Unity of the Human Race?

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Wed Feb 22 2006 - 17:58:36 EST

HI Terry, you wrote:
 
I think Dick Fischer's work comes closer to addressing the concerns, but
leaves behind the whole unity of the human race argument. I personally
don't share Glenn's
concerns about racism somehow coming out of Dick's view, but I think
that Dick's view does give short shrift to the unity of the race that
scripture seems to teach.
 
Let me lengthen the "shrift" a bit. The human race must be united as we
all can mate. The question is does the entire human race emanate from
Adam? I don't see any connection between the Adamic race and the
Genesis 6:4 nephilim translated "giants" in the KJV, who “were of old.”
Does anyone here see some connection between Adam’s brood and these
guys? Then they father the sons of Anak in Numbers 13:33. So let’s
see, non-Adamites before the flood have offspring after the flood. I
guess that means they survived the massive Genesis flood too. So who
thinks everybody came from Adam? Who thinks the flood obliterated all
mankind? Are we reading the same book here?
 
There are plenty of other clues scattered about that have been ignored.
This is just one more.
 
In 1656, Isaac de la Peyrére argued eloquently in Men Before Adam that a
literal interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 indicated the world was
populated before Adam. The key was verse 13: "For until the law sin was
in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Peyrére
reasoned that the law was given to Adam shortly after his creation, and
if there was "sin in the world" at that time, there must have been
people to do it:
 
 ... it must be held that sin was in the world
before Adam and until Adam: but that sin
was not imputed before Adam; Therefore
other men were to be allowed before Adam
who had indeed sinn'd, but without imputation;
because before the law sins wer [sic] not imputed.
 
Although men and sin were in the world before Adam, the manner of sin
was in the form of offenses against nature, violations of "natural law,"
and all died a natural death. It was not until God imposed moral law,
with Adam the first to be subject to it, that men were capable of "legal
sin," trespasses against God's law. Beginning with Adam's Fall, human
beings die both a natural death and a "legal" or spiritual death.
 
Ten years before Peyrére wrote Men Before Adam, the Westminster Divines
penned their Confession of Faith. They sought to avoid any implications
that all of humanity did not commence with Adam by putting the law on
Moses. But if Mosaic law, and not Adamic law, was intended by Romans
5:13, it could mean that sin was not charged before Moses! No, the
interpreters were not stepping into that trap. The Divines clearly
recognized that the moral law, the "covenant of works," was given to
Adam and said so:
 
The rule of obedience revealed to Adam
in the estate of innocence, and to all
mankind in him ... was the moral law.
 
If the moral law was given to Adam, and already "sin was in the world,"
then wouldn't this involve people? The Westminster Divines were
unwilling to entertain that possibility. They believed humanity started
with Adam, and sin was passed to his posterity by "natural generation."
The harmonizing device employed (although not mentioned specifically in
the Westminster Confession) was to maintain that imputation of sin was
through the law of Moses, but that it somehow applied retroactively to
Adam and his descendants. This made no sense, of course, but they were
torn between the illogical and the unthinkable. So, according to the
Divines, the moral law was not "comprehended" until the Ten Commandments
were delivered by God to Moses.
 
Peyrére railed against the position taken by the Divines and their
insistence that "the law" was the law of Moses:
 
The Interpreters being between two such
inconveniences, were at a stand, nor did
know which way to turn themselves; But
because it seemed less prejudicial to affirm,
that sins were not imputed before Moses,
and until Moses, than to affirm that there
were any men before Adam! Therefore they
preferred the first inconvenience before the
second.
 
In Peyrére's mind, since the law transgressed was the law given to Adam
of Genesis, the sin was perpetrated by those who co-existed and
pre-existed Adam. Sin was not imputed to those forerunners, however,
until Adam disobeyed God's law.
 
Before the Law of God, or till that Law of
God was violated by Adam, sin and death
were in the world, yet had gained no power
over it : they had got no lawful possession,
they had got no absolute power. The reason
is, because before that time there was no
Law given by God.
 
Clearly, sin was imputed from Adam to Moses. What brought the flood?
Was the flood not judgment for sin? Or for that matter, what about the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? And if the subject of Romans 5:13
was Adamic law, the sin that "was in the world" was committed by men
other than Adam.
 
We will never know Adam's mission on earth with certainty. It probably
was intended that he was to bring news of God's kingdom to the
polytheistic heathen. Adam had life to offer, perhaps tied to the tree
of life some way. But regardless of what Adam was supposed to have
done, however he would have done it, being human, he failed. The
"second Adam" was God incarnate, and succeeded.
 
Adam's sin caused spiritual death upon all men, not because he was
father to us all, but because he failed to be an example to us all.
Adam was not the biological head of our species, but the Federal head of
the human race.
 
The parallel Paul strikes between Adam and Christ is significant.
Bloodlines are of no regard in obtaining salvation by way of the second
Adam, just as bloodlines do not put us under the penalty of sin from the
first Adam. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. Indeed, he may have
alluded to the gentiles being outside of Adam's line. "Nevertheless
death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam's transgression" (Rom. 5:14).
 
It is clear from Romans 5:12-18 that all men come under the sin of Adam
through his transgression, and therefore, all need a savior. What is
not mandated by the text is that gentiles have Adamic ancestry, and
maybe, just the opposite. It was neither by imitation nor propagation
that Original Sin passed to all mankind, but by representation. Adam
was the chosen intermediary; thus, we have the assurance there was no
condemnation without representation.
 
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Wed Feb 22 17:59:23 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 22 2006 - 17:59:23 EST