|
MAN
WHO IS BUT DUST
It is a common trait
for men of the flesh to think more highly
of themselves than they ought to think.
Accordingly, men who glory in the vanities
of this life rejoice in their exalted status
before other men. Like the Pharisees of
old, craving the affection and admiration
of others (Jno 12:43), they do and say those
things that bring them into the popularity
of the masses, rather than what is testified
to be right and acceptable before the Creator
of all flesh. So it is that men raise themselves
to great prominence, receiving the honour
and admiration of those whom they have sought
to please - yet forgetting their humble
origins. And humble they are, for no matter
what a man’s pedigree may be, whether he
be born into a rich or poor family, all
men have a common humble origin, from the
dust of the ground. Being formed in the
first instance, from dust, their latter
end is to return to the dust - hence Solomon
mused within himself:
“I said in mine heart
concerning the estate of the sons of men,
that God might manifest them, and that they
might see that they themselves are beasts.
For that which befalleth the sons of men
befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth
them: as the one dieth so dieth the other;
Yea, they have all one breath; so that a
man hath no pre-eminence above a beast:
for all is vanity. All go unto one place;
all are of the dust, and all turn to dust
again.” (Eccl 3:18-21).
Sober men, who are
not intoxicated with the flesh-elevating
doctrines of humanism, will consider their
own natural state. Not forgetting where
they have come from, they look to where
they are to return; back to the dust from
whence they were formed. And at this level
- the material, physical level - men have
no natural pre-eminence over beasts. Both
are formed from dust, and both will return
to dust when the natural course of events
are worked out with the cessation of life.
This fact is truly a sobering one - though
he may ascend to great heights in the estimation
of his fellows, and though he may be rewarded
greatly in the things of this life, the
end of all men is identical to that of mere,
brute beasts. “All go unto one place.” There,
the rich and the poor meet together in a
common destiny; “the small and great are
there” (see Job 3:13-20), lying together
in an undignified state of decomposition
as they moulder into dust.
Those who recognise
the reality of the situation may well also
ponder their true relationship towards their
Maker. He is the Almighty Creator, yet they
are mere animated bits of clay, for the
most part, unable to look beyond their own
limited sphere of existence, to the ultimate
outworking of the Creator’s purpose. The
fact of man’s lowly material composition
ought itself to be the reason of great humility
before Yahweh. Hence Abraham, in taking
it upon himself to plead for the sparing
of Sodom for the sake of a few men of integrity
spake: “Behold now, I have taken upon me
to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust
and ashes: peradventure there shall lack
five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy
all the city for lack of five?” (Gen 18:27).
THE
TEACHING OF ENDEAVOUR
This emphatic teaching
of Scripture regarding the formation of
man from the dust of the ground is brought
into question by the June 2002 issue of
The Endeavour Magazine (a periodical posing
as a Christadelphian magazine, yet with
the stated purpose of providing a forum
for the airing of dogmas long rejected by
Christadelphians). It dismisses the belief
that the early chapters of Genesis mean
what they say as being a mere “fundamentalist
approach”:
"What has been
termed the fundamentalist approach to the
Genesis story, stressing above all else
a ‘literal’ reading of it, has been the
cause of much unnecessary discord within
our community, and the sad thing is that
it could have been so easily avoided by
accepting what the sciences have revealed
to us which need not be seen as in any way
incompatible with the teaching of the Scriptures,
provided that it is recognised that any
talk of the beginning is bound to make use
of symbolical and metaphoric language” (Page
40)
So it is claimed.
However, in actual fact it is not so; Christadelphians
have long recognised that the account of
Genesis is an actual account the formation
of the earth, and man upon it. The cause
of unnecessary discord, has been the introduction
of new ideas not in harmony with the Bible,
such as the one under current consideration.
Maintenance of Truth never causes discord
amongst the congregation of lovers of Truth;
yet the introduction of errant doctrines
and practices does.
The article commences
by citing examples of how a metaphorical
form of speech is used in Scripture, and
continues to present the early chapters
of Genesis as being metaphorical, rather
than literal. Having swept away a child-like
(Mat 18:3) acceptance of the Bible as it
stands with the above words, the article
continues to present it’s alternative teaching,
seeking to explain what literal realities
the assumed metaphors of Genesis relate
to:
“The fact that the
earth was well and truly peopled before
the Garden of Eden episode took place presents
no obstacle when it is understood that the
verb used in the original Hebrew of Gen
2:7 is yatsar, translated in the AV as ‘formed’,
and is not a term exclusively reserved for
Creation, in the sense of creation out of
nothing.* (For example it can be used of
the creation of Israel (Is 43:21).) In other
parts it is rendered variously as ‘called’
(as in the case of Abraham), ‘chosen’ (as
in the case of Israel), ‘appointed’, etc.
