I just read part of a thesis with the title ‘Theology of sin and evil in Classical Pentecostalism…’ by Sanna Urvas. It includes a chapter titled ‘Theology of sin and evil through history…’. This text confirmed my earlier understanding that we need to thank Augustine of Hippo (lived 354-430 CE) for the later western concept of original sin. The idea was not evident or not coherent in the texts of the earlier writers, although it has been claimed that the texts by Gregory of Nyssa included ideas towards a notion of original sin that included a heritable nature but he did not fully arrive at that conclusion.
Original sin, in the sense used in the west during the last centuries, cannot be found from the biblical scriptures or the writings of earlier church fathers. Interpretation of biblical passages tend to follow the prevailing theology, so it is natural that some have seen support for the concept in the Bible. I would classify that as ‘eisegesis’, forcing the biblical texts to support a later model of interpretation, rather than taking what the passages teach as the basis of our theology.
Augustine was an influential thinker and the church councils seemed to adopt his interpretation in some matters, like the original sin. For me, this lifts the question do we follow the interpretation of Augustine or the earlier scriptures and church fathers in our own opinion about the original sin?
Not just makes more sense, actually reflects the ANE concept of images and what their functions were. Over time the church has deveoped mental models of “image of God” that are completely divorced from how the image of God construct was used in the text. “Image of God” has become this portmanteau that we’ve dumped a lot of our theology into. But it gets problematic when we then impose our concept back on the original text.
How does this “vocational” (or “functional”) image relate to ways that we understand human nature?
Something I keep coming back to is how the breath of God turned a creature of dust into a living thing - which relates perfectly to a person’s ability to act and make choices.
As people broken by sin, we have failed in (and maybe are incapable of) representing God the way he has called us to do. So Christ is sent as unbroken image of God, he faithfully represents God in a way that Adam and Eve (fallen humanity) could not, so by switching our identity from Adam (broken images) to Christ (perfect image), we can fulfill our calling as image bearers and work in Jesus’ name for justice, righteousness, and peace until everything is finally set right in the Eschaton.
I take a middle path between mindless literalism and vague metaphoricalism, with an historical but symbolic non-magical understanding of Genesis. The breath of God is inspiration which brought the human mind of these chosen two people to life, and this gave them power which they could misuse in opposition to the demands of life itself with habits which were self-destructive. Knowledge of good and evil is not something which God would forbid. But real knowledge of good and evil is something you get with time and experience in a relationship with God (the “tree of life”), and not something you get from eating a a magical fruit. It is the authority to say what is good and evil without such authentic knowledge which can be gained so easily and is so dangerously destructive in human life.
And I see the story as a classic parent-child relationship where the parent must always give a commandment of this sort… “don’t play in the street or you will die.”
So it is not evil if the law of the jungle and might makes right are the only right and wrong you know? (color me skeptical)
I think God saw His creation demonstrating the fact that cooperation was the most successful survival strategy and so He said, “it is good.”
Knowledge only exists because there is something there to know, and the knowledge of good and evil is no different.
I do not think that is the whole story of the Bible. There is no magical power of human sacrifice, and I don’t believe God needs some magical power in order to forgive, or that a magical power can take away our self-destructive habits.
Yes I believe Jesus gave his life, drinking of the cup of Socrates, in much the same way as many others give their lives to stand up for right in order to change the path of mankind to a better future. The difference is not a more powerful magic of human sacrifice but that this was a about a restoration of our relationship with God.
Therefore in my opinion, original sin is the first self-destructive habit which turned the first human beings away from the path of life (and relationship with God) in which learning from their mistakes is of critical importance. This is a progressive degenerative disease leading to even more self-destructive habits. Thus the first habit of blaming others for your mistake went rather quickly to the habit of murdering anyone who makes you feel bad. Awareness and freedom of will is one of the first causalities in the growth of such self-destructive habits until we are very much like a bunch of drug addicts with no control over ourselves or our lives.
And clearly the spread of evil and sin is not genetic going only to biological descendants but a pattern of behavior spreading throughout a world population right along with the inspiration and gifts which came from God.
I don’t see any rebellion in the story at all. I don’t see it in the behavior of Adam and Eve. And I don’t see it in the reactions of God to what happened.
I think this whole “rebellion thing” is the invention of those seeking to use religion as a tool of power, who want obedience to their dictates. And this is as much a source of evil as other bad habits of human behavior.
Thank you for answering my question, and what you said is helpful.
So it would then seem appropriate to distinguish the image of God from our soul-ish existence.
Is that fair? This reminds me of something Sproul would often say about something complicated, and this is a paraphrase, “the concepts can be distinguished but not separated.”
Yes, image of God has become shorthand for qualities that set us apart from other creatures like rationality, moral reasoning, ability to relate to God/worship, are seen as something God instilled in humanity, the image of God. But that really isn’t from the Genesis text.
So Middleton and others would say we should think about the difference between necessary and sufficent conditions. Yes, in order for humans to bear God’s image and fulfill the calling to be his representatives and rule/steward creation on his behalf there are necessary conditions: rationality, morality, relationality, etc. But possessing these qualities is not the sufficient condition to be designated “image of God,” because that designation involves choseness and calling not just capabilities.
