Adam’s Sin and Old Testament Theology
Posted By MSH on August 2, 2009
In my last post about contextualizing the OT in light of the ancient Near Eastern culture of the OT wrtiers, I was reminded again of the striking absence of Adam’s sin in OT theology. Other than Genesis 3 and then Genesis 4-5, where Adam is mentioned with respect to having children with Eve, the person Adam is mentioned only two times in the entire Old Testament. One reference is a genealogy (1 Chron 1:1). The other is Hosea 6:7 which reads: “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Not surprisingly (to me anyway), there is no mention here of Adam’s original sin being transmitted to the rest of humanity. Instead, Adam’s transgression of his relationship to God is used as an analogy to covenant violation of Israel. Eve is never mentioned in the OT after Genesis 4:1.
What this means is transparent: There isn’t a single verse in the entire Hebrew Bible that produces the theology put forth by the traditional interpretation of Romans 5:12. The idea that Adam’s guilt was transmitted to all humanity is completely absent from OT theology. One would think that, given its central importance to the whole idea of salvation, if this view were accurate, at least one writer in the OT during the 2000 year history of Israel from Abraham to Jesus would have put the idea out there. But none did (under inspiration to boot).
What we do have is the simple story of the garden: Adam sins, humanity is removed from the tree of life and the direct presence of God which (apparently – in all views of this) was essential to Adam remaining without sin up to the Fall, and so humanity will thereafter die and sin. One is now his biological nature and destiny; the other is his spirtual nature–that all humans WILL sin, without exception.
Do you know what else we have in OT theology? The idea that humans are guilty before God because of THEIR OWN sins and transgressions. My detractors seem to have missed the fact that Paul’s statements in Romans 3, for example, either come irectly from the OT or are allusions to OT verses. Think about that. The verses that are supposed to convince me (and us) that humanity inherited guilt (as opposed to becoming sinners and producing their own guilt) comes from that document (the Hebrew Bible) that doesn’t have a single verse in it about humans inheriting Adam’s guilt. For sure we inherit the conditions and nature that will PRODUCE sin and guilt BY OUR OWN HAND, but that is different than the traditional view. How ironic. Using OT citations (through the mouth of a NT writer quoting them) to prove an idea that isn’t in the OT.
So why is it that Paul breaks the silence about Adam and the human race in Romans 5:12? Why did we have to wait until Paul for someone to say something? The answer is simple. It wasn’t until Paul — living as he was in “post Jesus” Judaism (and the birth of Christianity) that Adam became a useful ANALOGY for something. Paul brought up Adam and humanity for the specific purpose of comparing and contrasting Adam with Jesus, who in Paul’s thought became the “second Adam.”
I came across an article last week about Paul’s view of Romans 5:12. I now have two of them that discuss his theology in light of earlier Judaism (not the OT per se, due to the above difficulty). Both of them spend a lot of time talking about the Jewish sense of corporate identity. The idea that when one person does X the extended family and even a tribe might be cursed for it (or blessed). For sure this idea is part of Israelite culture (and the wider ANE). But neither article asks the question that logically extends from this observation: In view of how corporate responsibility is ingrained in Israelite thinking, why is it that not a single verse in the Hebrew Bible makes this point about Adam? The silence there is telling. Yes, I agree that what Adam did extended to the entire human race (there’s your corporate identity idea). But, as I noted several posts ago, I’m just asking HOW that is true. And of course, how that questioned is answered must deal with the Jesus problem.
Comments
19 Responses to “Adam’s Sin and Old Testament Theology”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
Also, isnt there a verse in Jeremiah that says that God will not punish the sons/daughter for their parents’ sin? and that God placed a new covenant regarding this?..
don’t know if it would apply to this subject.
ps. i thought it was jeremiah 33 but its not…
ok it was jeremiah 31
27 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the LORD. 29 “In those days people will no longer say,
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.
What are those two articles? I am doing a paper on Romans 5 so it would be very helpful.
Thanks for helping a detractor…LOL!
It’s so interesting that you should mention “the Jewish sense of corporate identity” and how it applies to understanding Paul’s theology. Just today, I finished reading a book, ‘What Paul Meant”, by Garry Wills. In it, Mr. Wills analyzes the authentic Pauline letters and attempts to separate the ideas of “original” Paul vs. “traditional” Paul.
He argues, based on a paper by Bishop Krister Stendahl (‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’), that Paul saw God as the savior of whole peoples, not just individuals; thus, Romans 7:22-24 (e.g.) is “part of a complex interplay of “persons” in diatribe-exchanges, meant to show that Gentiles and Jews…have both failed to observe their covenant with God.” (Wills, 179). Of course, till now, I’ve only been exposed to the Luther-influenced interpretation of that text: that Paul was speaking autobiographically, and as such, we are entitled to find solace in our own struggles just as he did. But it seems clear that the original intent of this passage was just what Mr. Wills describes and not, as he states, the “historic misleading” brought about by “the brilliant but hypertrophic blending of late medieval penitential disciplines and the Renaissance’s subjective individualism.” (Wills 173-175).
