Thread: Kerygmania: The Fall Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000975
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
No, not the early-80s Manchester punk band (whose keyboard player lives over the road! OK, not much of a name-drop).
A friend of mine (an occasional lay preacher) has to preach on the fall, and we've been talking about it now and again in the pub. It's not a doctrine that has meant much to me, perhaps odd to say.
But - after a night's drinking, I woke early in his house this morning, and lacking much else to get me back to sleep I started reading a commentary on Genesis which he had laying about for sermon prep. (G. von Rad, 1963, SCM press). To my surprise I got into it.
An idea stood out; that 'the fall' story is instrumental in telling a tale which makes it clear that 'sh*t happens' due to man's sinful action - albeit inspired by a shadowy and demonic figure. So far, so familiar.
It became interesting when the author invites his reader to consider what _alternative_ reasons for sh*t happening, there might be - in the absence of the fall story and an insistence on man's personal responsibility. For instance -
* It might happen due to capricious and arbitrary god(s) intervening in the lives of mankind. I don't know much Greek mythology, but those guys on Mt Olympus spring to mind, and also some stories I was recently introduced to by an Indonesian colleague, which I think are of Hindu origin. You know the thing - bad gods doing arbitrary sh*t to people, and running off back up the mountain.
* It might happen due to those darn furriners - a Daily Mail take on things?
* The devil might not whisper in our ears...instead he might forcibly throw things around the room (horror-story style).
I think my familiarity with the world-view that things go wrong because of _us_ - has blinded me to how *different* such a view could be, how things might change if one does not hold it, and how important a story might be which encapsulates it as a truth.
Am I looking at this in an orthodox kind of way?
What other consequences of sin *not* coming from the hearts of man, can folk think of? What other philosophies are out there which contrast with the fall story, and in their consequences make this (to me) dry bit of dogma, somehow more vital?
(Mods - I've not posted in Keryg. before, I don't think. If this is in the wrong place, please move it).
[ 19. November 2013, 02:19: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
Well, I suppose one take on the way the bible pans out is from the bottom up. For example, humans have been waking up most days, looking out of the door and thinking, "You know, life is a bit like Moss Side in the '70s." Then they sit around (or at least the men sit around) with assorted ampullae of wine and philosophise about 'Why life?' and come up with a brilliant take on things that survives centuries and inspires many other ampullites into developing the take still further.
The take on things that survives does so because it is better adapted to its environment and provides the best explanation for Moss Side happening. That's how we get Gen. 1-3. All the rest is commentary...
Of course, that's one take on a take. Is there another take on the human state (= nature, predicament) that tries to take seriously the strange mix of an internal sense of justice and will to jump queues?
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Mark
If he was reading von Rad he couldnt go far wrong.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I think it's always a really good idea to compare biblical myths with similar stories or the equivalents from other ancient cultures, as the OP is doing. Also, as the OP is doing, using the imagination to reflect on what might be motivating the story, or what alternatives might be.
It's also good to keep in mind that Gen. 1-3 isn't always read as a "Fall" in the traditional sense - it's often read as a sort of coming-of-age tale. That, in my view, jibes well with evolutionary theory - think of it as the moment when humans really become self-aware. Christian interpretations along those lines go back at least to Irenaeus.
If you think about it, creation couldn't be perfect. It's not God. Anything that isn't God is subject to impermanence and imperfection. Creation didn't attain the possibility of perfection until it was united to the divine nature in the person of Jesus Christ, God the Son.
On this subject, I must always recommend my late mentor's book, A Wounded Innocence, by Alejandro García-Rivera. He develops Irenaeus' thought and speaks of innocence not as an ignorance to be lost, but a virtue to be gained.
I think the biblical narrative of the Fall is, among other things, trying to square God's intention for creation with the way we actually experience it. Evolutionarily speaking, one might conjecture that once we humans became moral agents, we also gained the sense that things could be - and should be - a lot better than they are. It makes sense that these themes get woven into a single myth, and one that goes even further by (1) affirming that God is not an asshole, and (2) pointing humans toward ethical/moral behavior as a way to heal the world, or at least not make it worse.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Churchgeek - thanks for your thoughts. The 'at what point between blue-green algae and now, did it matter if I ate my children?' thought had occurred to me too, when my lost faith came back with a bang during a spell thinking about the 'genealogy of morals'. (I only got as far as reading about Nietzche, finding him impenetrable in person. But I'm an engineer). I thought it fitted well with Adam and Eve too - even so far as the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' angle goes, which previously hadn't meant much. I didn't know this interpretation had respectable pedigree ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'll check out your reference.