Now we have ample
evidence of prehistoric man hunting and
gathering and living a nomad existence in
caves and other primitive dwellings for
hundreds if not thousands of years before
the emergence of the Adamic family and many
of their cave drawings depict them hunting
animals long since extinct until relatively
suddenly these Palaeolithic (Old Stone Age)
people began to be replaced by Neolithic
(New Stone Age) people, who replace the
hunting and gathering mode of existence
with a settled agricultural and stock-raising
form of living, which correlates with the
calling of Adam ‘from the dust’ (i.e. from
the desert of Mesopotamia) into the well-irrigated
‘Garden of Eden’ ‘to dress it and to keep
it’. Suddenly, a ‘help-meet for him’ (metaphor
‘close to his side’) was found, presumably
from the same source, i.e. the local population,
the same people who Cain feared would all
want to kill him because he had murdered
his brother Abel” (Page 39,40).
Compare this with
the account of Genesis, which is allegedly
presenting the same teaching in Metaphor:
“And Yahweh Elohim
formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and man became a living soul. And
Yahweh Elohim planted a garden eastward
in Eden; and there he put the man whom he
had formed …” (Gen 2:7,8).
And of the formation
of Eve:
“And Yahweh Elohim
caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and
he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof; and
the rib, which Yahweh Elohim had taken from
man, made he a woman, and brought her unto
the man. And Adam said, This is now bone
of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken
out of Man.” (Gen 2:21-23).
THE
THEORY CONSIDERED
The claim with which
we are being presented then, is that:
the formation of
Adam from the dust of the ground = “the
calling of Adam … from the desert of Mesopotamia”
from an already existent race of men.
The formation of
Eve from the rib of Adam = the calling of
Eve, “presumably from the same source”.
Specific Bible ‘evidence’
for there being men dwelling upon the earth
before Adam’s time is the meaning of the
Hebrew word yatsar, and the fact that Cain
was afraid of men slaying him. Let us then,
seek to apply the metaphor, to the Genesis
account, and assess the evidence before
us!
The introduction
of Adam into Eden is stated in the Genesis
record to be in stages. His formation from
dust comes first, after which he is placed
in Eden:
“Yahweh Elohim formed
man of the dust of the ground … And Yahweh
Elohim planted a garden eastward in Eden;
and there he put the man whom he had formed”
(Gen 2:7,8).
Even at a simple
level therefore, the metaphor does not fit
the literal event, as described. Whereas
the formation of Adam from dust is paralleled
with his calling from dusty Mesopotamia
to Eden, the record presents his formation
from dust, and the placing into Eden as
distinct events; he is first created, and
then placed in the garden. The metaphor
does not fit; it would explain the metaphor
of Adam coming from Dust (even if very badly;
the record presents him as being created
out of, not emerging from, dust), but not
of his being placed in Eden; to place the
two stages as speaking of a single event
would be to confuse the metaphor (if it
were such). Neither would it explain the
metaphor of Adam having the breath of life
breathed into his nostrils - this seems
to have no counterpart in the suggested
literal events described above. Neither
would it explain how that if the formation
of Eve from the side of Adam is a metaphor
of her coming “presumably from the same
source” as Adam, why a totally different
metaphor is used, suggestive of a derivation
within Adam himself (we shall return to
this latter aspect later).
A
SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF METAPHOR
Interestingly, the
proposition being advanced demands that
Eden is a literal place. And that Adam is
a literal man. And that his wife is a literal
woman. And that Cain literally did kill
his brother, and literally did fear that
men may slay him. Therefore, whilst the
argument is presented to us as being an
alternative to literality - with literality
being dismissed as being the cause of much
division - it is important to recognise
that in actual fact it requires certain
things to be literal, but others not. It
is selective, and apparently arbitrarily
so, as to what it regards as being literal,
and what is metaphorical, or not-literal.
The ‘not literal’ events, it would appear,
are events presented in Scripture as events
not explicable in human terms i.e. the formation
of a man from dust, animating the clay figure
with the breath of life, and forming a new
human from a living rib of the man so formed;
events which require the exercise of faith
in the abilities of an all-powerful Creator,
as distinct from scientifically provable
events*.
