession to modern thought.” (page 85)

3. In this section Barth explains that if angels are to be in theological in character then we need to follow the “…the sequence, relationship and consequence disclosed in the statement credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I understand (…in order to understand)).” In this third point Barth looks at the history of interpretation in the church how it was abused in the tradition.  Actually it is very lengthy and he goes into minute detail of how angelology was treated from the early Church to the present day.

He also has a fourth and fifth section but this is enough for us to contemplate.  The whole thrust of Barth is faith seeking understanding. Not a faith based on false premises but a faith which has the Biblical axiom of accepting the existnce of God to be the starting point and then to follow through Scripture what it has to say.  This goes in the opposited direction of the modern method of ‘doubting everything’.

Reflection

Here we find a fascinating study about angels, but it did not answer my question on what Genesis 6^2, meant about the sons of God.  Next time we will continue our quest to find out who the Sons of God Were.  Just to summarize then we looked at angels from two opposing perspectives within the Church tradition.  On the one hand we had Pannenberg with his theology from below wanting to push angels into the sphere of naturalism and demythologise angels by making them aspects of nature on earth as a reminder he said,” Why should not natural forces in the forms in which we now know them be viewed as God’s servants and messengers, i.e., as angels?”

Next time we will look at other texts on the Sons of God (DSS Dead Sea Scrolls findings from cave 4) and also use the Septuagint (One of the Second Temples Old Testaments (written in Greek and used by the Apostles and the Orthodox Churches as their main Bible)).  We will consider various interpretations on the Sons of God and come to some conclusions.

The third blog will be I hope a return to John Calvin’s and Herman Bavincks interpretation of the Sons of God.  They have a lot of interesting things to say about the lines of Cain and Seth.  This is important because the main thrust of Genesis 6 is not on the demonology of the Sons of God but rather on the sins of the sons of Adam.

Bibliography

Systematic Theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg, volume 2 page 103, et al

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume Iii, The Doctrine, Of Creation Section 51

NASB Bible, Holman publishers.

Before I start my blog, I remember in Ankara a bus conductor in the 1990s hand me a coin and it had this picture of Jesus on it. I was visiting the Theological faculty in Ankara in the 1990s to see a certain Religious Studies expert on my MA thesis… Obviously I handed the coin to a lecturer there.

When God created Adam, He went to a lot of trouble. God took the soil, formed him and then breathed into Adam the breath of life. Adam (and Eve) were created in the image of God. All the elements of a covenant were in place. Paul even calls Adam a type (figure) of Christ. The Greek word tupos is literally the mark left by the seal in the clay (Vine’s Greek dictionary). Adam had all the faculties for making a rational decision. God’s test was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam was made of the earth and yet there was the possibility of eternal life through obedience. If he had obeyed God, he would have passed into the joy of the Lord without tasting death. Some theologians say that God knew the outcome of this test of the covenant of works. Yet this was not the end for mankind but only the beginning. The very fact of Adam’s existence pointed beyond itself to the Messiah. Adam in the Hebrew makes an acrostic:

Aleph, Daleth, Mem
• Abraham
• David
• Messiah
(ADaM= A, D and M; the first letters of Abraham, David and Messiah)

I read this online, but I don’t know how Judaism came up with the above acrostic, but I do find it interesting that in the Hebrew Adam’s name works as an acrostic and a road map for the Second Adam Christ. In the same line of thought I found Karl Barth’s view of Adam in relation to Christ interesting too from his Roman’s commentary:

“As a sinner in the invisible and non-historical meaning of the “word; Adam is—the figure of him that was to come. The shadow in which he stands bears witness to the light of Christ. Were this not so the shadow would be invisible to us. The shadow also provides us with a standard by which we may measure the light and perceive its nature. The invisible constitution of this world is, if the minus sign outside the bracket be changed into plus, the constitution of the new world which is to come. ‘The secret of Adam is the secret of the Messiah’ (a Rabbinic saying).” (From Karl Barth’s early Roman’s commentary; Oxford university press page 175)