Perhaps a tangent - at the same time (from this moral angle) another dry old idea - idolatry - came to life for me for the first time: the replacement of God as the origin of our moral being, with something else belonging properly within, not outside creation. Like Society. Or Law. Or (perhaps a stretch, this) a 'biological' "meme". I got a big rush out of Dooyeweerd's modal aspects of reality on this, since he boils creation down to 15 or so orthogonal dimensions, and one can sit and watch materialists trying one or another as the origin of the moral authority which saves us. Which is also 'self-creating' ('it just is') having no ultimate cause. That is (saving, and uncaused), a god as just as unbelievable as the one I'd given up on (If we can play reference tennis then Clouser, 'The myth of religious neutrality' is what did it for me).
Shamwari - thanks for the vote of confidence in von Rad. It's very helpful when you're at sea in a realm of literature where one has no experience of 'who's good?'.
Nigel - if my slow brain is keeping up with you, using a myth to explain a myth was very clever ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
. That our district is a national byword for 'shit happening', might not be unrelated to our problems in attracting people who can preach. Off to church in an hour. sigh.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
What do you think, churchgeek, about how the type of 'top down' (i.e., from the point of view of the God / gods) explanation offered by the origin stories from the ancient near east might gel with the type of 'bottom-up' (i.e., from the human point of view) approaches I referred to earlier - exemplified in part by von Rad?
Is there a viable way that mark_in_manchester could keep one foot in the more traditional view of origins, while stepping his other foot out into an alternative view? Or is such an approach doomed to fail (or even Fall!)?
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
von Rad ( if I remember correctly) expounds the Gen 3 story of the Fall in terms of the Yahwist and his over-arching theme that God is a God of Judgement and Mercy. His thesis is persuasive taking into accout the following 'stories' expounded under the same theme.
He does not take account of any 'evolutionary' dimension.
In terms of this latter I see the 'Fall' as a 'failure to become' and not as a Fall in the usually accepted sense.
But this does not make von Rad irrelevant.
From which you will take it that I am a von Rad fan.
Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
From which you will take it that I am a von Rad fan.
I thought that might be the case, shamwari!
I suspect the reason von Rad chose not to major on evolution as an explanatory factor in his 'salvation history' model was that he, along with many of his contemporaries and most notably Karl Barth, were in reaction to the form of theology influenced by evolution in the 19th century that had become too insipid and thin to survive when the First World War came crashing in. One of his strengths, I think, was in being bold enough to grapple with the crisis that had divorced theology from biblical studies. He tried to find a model that would combine the two once again. To an extent he was a child of his times and the model he developed was heavily influenced by the rise of National Socialism in the mid to late 30s in Germany. I don't think it's a coincidence that he focussed on the public faith statements (the credos) of Judaism that recounted God's saving acts, because these were examples of minorities who stood up and recited their beliefs in the midst of their enemies – a coded message to the Christians who stood with Barth to denounce what was happening in Hitler's Germany.
I think it a shame that this model meant in effect that Gen. 1-3 occupied second fiddle status; it was not a saving act or a credo, or at least not in von Rad's model. So I have been wondering with the start of this thread, what would be the effect of tweaking von Rad's model a bit and seeing Gen 1-3 as a credo of origins, the foundational statement of faith upon which all else has to rest?
Bringing it into more modern settings, particularly those where 'bottom-up' is now a cultural worldview, what is the impact of stating “In the beginning God...” and taking the story through the point of “We could have been better” to “We are where we are”?
That might be an essential platform upon which to build the gospel these days, rather than working back typologically from the NT to shadowy precursors.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I am 100% in favour of treating Gen 1 - 3 as a credo of origins. I do it myself.
But I interpret it in terms of the scientic understanding of origins as we have it today.
