피터 엔스 교수의 창조에 대한 이해를 드러내는 글다른 개혁 신학자들의 글 소개 2010. 5. 18. 13:56
피터 엔스 교수의 "아담은 이스라엘이다"는 제목의 짧은 글을 소개힙니다. 깊이 생각하면서 아주 비판적으로 읽는 것이 좋을 것입니다. 늘 그리하듯이 중요한 개념을 볼드체로 처리했습니다. 그 부분만 따라가면서 읽어도 핵심은 파악할 수 있을 것입니다. 정말 유의하면서 읽어야 합니다. 우리가 엔스 교수님에 대해서 늘 우려하던 주장이 이 글에서는 아주 노골적으로 드러나고 있습니다.
"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.
Pete Enns, "Adam is Israel,"
Available at: http://biologos.org/blog/adam-is-israel/
For the past few posts we’ve been looking at creation in the Old Testament as a cosmic battle, and we’ve spent a lot of time seeing how that idea works itself out in the book of Exodus.
There is much more to Exodus and creation in the Old Testament than cosmic battle. I am not trying to say that cosmic battle is some magic key to unlock the mysteries of the Bible. But it does open a new window to seeing the ”ancient ways” in which the Israelites thought of creation.
It also helps us look at the Adam story from an angle that might be new to some readers here: Adam is the beginning of Israel, not humanity. I imagine this may require some explanation.
Israel’s history as a nation can be broken down as follows:
- Israel is “created” by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the Red Sea is “divided”);
- The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit, a lush land flowing with milk and honey;
- They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law;
- They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon.
Israel’s history parallels Adam’s drama in Genesis:
- Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1;
- Adam is placed in a lush garden;
- Law (not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is given as a stipulation for remaining in the garden;
- Adam and Eve disobey and are exiled.
There are two ways of looking at this parallel. You could say that the Adam story came first and then the Israelites just followed that pattern. But there is another way. Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins.
Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these readings of Genesis has more “explanatory power.” I (and other biblical scholars) come down on the second option for a number of reasons, some having to do with Genesis itself while others concern other issues in the Bible. Let me give one reason from Genesis.
If we see Adam as a story of Israelite origins, it will help us make sense of at least one nagging question that begins in Genesis 4:13—one that readers of Genesis, past and present, have picked up on. After Cain kills Abel, he is afraid of a posse coming after him, which casually presumes the existence of other people. So God puts a mark on Cain and exiles him to Nod, a populated city to the east. There he takes a wife and they have a child, Enoch, and Cain proceeds to build a city, named after his son, in which others can live.
Some have solved this problem by saying that Adam and Eve had a lot more children that Genesis simply neglects to mention, and so Cain married his sister. I suppose if one must, one can take refuge in this explanation. But this scenario seems a bit desperate—not to mention uncomfortable. Plus, this explanation is completely made up. Genesis neither says nor hints that the residents of Nod are Adam and Eve’s offspring. They are just “there.”
If the Adam story is about the first humans, the presence of other humans outside of Eden is out of place. We are quite justified in concluding that the Adam story is not about absolute human origins but the beginning of one smaller subset, one particular people.
The parallels between Israel and Adam that we see above tell us that the particular people in mind are Israel. Adam is “proto-Israel.”
Some might object that Genesis 1-11 deals with universal matters, not merely one people: the entire cosmos created in Genesis 1, the flood, the disbursement of the nations after the flood. Absolutely. No question there. But the point is this: after the creation of humanity in Genesis 1, Genesis 2 begins to tell the story of “proto-Israel.” In other words, Israel was not a latecomer, coming into existence only in the exodus. Israel was always there as God’s specially chosen people since the beginning.
Look at it this way. The word “adam” is ambiguous in Genesis. Every commentator notes that sometimes “adam” represents humanity (so I will use the lower case); other times it is the name “Adam” (upper case) representing one man. What does this back and forth mean? It means that Adam is a special subset of adam.
The character “Adam” is the focus of the story because he is the part of “adam” that God is really interested in. There is “adam” outside of Eden (in Nod), but inside of Eden, which is God’s focus, there is only “Adam”—the one with which he has a unique relationship.
The question in Genesis is whether “Adam” will be obedient to “the law” and stay in Eden, thus continuing this special relationship, or join the other “adam” outside in “exile.” This is the same question with Israel: after being “created” by God, will they obey and remain in the land, or disobey and be exiled?
Having said all this let me take a step or two back. I am not saying that this is ALL there is to the Adam story. There are all sorts of angles one can take to get at that extremely rich and deep piece of theology. But the “Adam is Israel” angle is at the very least a very good one—and in my opinion a much better angle than seeing Adam as the first human and all humans are descended from him. Genesis does not support that reading.
This “Israel-centered” reading of Adam is not a stretch. It is widely recognized, not only in modern scholarship, but by pre-modern interpreters. And you have to admit there is one distinct advantage of this reading that readers of BioLogos will recognize immediately: if the Adam story is not about absolute human origins, then the conflict between the Bible and evolution cannot be found there.
The conflict is found elsewhere in the Bible—namely in the New Testament and specifically in two of Paul’s letters.
We’ll get to that next.
creation, Adam, Eve, Genesis, faith, evolution, theology, Scripture, reading, interpretation, Israel, exile, Old Testament, hermenuetics, Bible, Christianity, meaning, myth
피터 엔스 교수의 해석이 가는 궁극적 방향을 알게 해 주는 글이 아닐 수 없습니다. 우려가 더 많아 집니다. 안타깝습니다.
'다른 개혁 신학자들의 글 소개' 카테고리의 다른 글
"아담 창조"에 대한 피터 엔스의 생각 (0) 2010.05.22 Peter Enns, "Genesis 1 and a Baybylonian Creation Story," (0) 2010.05.19 피터 엔스의 "바울의 아담(1)" 소개 (0) 2010.05.18 스코트 클락 교수의 "완전한 교회는 이 지상에서는 없다"는 제목의 논문 (0) 2010.05.18 John W. Cooper 교수의 "On Death and Dying" (0) 2010.05.05