In the ANE images of kings or gods were put in temples or erected over territories to remind people who the ruler was in that place. Kings and priests (thought of as the image of gods) and idols in temples were seen as a connection point between heaven and earth, the spiritual world and the physical world. So in Genesis there is an appropriation of this concept when God presents all of creation as his temple and asserts his dominion over all of creation. Instead of just making a king or priest or idol his image in this temple or domain of all creation, he calls every human to be his image bearer and “rule the earth” as his representative. So maybe our “soulish existence” as you put it was a necessary condition of being chosen for this calling, but it wasn’t sufficient.
This is also helpful as animals, as we learn more about them, and as they spend time with us, show real similarities to our ability to consciously exist.
Is might makes right evil? I would say it becomes that when we became capable of doing otherwise, but chose not to do so. I see the “law of the jungle” and natural “evil” as being an integral part of the “world” without which it could not exist. It may make us fall to our destruction, but if we didn’t have gravity, we would be flung out in space. If brake pads did not have friction and wear out, they wouldn’t stop our cars. If coyotes did not eat rabbits, they would starve and the rabbits would ultimately starve too, as their habitat was destroyed.
The story of Adam and Eve, made in the image of God, showed us we had the capacity to rise above the natural world, though in sinning we chose not to, but through Christ we can overcome.
I’m in the middle of writing a small group Bible study on the image of God for BioLogos, so I’ve been thinking a lot about the topic. My co-author and I have been interviewing scholars and authors about the topic. (Instead of reading a book chapter for each session, there will be a 15 minute interview to listen to.) We did one with Richard Middleton that was really good. Our last one is today with Esau McCaulley on how the image of God relates to race.
This looks promising and I look forward to seeing it, and possibly doing the study with a small group from my church… plus it’d be fun to push the boundary with them/leadership (if it comes up) on the evolution issue.
What does this mean? That the criminal is not evil until the religious leader says to him that what they are doing is wrong??? I don’t buy it. That serves using religion as a tool of power. I see right and wrong in the reasons WHY and not in any authoritarian dictates. And thus the reasons are there regardless of any such dictates.
So yes, “might makes right” is wrong because it is destructive of human life and civilization.
The locus of this “capable of doing otherwise” is terribly ambiguous. If someone is “incapable” because they did not hear what the religious leader dictated about what is evil, then I don’t see why they are not just as “incapable” because they simply don’t believe what the religious leader dictates.
I see cooperation as being more central to the great accomplishments of life. To be sure competition is important… it is simply part of the learning process.
Yes. God gave us gifts by which we could do so much more and the fall is that we used those gifts in ways which were self-destructive.
Argh… I feel this discussion is getting bogged down with semantics and we are arguing over practically nothing.
God gave Adam and Eve a direct order not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - and they did exactly what He told them not to - how is that not rebellion?
As punishment for their rebellion, God kicked them out of paradise and His care to fend for themselves in the Darwinian world of the survival of the fittest. His actions said in effect “you don’t want to live by my rules and be your own god - go for it. And don’t try to get back in - the door is locked.”
Christy already nailed it. That doesn’t mean I have nothing to add. Sorry, y’all. haha
I like your distinction between necessary and sufficient, but I’m not sure I follow your logic here. Are you saying some creatures possess the necessary conditions of rationality, morality, relationality, etc., yet that isn’t sufficient? The only creatures that fulfill all three conditions are human in every sense of the word, so I don’t follow you. Aren’t all humans considered to be called to the vocation of imago Dei from birth, before meeting any of the necessary conditions? I guess it hinges on what you mean by “chosenness,” but if every human is “chosen” and called to represent God on the earth, I’m not sure the word fits.
I would differ with your interpretation of Gen. 2:7. Here’s a copy-pasta of my thoughts:
That does look like a great study! I look forward to its release.
For background reading on historical interpretations of the image of God, Middleton has an entry in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Theology posted on his website.
Only slightly it seems. Either way human beings can determine their actions and make choices, something which would be unthinkable apart from the activity of God.
I think we are talking past one another. I was referring to when we became capable as a species of making moral decisions, as before that self interest was not evil, just messy.
People fail to do what they are asked for a variety of reasons. It often has nothing to do with rebellion and it certainly had NOTHING to do with any desire to rebel in this story. I will certainly agree they had no good excuse. They had their warning from someone they should have believed and followed. But to call it rebellion is just goofy or… motivated by those twisting the text to their own ends. The story does not say or imply that Adam and Eve were motivated by rebellion – that they just didn’t want to do what they were told.
Nor does the Bible say God was angry at them disobeying him. Punishment is likewise frequently motivated by other things than reaction to rebellion. The overriding concern of parents is typically the well being and safety of their child, so they will punish them disobeying a command not to play in the street in order to keep them from be killed by traffic – and anger at being disobeyed frequently has nothing to do with it. Frankly I think the obsession with obedience and rebellion is tied to a lust and delusion of control. I have certainly met people like that, and I honestly don’t think they make very good teachers, parents, or bosses.
Indeed. But what God did is directly connected with their bad habit of blaming others for their own mistake. Living by the consequences of their own efforts was the best way for them to learn how pointless that was. I mean let’s compare the two…
A parent takes any act of disobedience as reason to abandon his responsibilities and throw the children out of his house.
A parent responds to a self-destructive habit with the kind of lesson which will teach them why this doesn’t work.
The second is a good example of parenting and the first is the worst example of parenting. The first is what I would expect of the devil “failure will not be tolerated!” And the second is what I would expect of God, “your sins are forgiven, so go and sin no more.”