The Biblical and scientific views are not incompatible.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Mark in Manchester quote:
'the fall' story is instrumental in telling a tale which makes it clear that 'sh*t happens' due to man's sinful action
I find the concept of “the fall” as less than helpful because it is a-historical and unscientific, minimises personal moral responsibility, does not seem to have been important to the development of Jewish theology in the OT, and does not figure in the teaching of Jesus. The Genesis story rather than being enlightening is a complicated culture-bound myth that has to be explained by erudite biblical scholars and comparative theologians, academically interesting though one finds it. We don’t need the story of Eden to convince us that “sh*t happens due to man’s sinful action” because it is empirically evident. The story of Eden tells us nothing about the origin of sin and less about the nature of humans, encourages defective theology, and all that complicated stuff about the virgin birth and immaculate conception. I suspect, Mark, that any lessons your preacher friend could learn from the Genesis story for the edification of his congregation could be found more simply expressed elsewhere in the bible. Leave Eden to the anthropologists.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Conversely, I find the Fall story useful because it explains both why Everything Goes Wrong™ and also why humanity has a universal inborn belief that this ought not to be so. (Ask any two-year-old looking at a spilled icecream on the pavement.) That second bit (the universal belief) is too often overlooked IMHO. It takes some accounting for, without the Fall.
Other stuff that it does, well... I don't believe this doctrine because it's useful, I believe it because it's true, but it IS useful all the same, and one of the ways it's useful is that it assigns human actions the dignity of responsibility. We are causes, and not trivial ones. What we do matters. and if we screwed it up once, that still leaves open the possibility that we can do better on other occasions.
I'd rather live in such a world than in one at the mercy of capricious, amoral gods who pull crap simply because they feel like it that day.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Conversely, I find the Fall story useful because it explains both why Everything Goes Wrong™ and also why humanity has a universal inborn belief that this ought not to be so. (Ask any two-year-old looking at a spilled icecream on the pavement.)
Watch a puppy in a similar situation - the reaction is natural, not just human. All animals are innately selfish - for survival's sake. It is humans who 'fail to become' more than this when they behave unnecessarily selfishly.
[ 19. November 2012, 07:54: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Lamb Chopped, the reason why you find the doctrine of the fall “useful” is because you believe it’s true. For those not believing in its historicity it does not “ explain why Everything Goes Wrong”.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
i think the value of the "Fall" story is not that it tells us how evil came.
It describes how evil comes.
For Adam is Everyman - and woman. Its your story and mine.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Kwesi, thanks for your post
quote:
I find the concept of “the fall” as less than helpful because it is a-historical and unscientific, minimises personal moral responsibility, does not seem to have been important to the development of Jewish theology in the OT, and does not figure in the teaching of Jesus.
That was entirely my position prior to Sat a.m., except my bible knowledge is flaky enough that I take your last point on trust.
quote:
We don’t need the story of Eden to convince us that “sh*t happens due to man’s sinful action” because it is empirically evident.
But von Rad got me thinking, 'what other ancient ways are there to code this? What else have people thought (and, perhaps, codified in religious texts)?'. Because it suddenly struck me that it is only emprically evident to me, due to my pre-existing religious ground-motive for believing it to be true!
And this isn't dry old stuff, because as LC and Boogie comment above and Shamwari summarises with great economy
quote:
...not that it tells us how evil came.
It describes how evil comes
and that MATTERS. So how else might evil come? I gave some examples above; here's another arbitrary one from my neighbourhood. Evil comes from evil housing stock. We'll knock whole neighbourhoods down and build new housing - perhaps then drug-, car-, violent- crime will decrease.
Elsewhere in the city, such properties as described with adjectives like period-, character-etc.
I'm liberal, and I believe in 'structural sin'. But even I can see the disaster looming, in losing the myth which holds the truth, that evil comes through ME.
Can we come up with more false loci?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
My current thinking about the story of the fall is that it's the weaving together of theological thoughts passed down by people as to how it came about that people were mortal and had such a hard time in life, when all should be well living in the garden of God.
The tree of the knowledge sets it at the time of the birth of consciousness. The serpent represents deceit, possibly the source of all evil as it calls us away from serving God. Eve was convinced by it. She convinced Adam. They partook, knew shame, and tried to deceive God.
We're deceived by ourselves, by other people individually and through systems, the media, etc and possibly by the father of lies (John 8:44), the devil, as an external ear whisperer. I hold an open mind as to the latter, and to my loose interpretation of the story, but I can't see it as an historical event.
[ 19. November 2012, 20:00: Message edited by: Raptor Eye ]
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
Hi Mark! Good to see you on the Ship again.