When I look into the mirror, I can see my image, but it is only an image of me, but it is still a true image of my likeness. When I am walking, and the sun is shining behind me I can see my shadow, but the shadow is still real, and it still shows my silhouette. In the same way Adam is in the image of God, Christ is the original prototype. From what I have read Adam was in the garden and probation through the covenant of works. He had all the capacity to make rational decisions of whether to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Although Satan deceived Adam and Eve this was no excuse. The moment that the fruit was eaten Humankind became separated from their Creator. God however did not give up on Humankind and thus the road of redemption had already begun with the naming of Adam, the reflection of Christ somehow. From my point of view, it was inevitable for Adam to sin. Adam was special he was of heaven and earth. Although he was made with soil, he had a living soul that could have continued the walk to heaven. This is what happened to Enoch, when God took him and he did not taste death.
But this is where the comparison of Adam to Christ must end. Having said that; Will Adam be in heaven? I don’t know but it isn’t impossible. This verse at the end of Hebrews 11 is interesting:

“39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.” Hebrews 11:39-40

God also spoke with the Messianic prophecy:

“And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.” Genesis 3:15

Later when Eve got a child she said:

“Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a man child with the help of the LORD.” Genesis 4:1

Eve talks about with the ‘help of the Lord’. This is putting her trust in God.
I’m just raising possibilities:

1. Was it common grace that God made clothes for Adam and Eve?
2. Was it common grace that God helped Eve with childbirth?
3. Are there other indicators?
   

Anyhow this is where the similarities of the First Adam and the Second Adam end. Jesus and Adam had the same nature, and they were both true human beings but through obedience or disobedience we see their roads diverge. For salvation to come to humankind Jesus had to be of the same nature as Adam… This is the reason I believe Paul does not Call Adam an ‘anti-type’ but a ‘type’ or ‘figure’ of Christ. If Jesus was an anti-type then this would mean Jesus was not truly human. Lets consider this from Hebrews:

“Therefore, He (Jesus) had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” Hebrews 2:17-18

God knew from the beginning of creation that humans cannot get to heaven on their own. Adam was tempted but so was Jesus. Our Lord overcame the temptation that Adam was unable to. As human beings we are not any different to Adam, we have all sinned and turned our back on God. It is only through God’s gift of grace that we can even have faith.
So How does Christ fit into all of this and how does this affect our salvation?

Christ in relation to the resurrection order and our future lives as believers.
1 Corinthians 15 and the first section had a lot of ifs. In this next section I only see our future life in Christ with a resurrected body. This is a very important subject for all times and Paul does not hold back but shows us that in Christ we are going to have a real resurrected body. After we die, if we stay in spirit form, how will someone know us?

On the other hand, if we have a real body then we can be recognized immediately. It is through our speech, the way we look, the gestures we show that people know who we are. This is the inheritance we have in Christ. In Christ we will be made perfect even as he is perfect.

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 NASB

20 Νυνὶ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων.

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

This is very straight forward. There are no ‘ifs’ here but certainty. The phrase’ has been raised from the dead’ this is in the perfect tense. The perfect tense an action that has happened in the past but has continual effect for all time. Here Jesus is ‘the first fruits’. He is the first man to be raised from the dead. The first fruits are the first agricultural offering to God, but I think it can also be used of the first person in a family to be born (especially in Jewish thought). The equivalent to first fruit is Bikkurim meaning ‘promise to come’ (https://get.tithe.ly/blog/first-fruit)

With reference to the firstborn person, the Hebrew word is bekor. A Jewish use of the term I find helpful to give us a deeper understanding of it being used for Christ;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firstborn_(Judaism)

Where it says first fruits(plural) I don’t know if I agree with the NASB here. First fruit is in the feminine singular. I would translate the verse as and now Christ has been raised from the dead who is the first fruit from those who are asleep. Before being conclusive I think one needs to read and compare other translations and commentaries on this text. This is my interpretation for what it is trying to say. It may be that the translators wanted to somehow follow the Hebrew Bekkorim (plural)

There are other reasons why I would translate it as this. If one reads all the verses up to verse 28 one can see that Christ is the subject not the church or the dead believers.