Mr. Wills asserts that Paul, being innocent of such cultures, would’ve had an entirely different meaning in mind and I have to say, he makes a great deal of sense. We are products of these cultures and of post-Lutheran doctrines and need to stop acting anachronistically if we’re to get to the bottom of Pauline thought on the doctrines of Sin and Salvation-As-Its-Remedy. Mr. Wills states: “Luther was thinking in terms of the internal struggle of the individual sinner, not of the rescue of whole peoples, as Paul did–and as a prominent Lutheran bishop like Krister Stendahl does.” (pg.139)
Some Questions for Dr. Heiser/and readers: If you agree with Mr. Wills…does this then imply (and I wish I could ask the author) that Paul had no type of revelation about individual salvation? I know it seems a silly question, but if in fact Luther misunderstood Paul here (not ‘faith vs. works’ but as Wills says should be read: “a religion of the heart vs. external purity code (applicable only to those who impose rituals,etc as necessary for salvation…not to moral dilemmas)” Do we then say Luther knew BETTER than Paul what was inspired to and by him regarding the plan of salvation and continue preaching this ‘misdirected’ doctrine? Or do we travel back to the text and say “oops”? Anyway, any response would be appreciated.
Hey Mike:
Just returned from Iraq and was wondering if you had done any articles on “universalism” in the Christian sense. Didn’t know if it had already been discussed but in reading articles/books; it seems that universalism was a mainstream Christian tenet in that past and that it really mirrors alot of the Calvinism beliefs.
Thoughts?
Dave
Mike, I appreciate what you’re doing with this series, both because I believe the usual concept of original sin is flawed, and because–having a son with a mental disability myself (though he does have the capacity for simple belief/understanding)–the notion of accountability proportional to ability is personal to me.
I do, however, have one question, based upon this comment which I believe you made at least once before:
What we do have is the simple story of the garden: Adam sins, humanity is removed from the tree of life and the direct presence of God which (apparently – in all views of this) was essential to Adam remaining without sin up to the Fall, and so humanity will thereafter die and sin.
In point of fact, Adam sinned during the period when he still had access to God’s presence and the tree of life. How, then, can you suggest that these elements had anything to do with humanity in general–or Adam in particular–remaining without sin?
This question is not crucial to the broader narrative you are painting, but it seems to me that it is a distraction that’s not quite on-target.
@david.brown1974: haven’t hit on that. I will at some point. I’ll touch on it in the next Romans 5:12 post, but a fuller discussion will have to be future.
@rode: you’re also thinking of Ezekiel 33.
@cwmyers007: funny
I’ll send them to you in an email.
@cwmyers007: I think I’ll go ahead and post them.
[...] theistic evolution, about how I explain away Paul’s use of Christ as a second Adam in Romans. Mike Heiser recently addressed this (though independently of theistic evolution – I don’t want to sully his name), and I [...]
@Jonnathan Molina: I can’t say I’d agree with Wills as you articulate him in the last paragraph. But I also would not be completely comfortable with Luther. I think this is yet another false dichotomy in theology (a false either-or proposition). Why can’t aspects of both be true? Are not grousp of people made up of individuals? Does not the exile teach us that the “elect” nation of Israel was basically composed of wicked people that were not followers of Yahweh? I just don’t like these few alternatives. Regarding works, I think the Scripture is pretty clear: Works are essential to salvation (there’s James) but they are NOT the meritorious cause (there’s Paul). We do not merit salvation, but if we have no works, we have no true faith.
@dwmtractor: My view: Adam was a contingent being; he was not deity. And so, he needed divine enablement to stay in fellowship with God, but even in fellowship with God, he had the ability to make a wrong choice (I believe free will is essential to divine imaging since freedom is a communicable attribute of God – this is tied to my view of imaging [the "image" of God isn't a thing in us; it is a status and should be thought of as what we are and do]). Not sure that helps or not.
“I came across an article last week about Paul’s view of Romans 5:12. I now have two of them that discuss his theology in light of earlier Judaism (not the OT per se, due to the above difficulty).”
You mentiond above you were going to post these – where could I find these, as I’m also looking at Romans.
Many thanks
@Robert Betts: Here’s the link:
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/08/paul-original-sin-and-rabbinic-theology/
Hi
Many thanks for the link
Kind regards, Rob
>>>…Yes, I agree that what Adam did extended to the entire human race (there’s your corporate identity idea). But, as I noted several posts ago, I’m just asking HOW that is true. And of course, how that questioned is answered must deal with the Jesus problem.
When Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the garden and tree of life, they constituted all of mankind, so “all sinned” and death “passed trough to all men.”
The curse on the ground was removed by the Noahic covenant.
gosh, MSH, I was all set to send this to a loved-one re: an ongoing discussion, then I saw your term “second Adam”. Huh? there is no reference in scripture to “second Adam”.
there is Adam, and there is “LAST Adam”. There is no other Adam.
if there is a last Adam and an Adam, there are two Adams. 1 + 1 = 2. The first Adam was a type of Jesus (Rom 5:14) who was the last Adam (the subsequent Adam, and so a second one; 1 Cor 15:45). That’s all the phrase means.