I don’t have time to compile a well-thought-out contribution, but here are a few thrown-together points. I recognise that I might not be directly addressing the theological debate that you raised, but maybe something might be relevant.
In my understanding, the historicity or otherwise of the first few chapters of Genesis is not relevant to the spiritual revelation that can be extracted from it. I disagree with what I think to be a false dichotomy – that either the account of the Fall is historical and therefore useful, or it is non-historical and therefore worthless. It can be non-historical, and still valuable for deriving spiritual insight, perhaps by regarding Adam and the woman as spiritual representative archetypes. The mechanics of how that translates to our current situation I’m a bit unclear about, but as it was the consequences of the Fall that Jesus was incarnated to deal with, it’s a key spiritual event. (As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor.15:22))
I find that most credible view of Gen.1-3 is as an account of spiritual origins, not biological or historical origins. It is, after all, about the interaction between God and mankind, and that is above all a matter of spiritual nature. Therefore (for example) when God warns Adam that if he eats the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil: ‘...in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’ (Gen.2:17 ESV) the death referred to is spiritual death (of the spiritual life that God had breathed into him in Gen.2:7 – and in support of this understanding, what in the rest of the Bible is referred to as the ‘breath’ of God?)
A valuable source of insight into the meaning of the initial chapters of Genesis can be gleaned from looking at how the writers of the New Testament understood them, as their understanding would have been informed (first- or second-hand) by the teaching of Jesus himself.
For a commentary, I would recommend the Word Biblical Commentary by Gordon Wenham (see Amazon). I also found these three blog posts by The Ugley Vicar very helpful:
The woman Eve, so good Adam named her twice
From Genesis to Jesus: Eve in Christian perspective
Genesis 2: Only Christ, but not Christ alone
Angus
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Pilgrim.A quote:
It can be non-historical, and still valuable for deriving spiritual insight, perhaps by regarding Adam and the woman as spiritual representative archetypes. The mechanics of how that translates to our current situation I’m a bit unclear about, but as it was the consequences of the Fall that Jesus was incarnated to deal with, it’s a key spiritual event. (As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor.15:22))
I find that most credible view of Gen.1-3 is as an account of spiritual origins, not biological or historical origins.
The above quotation sums up my problem with some interpretations of this passage because on the one hand it treats the story as a spiritual "myth", in this case a curious category of "spiritual origins", and on the other as an historical event causing another historical event "it was a consequence of the Fall that Jesus was incarnated..it's a key spiritual event". I don't think, for a start, that spiritual origins relating to humans are not historical events...........
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I don't think, for a start, that spiritual origins relating to humans are not historical events...........
Sure, just a different kind of history.
No one thinks, or probably ever thought, that there was a real woman named Pandora or that evil was contained in a box that she opened out of curiosity.
But the story communicates a thought about how evil came into the world. This thought may, or may not, have some basis in how evil really did come into being.
In either case, it is a story about spiritual origins that has resonated. Whether it communicates some basic truth, of course, is up for debate.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Freddy quote:
No one thinks, or probably ever thought, that there was a real woman named Pandora or that evil was contained in a box that she opened out of curiosity.
But the story communicates a thought about how evil came into the world. This thought may, or may not, have some basis in how evil really did come into being.
Ok, Freddy, but no historical figure has come along later with a mission to put evil back in the box.
While I can go along with the kind of approach exemplified by Shamwari's post, I am bothered by confusing accounts, such as that seemingly advanced by Pilgrim.A, suggesting that while Adam's sin is to be regarded as an a-historical event its solution necessitates an historical event: the life and ministry of Christ.
My problem is this: the historicity of the fall is an important question, because if it is then humans are the inheritors of Adam's original sin and have, indeed, fallen from grace. If, however, it is not an historic event then humanity, being the product of an evolutionary process, is either not to blame for its inherent weakness or is not by nature sinful. In the first case there is no fall because it was ever so; in the second any "falling" is a fall from natal grace specific to each individual, and would fit in with the incarnation- Jesus was born in a state of grace like all of us but unlike us never fell from it.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
My problem is this: the historicity of the fall is an important question, because if it is then humans are the inheritors of Adam's original sin and have, indeed, fallen from grace.
I believe that the fall really happened, so I believe in its historicity.
But I believe that the biblical account, like that of Pandora's Box, is an ancient metaphoric tale that does in fact tell us what happened, but tells it in visual pictures that appealed to the ancient understanding.
