Adam that the woman is not just a reproductive mating partner. Her identity is that she is his ally, his other half.
We can now see that Genesis 2:24 makes more of a statement than we had envisioned. Becoming one flesh is not just a reference to the sexual act. The sexual act may be the one that rejoins them, but it is the rejoining that is the focus. When Man and Woman become one flesh, they are returning to their original state. 16
Previously in this chapter, we found reason to conclude that “formed from dust” was archetypal rather than a description pertaining to Adam alone. We have also seen reason to believe that “rib” should be understood as “side.” Furthermore, we have suggested that Adam has seen Eve’s formation in a vision but that the vision conveys an ontological truth with Eve serving as an archetype. In both cases, the archetypal interpretation offers the reader significant theology about the identity of mankind and womankind. As such, it does not, however, make definitive claims about the material origins of either Adam or Eve. If Genesis 2 makes no claims about material human origins, one would find no other statement in the Bible to offer details beyond the fact that we are all God’s creatures. If, on the basis of scientific evidence, some conclude that God was not involved in human origins (which, of course, is illegitimate since that issue is not in the purview of science to determine), we would have a biblical and theological basis on which to disagree. But if scientific evidence suggests that human beings were not created de novo, we could not necessarily claim that the Bible contested that evidence. That does not mean that we would necessarily accept the current scientific explanation. It would only mean that we would have to judge the science on its own merits rather than dismiss it based on a biblical claim.
Proposition 10
The New Testament Is More Interested in Adam and Eve as Archetypes Than as Biological Progenitors
Various passages in the New Testament will be treated in several parts through the remainder of the book in chapters dealing with the questions of archetypes, historical Adam, theology of the fall, Adam and Jesus, and interpretation of these passages. In this chapter, we treat only the first of these.
In previous chapters we have proposed and supported the idea that the forming accounts in Genesis 2 are more interested in Adam and Eve as archetypes than as individuals since the details of the forming accounts apply to all of us, not just to them. We have also demonstrated that human origins in the ancient Near East were typically addressed through the use of archetypes. Now, we seek to determine whether the New Testament offers support for this treatment. As in Genesis, here we will seek to determine whether the New Testament is using Adam and Eve archetypally based on whether what the New Testament authors are saying about Adam and Eve is true only of them or is true of everyone.
Five passages in the New Testament name Adam and Eve specifically (though several more allude to them). The first, the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3, treats Adam individually but says nothing about him except that he is the beginning of this particular human line of descent. This passage will be part of our discussion of the historical Adam, but it offers no information about material human origins or the fall.
The rest of the passages are Pauline. Paul indicates in Romans 5 that sin and death entered the world through one man (Rom 5:12), thereby talking about Adam’s role as an individual (cf. Rom 5:16-17, one sin, the sin of that one man). He then proceeds to observe that “death came to all people, because all sinned.” Here he switches to an archetypal observation—when Adam sinned, everyone sinned. This is not true of Adam alone, so Paul is treating him as more than an individual. When Paul moves to the assertion that death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, we are
We can now see that Genesis 2:24 makes more of a statement than we had envisioned. Becoming one flesh is not just a reference to the sexual act. The sexual act may be the one that rejoins them, but it is the rejoining that is the focus. When Man and Woman become one flesh, they are returning to their original state. 16
Previously in this chapter, we found reason to conclude that “formed from dust” was archetypal rather than a description pertaining to Adam alone. We have also seen reason to believe that “rib” should be understood as “side.” Furthermore, we have suggested that Adam has seen Eve’s formation in a vision but that the vision conveys an ontological truth with Eve serving as an archetype. In both cases, the archetypal interpretation offers the reader significant theology about the identity of mankind and womankind. As such, it does not, however, make definitive claims about the material origins of either Adam or Eve. If Genesis 2 makes no claims about material human origins, one would find no other statement in the Bible to offer details beyond the fact that we are all God’s creatures. If, on the basis of scientific evidence, some conclude that God was not involved in human origins (which, of course, is illegitimate since that issue is not in the purview of science to determine), we would have a biblical and theological basis on which to disagree. But if scientific evidence suggests that human beings were not created de novo, we could not necessarily claim that the Bible contested that evidence. That does not mean that we would necessarily accept the current scientific explanation. It would only mean that we would have to judge the science on its own merits rather than dismiss it based on a biblical claim.
Proposition 10
The New Testament Is More Interested in Adam and Eve as Archetypes Than as Biological Progenitors
Various passages in the New Testament will be treated in several parts through the remainder of the book in chapters dealing with the questions of archetypes, historical Adam, theology of the fall, Adam and Jesus, and interpretation of these passages. In this chapter, we treat only the first of these.
In previous chapters we have proposed and supported the idea that the forming accounts in Genesis 2 are more interested in Adam and Eve as archetypes than as individuals since the details of the forming accounts apply to all of us, not just to them. We have also demonstrated that human origins in the ancient Near East were typically addressed through the use of archetypes. Now, we seek to determine whether the New Testament offers support for this treatment. As in Genesis, here we will seek to determine whether the New Testament is using Adam and Eve archetypally based on whether what the New Testament authors are saying about Adam and Eve is true only of them or is true of everyone.
Five passages in the New Testament name Adam and Eve specifically (though several more allude to them). The first, the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3, treats Adam individually but says nothing about him except that he is the beginning of this particular human line of descent. This passage will be part of our discussion of the historical Adam, but it offers no information about material human origins or the fall.
The rest of the passages are Pauline. Paul indicates in Romans 5 that sin and death entered the world through one man (Rom 5:12), thereby talking about Adam’s role as an individual (cf. Rom 5:16-17, one sin, the sin of that one man). He then proceeds to observe that “death came to all people, because all sinned.” Here he switches to an archetypal observation—when Adam sinned, everyone sinned. This is not true of Adam alone, so Paul is treating him as more than an individual. When Paul moves to the assertion that death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, we are
Similar Books