When we look at the section of ‘those who have fallen asleep’ this is a verbal noun or participle in Greek, and it is in the perfect! I find this encouraging because the sleep is in Christ the first fruit from the dead. When we die, we will also sleep in Christ and we will rise with Christ. This is our hope. All the mystery religions found it Corinth could not give this promise;

In relation to the mystery religions I found Terri D. Moore’s paper from Dallas theological seminary College very interesting; http://tdarbymoore.com/

Her dissertation on the mystery religions I think may have a lot more bearing on how we understand parts of 1 Corinthians.

I will continue to publish on this page until I hit verse 28 so if you are a subscriber you might not see this new add ons so please every few day have a look. It takes time to write this blog especially as I need to check my facts and make correct judgements. As I see the Bible as sacred scripture I feel it important to comment in a reverential way and give God the glory.

Added 04.01.2021

Verse 21

21 ἐπειδὴ γὰρ δι’ ἀνθρώπου θάνατος, καὶ δι’ ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν·

. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

Here is a woody translation for you without verbs; ‘For since by a man death and by a man resurrection from the dead.’

The verb in the English translation was added to get the sense of the meaning! Translators do these types of things to make it easier for us to understand the actual text.

For ‘by a man’ or ‘though a man’. This man, human being is not mentioned yet but we know who he is talking about; Adam from the garden. It is through this man that death came into the world, but we also know that it was by a man, a human being namely Christ that there would be a resurrection from the dead. This is a very important verse because it compares Adam and Christ. They were both the same in that they were human beings, but they had different functions namely;

Through Adam came death
Through Christ came eternal life in a physical body

One man brought death to the human race and the other man eternal life. I know who I want to follow! We don’t have any serious verbs in the comparison here, but we certainly get the meaning

Feel free to visit my other blog https://hasan-godtalk.blogspot.com/

09.01.2021

22 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται.

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

In this verse we now have the actual names of those who are responsible for life and death. Adam and Christ are mentioned. Hosper gar is best translated as ‘For as’; The word ‘for’ is important because it points to what preceded it. The important point we learned is that both Adam and Christ were fully human.

A theological digression

At the creation as Bavinck would say humanity did not lose their humanity until after the fall but sin changed their humanity somehow. When we think of death it can mean for some non-being but as Bavinck says spiritual death is never non-being but rather a state. He says on page 93, Reformed Ethics, Herman Bavinck. The state of natural humanity is generally called death. This death means a life that is lived in opposition to God. In this natural state we stand corrupted, and we need Jesus Christ by his Holy Spirit to bring new life into us.

To put it bluntly.
Jesus Christ died on the cross so that we may have eternal life, in the future, a new physical eternal life! Looking at the verse again we have two verbs to die and to live. The first verb in regard to Adam is in the present and now, but the second verb that relates to Christ, and us, is in the future! Paul makes sure that we understand our future hope…

10.01.2021

The resurrection and the events around it will follow a particular order;

Christ the First Fruit verse 23
Those who belong to Christ at his second coming verse 23
‘The end’ When Christ hands over the Church (Kingdom) to the Father verse 24
This includes ‘death’ verse 26
When all things have been subjected to the Father
Then the Son will also subject himself to the Father.
Then there is ‘completion’ verse 28 all in all

From my reading of this text we are brought into to be sharers of this divine Trinitarian life of God
So let us recap what we have learned.
Verse 20; Christ has been raised from the dead intro…
Verse 21; through an ordinary person death came into the world so to through an ordinary person life would enter the world once again.
Verse 22; Namely through Adam’s disobedience death came into the world but through the work of Christ all could be brought to life
Verse 23; The order of the resurrection and allied activities start; Christ the first fruit; His Church at his second coming
Verses 24- 26; At the end Christ will reign until all enemies including death are subjected to Christ.
Verses 27 -28; At the end when Christ is in complete control of everything good and bad, he will subject himself to the Father. In Christ we are brought into the Divine Life of the Trinity in the ‘all in all’ perfection.
Let us now look at some background stuff. Psalm 8 is not any ordinary Psalm; For Christians it is a Messianic Psalm and it is about the Son of Man; one of the titles of Jesus Christ the anointed one. This Psalm is seen as a reference to the Kingship of Christ in relationship to YHWH (Tetragrammaton).