I also believe in a different version of what really happened. Rather than some individual "sinning" and thus incurring a debt that only Christ could pay, I accept the much simpler idea that humans became more self-centered over time. We pass that tendency to be self-centered and worldy on in our genes, just as we have inherited it from our ancestors.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
If, however, it is not an historic event then humanity, being the product of an evolutionary process, is either not to blame for its inherent weakness or is not by nature sinful.
We are not to blame for our inherited weakness, but we are to blame for our choices in relation to that weakness. We are by nature sinful.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
In the first case there is no fall because it was ever so; in the second any "falling" is a fall from natal grace specific to each individual, and would fit in with the incarnation- Jesus was born in a state of grace like all of us but unlike us never fell from it.
I would say "no" to both.
Jesus was born to overcome the power of hell that affects everyone, which we are vulnerable to because of our hereditary tendencies.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy
I also believe in a different version of what really happened. Rather than some individual "sinning" and thus incurring a debt that only Christ could pay, I accept the much simpler idea that humans became more self-centered over time. We pass that tendency to be self-centered and worldy on in our genes, just as we have inherited it from our ancestors.
Do you mean that before we evolved into human beings we were less self-centered? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Moo
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
[Do you mean that before we evolved into human beings we were less self-centered?
No. Before we evolved into human beings we were self-centered in the same way that all animals are. The focus of almost all creatures is their own survival and reproduction, cooperating with others of their own species for those purposes. This is how nature works and there is nothing wrong with it.
At some point, however, in my view, God breathed the "breath of life" into humans, endowing them with souls and distinguishing them from animals. They then became capable of selfless love in a way transcending the capacity of other animals.
Humanity then enjoyed a period recounted as life in "the Garden of Eden" or "the Golden Age" during which they were free from the inclination to sin, loved God and one another, and lived in harmony with all created things.
Over time, however, the Fall took place, as their focus shifted back to worldly things. This orientation gradually obscured their close link with God and therefore distanced them from Him - a change described in the biblical metaphor as being removed from the Garden.
That's my denominations view.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
[Do you mean that before we evolved into human beings we were less self-centered?
No. Before we evolved into human beings we were self-centered in the same way that all animals are. The focus of almost all creatures is their own survival and reproduction, cooperating with others of their own species for those purposes. This is how nature works and there is nothing wrong with it.
You make it sound as though animals live according to enlightened self-interest. Species that live in complex social groups do appear to be less self-centred like humans, but inferring motivation leads ud into "If I was an elephant" territory. Is the difference between elephants and us qualitative or just quamtitaive as far as self-centredness goes?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
You make it sound as though animals live according to enlightened self-interest.
You're right. How about unenlightened self-interest. I don't know how best to put it.
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Species that live in complex social groups do appear to be less self-centred like humans, but inferring motivation leads ud into "If I was an elephant" territory.
I guess that's right. We don't know what their motivations are. I am just assuming that the motivations are the instinctive drives to survive and reporduce.
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Is the difference between elephants and us qualitative or just quamtitaive as far as self-centredness goes?
I would say it is qualitative. We have the same basic drives to survive and reproduce, and tend to be motivated by our natural desires. But I believe that unlike animals we also have a higher self, from which we can look at our outer self and reflect on it.
I hope this doesn't turn into a discussion about the difference between people and animals.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Humanity then enjoyed a period recounted as life in "the Garden of Eden" or "the Golden Age" during which they were free from the inclination to sin, loved God and one another, and lived in harmony with all created things.
They still hunted, killed and ate other animals?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Humanity then enjoyed a period recounted as life in "the Garden of Eden" or "the Golden Age" during which they were free from the inclination to sin, loved God and one another, and lived in harmony with all created things.
They still hunted, killed and ate other animals?
Actually, according to our denominational teachings, they did not.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
What did the lions do? ...and all the microbes? How did the scavengers survive?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What did the lions do? ...and all the microbes? How did the scavengers survive?
No, I mean the people meant by Adam and Eve in Eden did not eat animals. The lions behaved as usual, as did the microbes.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
So, Freddy, your position is that the harmony prior to the fall was essentially a feature of human society, and that the social life of animals was then as now, apart from not being killed for food by humans. How does your church handle the notion that death came as a consequence of the fall? And how does it deal with Paul's notion that the whole of creation is somehow compromised by the fall?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
How does your church handle the notion that death came as a consequence of the fall?