THE
EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
The first piece of
Scriptural evidence advanced requires that
the Hebrew word Yatsar be given a literal
significance, and that it speaks of an appointing
or calling, concepts which come within the
scope of its alleged literal meaning. That
again is significant; the literal meaning
of the word is utilised as a means of demonstrating
its supposed metaphorical sense!
But what of this
word? The first point to note is that its
stated uses are factually incorrect. As
a glance at Englishman’s Hebrew-Chaldee
Concordance of the Old Testament will show,
the word is not used of the calling of Abraham.
In fact, the sense of ‘calling’ is not intrinsically
within the meaning of this word; it is not
used in such a sense in Scripture (where
the Spirit uses other words, to denote this,
such as arq qara’ the word which is used
of Abraham in Isaiah 51:2). Strong gives
the word Yatsar the following definition:
“prob. Identical
with 3334 (through the squeezing into shape)
… to mould into a form; espec as a potter
…”.
Indeed, that is most
fitting given the context in which this
word is used in Genesis; that of Yahweh
forming the bodily shape of Adam from the
dust of the ground. The word is used in
this sense also in the following verses:-
Is 29:16; 64:8; Jer 18:2,3,4,6,19:1,11;
Lam 4:2; Zech 11:13 (its context, not its
etymology, determining whether it be understood
in a literal, or symbolic sense). It is
also translated “form” or “formed” 26 times,
which is again of interest in the context
of its use in Genesis. There is no need
to question therefore, that in the Genesis
account it is correctly rendered formed
in the sense of a clay figure being fashioned
after the manner of a potter, for that is
the very context of the use of this word
- which does not intrinsically contain within
the scope of its defined meaning the sense
of “called”.
The second piece
of evidence advanced, is that Cain was fearful
that men would slay him. The Scripture record
reads thus:
“And Cain said unto
Yahweh, My punishment is greater than I
can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out
this day from the face of the earth; and
from they face shall I be hid; and I shall
be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth;
and it shall come to pass that everyone
that findeth me shall slay me” (Gen 4:14).
Interestingly, the
writer is depending upon a literal construction
of this verse to prove his metaphorical
application of the earlier chapters in Genesis
(which in themselves, are only part-metaphor,
being mixed with literality). The Bible
itself recounts what other people were around
at this time: “the days of Adam after he
had begotten Seth were eight hundred years:
and he begat sons and daughters” (Gen 5:4).
The solution is simple; Cain knew that the
family of Adam was growing, and was fearful
that one of them would seek to avenge the
blood of their brother.
No other evidence
is provided from Scripture. Unproven assertions
are made, such as: “The fact that the earth
was well and truly peopled before the Garden
of Eden episode presents no obstacle …”.
But what “fact”? Where is the proof it is
a “Fact”? None is advanced. Some evidence
is hinted at later, such as: “now we have
ample evidence of prehistoric man hunting
and gathering and living a nomadic existence
in caves and other primitive dwellings for
hundreds if not thousands of years before
the emergence of the Adamic family,” with
reference being made to Palaeolithic and
Neolithic “people”. But in actual fact,
this is a misapplication of evidence. The
“ample evidence” referred to here is that
advanced by Evolutionists, as a prop for
their God-defying theory designed to undermine
the authority of Scripture. The only “evidence”
presented therefore, are the claims of men
who not only deny the literality of Creation,
but whose objective is to provide an alternative
to the Bible in it’s account of the origins
of men. Being that “the world by wisdom
knows not God” (1 Cor 1:21), it seems hardly
wise to appeal to ‘evidence’ derived by
man’s wisdom to interpret the Word of God.*
THE
DOCTRINAL CONSEQUENCES
It is sometimes argued
that such matters as these, not being specifically
and directly referred to in the BASF are
actually non-essential matters of secondary
importance. And that being non-essential,
such discussion is healthy, and diversity
of opinion is encouraged. However, the perilous
nature of such reasoning becomes clear,
when it is recognized that several doctrines
of a fundamental importance depend upon
the events of the early chapters of Genesis
being an accurate account of what took place.
For instance, the
theory before us cannot define a literal
counterpart for the formation of Eve, taking
her emergence from Adam’s side as being
a mere metaphor. It has to “presume” that
it speaks of her coming from the dusty regions
of Mesopotamia, like Adam allegedly did.