Reflection
God’s grace is amazing. Even though Adam fell into sin God still took care of him. We see this through God clothing Adam and Eve and helping Eve with childbirth. God even gave advice to Caine not to murder his brother. Even in the fallen state the Gifts God gave to us through Adam are still with us. Even in the fallen state humanity is still the ‘image of God’. Humanity did not lose their sovereignty over the earth. Although my opinion is perhaps it would have been better for the world and God’s creation that we were not given such a responsibility as we seem to be destroying this beautiful creation. We can clearly see that in the covenant of Work it was impossible for humans to even keep the simplest commands.
Into this situation God had a remedy. God would become a man and be sacrificed so that a way could be opened up for us to gain eternal life through the covenant of faith:

“42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.” 1 Corinthians 15:42-49

Adam Christ
A living soul A life giving Spirit
Perishable body imperishable body
Sown in dishonour raised in glory
Sown in weakness raised in power
Sown a natural body raised a spiritual body
We deserved to die but God did not give up on us. St Paul gives us a list of what we have gained!

In the creation story ‘evil’ is not mentioned until Genesis 2:9

“Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Genesis 2:9

It perplexed me why there was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place.  The tree itself, of itself was not evil but good.  However, we know that God gave Adam one command; not to eat its fruit.

He ate the fruit and sin and death came into the world.  We sometimes don’t realize but there are other forces involved in this story.  I am suggesting that Satan spoke through the snake.  Perhaps even king David was enticed by Satan to number the people and the situation ended badly with God’s Angels holding a sword our ready to smite the people in Jerusalem:

“Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to count the people of Israel.” 1 Chronicles 21:1 (From the Christian Standard Bible. ‘Incited’ is a clearer translation than ‘moved’ from the NASB)

Satan even tried to use Peter:

“From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”” Matthew 16:21-23

We could also mention Judas who ended up taking his own life. In the workings of Satan, it should be no surprise that one of his tools is to infect the human mind and cause a lot of catastrophes.  It ought to be no surprise for us that Satan used the snake to cause a seed of doubt. 

Is this the origin of evil and sin?

For human beings this is indeed the origin for the human race, but Herman Bavinck contends that before this fall there was another Fall, the fall of the rebellious angels.  The leader of these rebellious angels made his way into Eden with the sole intention of destroying the human race. 

Evil spiritual forces love to see false teachers finding their way into the Church. Satan is mentioned twice in the following text:

“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” 1 Timothy 3:1-7

This passage gives us clues on how the evil spiritual forces cause destruction.

Bavinck believes that the first Fall happened in heaven but obviously it happened after creation but before the Fall of Adam and Eve:

“On the other hand, it is certain that the fall of the angels preceded that of man. Sin did not break out first on earth, but in heaven, in the immediate vicinity of God, at the foot of His throne. The thought, the desire, the will to resist God first arose in the hearts of angels; perhaps pride was the first sin and thus the beginning and the principle of their fall. In 1 Tim. 3: 6 Paul advises not to immediately elect someone who has only been a member of the congregation for a short time, because then he becomes easily inflated and falls into the devil’s judgment. If, as the Cantonese note says, the judgment of the devil is meant, the judgment into which the devil fell when he exalted himself against God because of his wisdom, then we have a clue here that the devil’s sin began with self-exaltation and pride.” (From Magnalia Dei; Chapter on sin and death)

Reflection

Even if a person rejects the teachings of the Bible, it is a fact that there is rebellion and spiritual corruption in the world. We cannot escape it. The New Testament Apostles and our Lord believed in a literal Adam and Eve and hence I follow the same rule. For Christians sin and spiritual death (corruption) are objective facts. We all carry this baggage and that is why God had to become a man. As Irenaeus may say, through the Second Adam a close relationship with God through grace is open again to us(Recapitulation). By the Holy Spirit through the gift of grace and faith there is no dividing wall separating sinners from eternal separation from God. Next time we will consider what the new Testament says about Christ and the first Adam.