I don't even understand why this is an issue. I had never heard it expressed until I read about it on this Ship.
I think that it should be obvious to everyone that the "death" spoken of in Genesis refers to spiritual death, which is the unhappiness of hell, and not physical death.
The literal introduction of death at the Fall presupposes an acceptance of the seven days of creation as a literal account of how God made the world. It is hard to believe that the world could have existed for millions of years without anything dying. While I realize that many people believe this, it is not my belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
And how does it deal with Paul's notion that the whole of creation is somehow compromised by the fall?
I do believe that all of creation was somehow compromised by the Fall.
The way that works in the Swedenborgian system is simply that all things are connected, so everything affects everything else.
When hell came into existence, because of the fall, it began to exert an influence on the world.
This influence affected both the human race and all of creation. As hell grew and became stronger, because the sins of humanity increased, that influence became stronger. This is the true origin of all diseases and other natural disorders in the world, even though they all have physical causes as well that are explicable within the laws of nature. It is all one thing.
The flip side of this is that Christ came to reverse this process. He overcame the essential power of hell by bringing the "Light" or "the Word" or the "Divine Truth" into the world. Over time, and consistent with human free will, this power contains and reduces the power of darkness.
Eventually this brings everything back into a state of order, reversing the effects of the fall. Disease, poverty, hunger, crime, and even climate, are all affected.
It happens in pretty much exactly the way that everyone expects - that these issues will eventually be solved by some form of human agency, whether education, improved technology, economic development, or simply cooperation.
The true cause, however, is God, and this is the point of the Incarnation.
Posted by egg (# 3982) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
How does your church handle the notion that death came as a consequence of the fall?
I don't even understand why this is an issue. I had never heard it expressed until I read about it on this Ship.
I think that it should be obvious to everyone that the "death" spoken of in Genesis refers to spiritual death, which is the unhappiness of hell, and not physical death.
The literal introduction of death at the Fall presupposes an acceptance of the seven days of creation as a literal account of how God made the world. It is hard to believe that the world could have existed for millions of years without anything dying. While I realize that many people believe this, it is not my belief.
It is not my belief either; but it seems that it was the belief of both Paul (Romans 5.12) and Augustine (City of God ch.13). My knowledge of the subject is not very deep; but I have tended to assume that Paul and Augustine regarded Genesis 1-3 as a literally true account of the Creation and the Fall, and that both believed that, but for the Fall, we should not have experienced death (whatever may have been the position as regards animals). If this is not the generally accepted view, I should like to be corrected.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Yes, I can easily believe that both Paul and Augustine accepted this idea.
Until fairly recently it was also almost universally believed among Christians that the world was literally created in seven days. In that context it certainly makes sense to believe that Adam and Eve, along with everything else on earth, would have been essentially immortal had they not sinned.
So maybe it is foolish of me to express surprise at this idea.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
It's also good to keep in mind that Gen. 1-3 isn't always read as a "Fall" in the traditional sense - it's often read as a sort of coming-of-age tale.
Along these lines, it is interesting that given the attention given to it as a focal point in the NT, the story of 'The Fall' doesn't seem to have as much significance in the OT, either during the Mosaic period or that of the prophets.
When it is referred to, it seems to be done so in an ethiological way.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Chris, I don't think it's a focal point in the NT either. As far as I'm aware it's not mentioned in the Gospels.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Chris, I don't think it's a focal point in the NT either. As far as I'm aware it's not mentioned in the Gospels.
Sure, but referred to in the epistles. Which I assume base a lot of what they say on some post-exilic development of the interpretation of Genesis 3.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
When I read, or hear, someone talking about "the fall," I cringe. It comes across as fingernails on a blackboard (I hope people can remember that). No it is absolute rebellion. It is the desire to be "like God." And then, when God asks "What happened?" man blames woman (which God had given man) and woman blames the serpent (which God created). I think it was Luther who said the point of the original sin, was not when they ate of the fruit, but when they refused to take responsibility for their actions.
Things still happen this way. Take the banking crisis. Oh to be the richest people in the world, to live like Gods. Then comes the reckoning--it is not my fault--it is ultimately the governments fault, after all they created the system.