However, not only does Scripture give a
reason for the difference in origin (in
Genesis 2:23-25), it also draws out doctrines
to be implemented in human relationships
from that difference. For instance, in speaking
of the distinct roles of men and women “in
ecclesia”, the Apostle states:
“for the man is not
of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was man created for the woman, but
the woman for the man” (1 Cor 11:8,9; see
also 1 Tim 2:13).
And again, in speaking
of the Bride of Adam being typical of the
Bride of Christ, as a member of His Body,
we read:
“no man ever hated
his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth
it, even as the Lord the ecclesia: for we
are members of his body, of his flesh, and
of his bones” (Eph 5:29,30).
“Know ye not that
your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall
I then take the members of Christ, and make
them members of a harlot? God forbid. What!
Know ye not that he which is joined to a
harlot is one body? For Two, saith he, shall
be one flesh. But he that is joined unto
the Lord is one spirit” (1 Cor 6:17).
This example is most
interesting, for it does demonstrate that
the Genesis record does have an allegorical
teaching. Not that the events described
there are not literal; but rather in those
literal events are to be found principles
which themselves represent greater things
to come in Christ. To detract from the literality
of the events of Creation also undermines
the doctrines that are founded upon Genesis
being literal.
But more seriously,
the notion that Adam is merely a representative
of an already existing race of men undermines
many doctrinal points taught in the New
Testament. Genesis portrays him as the first
man created. Similarly, the Apostle Paul
describes him as “the first man.” And in
this place, the literal things concerning
the formation of Adam from dust are again
drawn upon to demonstrate principles for
the believers:
“There is a natural
body, and there is a spiritual body. And
so it is written, The first man Adam was
made a living soul; the last Adam was made
a quickening spirit (FOOTNOTE:- Notice here,
Christ is not “the last man Adam”, but the
“last Adam”. That is, whereas Adam was the
first man, Christ is not the last man, but
is representatively a second Adam) … the
first man is of the earth, earthy; the second
man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy,
such are they also that are earthy: as is
the heavenly, such are they also that are
heavenly. And as we have borne the image
of the earthy, we shall also bear the image
of the heavenly” (1Cor 15:45-49).
Clearly, to deny
that Adam was “made a living soul” as Gen
2 describes, being an “earthy” man, formed
from the dust of the ground, undermines
the point being made in this chapter, and
destroys the comparison being made with
the Lord Jesus Christ.
Again, if Adam was
but one of a whole race of men which existed
from times long before him, we would have
a major problem in understanding the origin
of sin and death - for Scripture depends
on him being “the first man” in its explanation
of these matters:
“wherefore, as by
one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, for that all have sinned … but not
as the offence, so also is the free gift.
For if through the offence of one many be
dead, how much more the grace of God, and
the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus
Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not
as it was by one that sinned so is the gift:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation,
but the free gift is of many offences unto
justification. For if by one man’s offence
death reigned by one … therefore as by the
offence of one judgment came upon all men
to condemnation … for as by one man’s disobedience
many were made righteous …” (Rom 5:12-21).
If Adam were merely
a representative called out of a race of
men existing from centuries before him -
was death found within their ranks? Did
they ever sin? The Bible places the introduction
of sin and death as being accountable to
one man, Adam. Yet to postulate a multitude
of other men being alive at that time impacts
upon Bible teaching concerning both this,
and the means of redemption through one
man Christ Jesus, which the Bible places
in antithesis to Adam. Those other men are
not alive now, for the only evidence of
their existence are their dead remains,
and the Scriptures testify that God “hath
made of one blood all nations of men to
dwell on the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).
So what happened to them? Why did they die,
since not being descended from Adam they
were not born under condemnation through
him? The difficulty appears to be insurmountable.
We conclude then,
that it is better to believe the testimony
of the Creator than be led by the wisdom
of men, which has been made foolishness
by Him. Although the stated purpose of the
theory was to attempt to address some of
the apparent difficulties between science
and the Bible, it needs to be recognise
that it raises further difficulties far
more serious than those it tries to solve,
and has doctrinal consequences so far reaching
that it affects and brings into question
the very basis of our redemption.
Chris
Maddocks
“God
that made the world and all things therein,
seeing that he is Lord of heaven
and
earth, dwelleth not in temples made with
hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s
hands, as though
he
needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all
life, and breath, and all things; And hath
made of one blood
all
nations of men for to dwell on all the face
of the earth, and hath determined the times
before appointed
and
the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:24-26)
|