Today I want to look at the creation of Man, Adam and Eve.  I want to begin by looking at the perfection of Adam and Eve that they were perfect.  There was nothing wrong with their intelligence as they were indeed created in the image and likeness of God. John Owen the great Puritan wrote:

“The Natural Theology of Man

Adam was created in the image of God…This means that Adam had the wisdom, justice and holiness of God.  These are moral and rational qualities (Genesis 1. 26-27; Ecclesiastes 7.29; Colossians 3.10; Ephesians 4.23-24) (John Owen; Biblical Theology; chapter 4; soli deo gloria publications)).  “

Before we move on let us look at the text of Scripture:

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Genesis 1:26-29

And again later on it says:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 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. 8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:4-9

I want to take the above as proof texts for the creation of Man.  I want to look deeper into the text here to find out what ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ means.  I want to know what it means for God to breathe into Adam and brings him to life.  I want to later look on Adams relationship to the rest of the created beings.  When we have done this, we will have a holistic picture of Adam. 

I will be mainly sticking to the Christological Trinitarian meta-narrative.  This will at times differ from the liberal road which does not accept the possibility of Divine revelation.  For example:

When it says in Genesis ‘Then God said let us make man in our image’ the liberal way of thinking is to naturalize and interpret this as God speaking to the angels.  I have a problem with this because angels were also created beings.

I’m not writing off the hard work liberal theologians have put on the text but I cannot agree with their conclusions. From that point of view, we are dealing with the same facts but seeing God’s Holy Revelation with different spectacles.

My Methodology

• I will look at the text from the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Greek Septuagint
• I will look at key words, parsing of verbs, phrases and how it is interpreted in other parts of the Old Testament
• I will look at various commentaries (Whatever I have to hand)

Once we have done this work, we should have a better understanding of Adam and Eve.

Translation Questions in the Masoretic and Septuagint

It is a well known fact that the Apostles used the Septuagint (LXX). This is why it is good to compare these two wonderful translations. Having read a little further the Orhtodox Churches prefer the LXX to the Masoretic.  Upto the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, Judaism too used the LXX. It is only after the destruction of the Temple that Christianity and Judaism (Rabbinic ‘Pharisaic rooted Judaism’) went their separate ways.  The Masoretic text is important because it keeps us in touch with our Semitic faith roots but the LXX is also important because the Apostles used it most of the time. 

After the groundwork has been done and we go into the Fall we will be looking at for example Saint Paul’s interpretation of the fall. We may gain a deeper understanding of Why Christ is referred to as the second Adam in 1 Corinthians 15.

I wrote on this in the Corinthians course on my web site and I feel this study will give us more insight into God’s precious word and the Word (Logos).

Man as the ‘image of God’

Genesis as we have seen earlier has been a critique of polytheism so you might be shocked to read that Man was made in the image and likeness of God. We can begin by saying tselem (image) is related to tsel (shadow). One blogger on this definition wrote that what an individual does their shadow follows suit.  This does not mean that image relates to form (although it can).  Here the context would be closer to having God’s wisdom and being God’s image bearer. (From; hebrewwordlessons.com/2019/03/24/tselem-being-image-bearers/)

Going a little deeper in the ancient world, the only person who could bear an image of a god was pharaoh or some Akkadian, Babylonian king. Here in this context in Genesis, bearing God’s image has been taken to mean that we all bear the image of God.  No longer did it mean that only one royal person could be God’s image.  For this reason, all human beings in the sight of God are precious.  There has been a democratization of the image of God, and we are all image bearers of God.  We were supposed to rule the world with justice and mercy but after the fall we chose to be ‘gods’ and have destroyed a lot of this beautiful world. (From; forward.com/culture/131691/one-image-to-make-man-and-woman/)

Reflection

Image of God is a seriously important concept. In the ancient world as was said, it was the ruler who was seen as the image of the gods. I once read or saw a video by Rabbi Sacks and he said something to the fact that Genesis here is a critique of the pagan rulers. ‘Image’ is not just for a ruler but for all of us. The image of God was a democratization of the human being. This in the ancient world would have been a revolutionary concept. It is a concept that is just as important today as it was then. Too many premature baby deaths who are the ‘image of God’. Too many politicians not living above disrepute but abusing their power in various ways. For Christians, me included the prototype of the image of God is our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord showed perfect love even death on a cross. Our road should also involve sacrifice by walking in love not looking out for our own selfish ends.