But God won't have it. He tells man there are consequences. He tells woman she will experience pain on child birth. And he condemns the serpent to a life on the ground.
But still there is a glimmer of hope. While he casts man and woman out of the mythical garden, God gives them clothing and tells them their seed will eventually bruise the serpent. I am not sure what the original writers intended the passage to mean, but Christians, looking through the prism of the resurrection, have taken it to mean it was a Messianic promise.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But still there is a glimmer of hope. While he casts man and woman out of the mythical garden, God gives them clothing and tells them their seed will eventually bruise the serpent.
Yes, I'm sure it was intended as a Messianic promise. But, again, that is going by the theory that God is the ultimate Author of Scripture.
The overall plot-line of the Old Testament lends itself to thinking in terms of a "fall." Virtually every story is an account of the ups and downs of an individual or the nation. The Psalms revolve around this paradigm. The books of the prophets are fixated on it. Israel will do well or do badly, it will rise or fall, be victorious or ruined.
The ultimate rise and glory of Israel and humanity is meaningless if there is not somewhere to rise from. This demands either that we were never "up" before, which makes sense, or that we were originally in a good place but "fell." I prefer that option, and it is seemingly what is taught throughout Scripture.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Freddy quote:
The overall plot-line of the Old Testament lends itself to thinking in terms of a "fall."
If that is the case then why is it not mentioned between Genesis and Romans? Is not the strongest plot-line in the OT the covenants which Yahweh made with the tribes of Israel, in which things go well when the people adhere to their side of the covenants and badly when they disobey. The Messiah does not relate to consequences of the fall but the need to restore the throne of David. Jesus was not tainted by original sin because he is born of a virgin who was herself immaculately conceived, it's that he chose to live as a righteous man, arising from his divine nature.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
"it's that he chose to live as a righteous man, arising from his divine nature."
Questionable.
Did he not live a righteous life by virtue of his human nature empowered by the Spirit?
Else there is no hope for any of us.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Freddy quote:
The overall plot-line of the Old Testament lends itself to thinking in terms of a "fall."
If that is the case then why is it not mentioned between Genesis and Romans? Is not the strongest plot-line in the OT the covenants which Yahweh made with the tribes of Israel, in which things go well when the people adhere to their side of the covenants and badly when they disobey.
I think that the way that you describe it here fits perfectly.
I agree that the classic idea of a single action in the Garden of Eden, which enraged God and was passed down as original sin, is not biblical.
What IS biblical is what you are saying here about God having a covenant with Israel, and thus with the entire human race, such that obedience brings blessings and disobedience does not.
The result is a series of rises and falls, improvement and decline.
The question is where it all started. The Bible is unmistakably saying that humanity started off in a good place - from which it fell.
Luckily, this is where humanity is also destined to return. Not to the garden, but to a city that has that same Tree of Life at its center.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The Messiah does not relate to consequences of the fall but the need to restore the throne of David.
It's all the same thing.
David is mentioned merely because his was seen as a time of glory and power caused by obedience to God.
The main thing is that darkness was covering the earth, and the Messiah would restore the light.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Jesus was not tainted by original sin because he is born of a virgin who was herself immaculately conceived, it's that he chose to live as a righteous man, arising from his divine nature.
He was born of a virgin (who was not immaculately conceived herself) because He was the Son of God.
Nothing to do with original sin.
Yet He did inherit from her our weak human tendencies to evil. These served as the means for the hells to attack Him, enabling Him to encounter and overcome them.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Pilgrim.A quote:
It can be non-historical, and still valuable for deriving spiritual insight, perhaps by regarding Adam and the woman as spiritual representative archetypes. The mechanics of how that translates to our current situation I’m a bit unclear about, but as it was the consequences of the Fall that Jesus was incarnated to deal with, it’s a key spiritual event. (As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor.15:22))
I find that most credible view of Gen.1-3 is as an account of spiritual origins, not biological or historical origins.
The above quotation sums up my problem with some interpretations of this passage because on the one hand it treats the story as a spiritual "myth", in this case a curious category of "spiritual origins", and on the other as an historical event causing another historical event "it was a consequence of the Fall that Jesus was incarnated..it's a key spiritual event". I don't think, for a start, that spiritual origins relating to humans are not historical events...........
I agree that the formulation that I have proposed is far from perfect. But I hold to it as being the least worst of the three possible options that I see available.
