Hi Tom,
Thanks for the gracious response. I mainly want to respond to your comments on Paul, but I’ll save that for later and focus here on Genesis and genealogies:
When the Bible portrays a people group as a person, the narrative typically uses language that fits individuals. In Ezekiel 16, the woman Jerusalem has parents, sexual relations and named sisters (Sodom and Samaria). In Hosea 11, God calls Israel “my son” and goes on to mention Judah/Israel’s literal (grand)son Ephraim, who also refers to a whole group of people.
The strongest indication of a representative figure is often their name: a woman named Jerusalem or a man named Israel should ring the representative bell as much as a first human named Humanity (which is what the Hebrew word adam means). But the Eden narrative has many other clues as well. Practically nothing in the story is just what it’s called. The serpent isn’t just a serpent or clever beast and the trees of life and knowledge aren’t just fruit trees. If the people are also more than individuals, it fits the style of the whole story.
When Adam is split into two sides, Adam and Eve, they both continue to portray humanity. The enmity between Eve and the serpent isn’t just about Eve (or women) being afraid of snakes, and the promise of death to Adam doesn’t mean Eve (or women) lives forever. Eve and Adam both show the human condition in different ways (I got more into this here).
Genesis 5 begins with a section title saying it’s about the generations of Adam. The next sentence describes how God created Adam, the next how God named Adam. Then, the fourth sentence describes Adam becoming the father of Seth at 130.
The problem (for modern scientific readers) is that the Adam God creates and names is a group of people (male and female) while the Adam who fathers Seth is one man. Many English translations solve this “problem” by erasing Adam from the middle sentences, leaving Adam as just a man. But the inspired author of Genesis records that Adam is God’s name for humanity, male and female. This notice is given right at the head of Adam’s genealogy. Genesis doesn’t want us to view Adam as only a man, even if we view him as also a man.
As for Luke 3, I expect we both see a difference in the chain when it comes to Adam’s link. Adam is not the son of God the way Jesus is! I read the end as meaning something like “son of Seth, son of Humanity, creation of God.” This distinction isn’t in the text, but to me it’s inescapable that the last link or two should be understood differently.