The other two are:
1) The account of the Fall is of a historical event, and has to be in order to be theologically valid. The problems with this, given the scientific knowledge of the biological origins of mankind, have already been debated in the posts since my previous one. However, scientific study gives no insight or knowledge whatsoever about the spiritual origins of mankind, and our interaction with God. This is what the Bible does. (I’m in danger of heading off along the tangent of non-overlapping magisteria here, as that is broadly speaking the way I understand the evidence. Incidentally, I’ve heard that Richard Dawkins asserts that he has invalidated the philosophical position of non-overlapping magisteria, can any shipmate point me towards where he does so?)
2) The account of the Fall is not a historical event, and therefore cannot be theologically valid or relevant to human experience. This contradicts all the message of salvation history in the Bible (starting with the prophecy of Gen.3:15), and the reason for the historical incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus.
Therefore the least worst and IMO most credible option is to regard the account as not historical, but still valid and relevant to account for the spiritual condition of mankind. It’s not a comfortable or satisfactory position, and I am aware of the failings in it, but other options have even greater failings. We do not have a full revelation of God’s interaction with mankind, but only see an indistinct reflection in a bad mirror. I hope that in the new creation we will have a clearer view and understanding, closer to the perfect understanding that God has.
Angus
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
it was a consequence of the Fall that Jesus was incarnated
Felix culpa? Bosh.
Let me intervene so far as to vigorously denounce this notion.
The Incarnation is not some kind of backup scheme, some Plan B the Pantokrator hauls out of his divine tool box in the event his humans sin.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
it was a consequence of the Fall that Jesus was incarnated
Let me intervene so far as to vigorously denounce this notion.
The Incarnation was God's response to the Fall. This is why a prophecy of His coming was made the moment that it happened:
quote:
Genesis 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”
The woman's "Seed" is Christ. The serpent is the human quality from which came sin or hell. Christ would overcome it.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The Incarnation is not some kind of backup scheme, some Plan B the Pantokrator hauls out of his divine tool box in the event his humans sin.
Not Plan B. Rather, a response to human free will. The Incarnation is nothing more than God making Himself visible. It was needed only because humanity made itself blind.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Silent Acolyte
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
it was a consequence of the Fall that Jesus was incarnated
Silent Acolyte: Felix culpa? Bosh.
Silent Acolyte, I fear you have somewhat misrepresented me because it represents a position posted by A. Pilgirm which I do not hold.
The quotation from A. Pilgrim is as follows:
" It can be non-historical, and still valuable for deriving spiritual insight, perhaps by regarding Adam and the woman as spiritual representative archetypes. The mechanics of how that translates to our current situation I’m a bit unclear about, but as it was the consequences of the Fall that Jesus was incarnated to deal with, it’s a key spiritual event. (As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Cor.15:22)) "
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Silent Acolyte, I fear you have somewhat misrepresented me because it represents a position posted by A. Pilgirm which I do not hold.
I noticed that too. I should have mentioned it.
But surely no one thinks that, if we were still in the Garden of Eden, Christ's birth, crucifixion, and resurrection would have gone forward as planned. Who would have done the crucifying?
Rather, God was visible to them then, and there was no need for that to be changed if humanity had not changed.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But surely no one thinks that, if we were still in the Garden of Eden, Christ's birth, crucifixion, and resurrection would have gone forward as planned. Who would have done the crucifying?
Some people, including Duns Scotus, have maintained that Christ would have become incarnate even if the Fall had not taken place. This is because matter is good.
I encountered this idea in the writings of Charles Williams.
Moo
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Some people, including Duns Scotus, have maintained that Christ would have become incarnate even if the Fall had not taken place.
Right there in the Garden? Didn't God already walk in the Garden? How would Incarnation have been different?
I'm pretty sure that Scotus and others assume that God would have come to earth somewhere other than the Garden, since He was clearly already there.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
This is because matter is good.
This is the important point. Whatever it was that walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve it was not composed of physical matter the way that Jesus was.
The reason that this is important is that in being born on earth God became present in physical matter in a way that He was not previously. The effect was to raise it up and make it a more perfect means of salvation than had previously been the case.
But it is debatable whether this would have happened, or needed to have happen, if humanity had not fallen.
For example, would this also be true on other planets where there are people - assuming that there are other people somewhere in the universe?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0