Part 1: A Discussion with Joshua Sherman re: The Fall, Atonement, Curses, Sin, Death, Evangelism, and Fundamentalists.
Something a bit different in this post. I’m in a couple Facebook groups re: Biblical studies and kept rubbing shoulders with a fellow named Joshua Sherman. Joshua seemed to be smart, well informed, and able to state his positions clearly and logically. We eventually became direct friends on Facebook outside the groups. Then we started exchanging private messages about Biblical Studies, Politics, and Memes. The following will be the first of multiple parts of our Biblical Studies discussion to date.
I asked Joshua for a bio of sorts, and he stated:
I have a B.A. in Christian Theology from Seattle Pacific University. I'd love to get a relevant Masters, but haven't yet. I work for one of the top health insurance companies in the U.S., providing support for people that work on proposals and RFPs. So I'm really just one of those guys that spends way too much time reading and studying Bible and theology. LOL
As far as my [Rob’s] bio, some readers may not know my background. I’ve been a Christian for over 40 years, attended a Christian college, took a number of Bible classes, majored in History. I then attended law school and run my own general law private practice after spending almost a decade as a corporate lawyer. I grew up in a charismatic/fundamentalist church that gradually turned cultish, with a lot of psychological abuses of the members by leadership. Since getting out of that mess about a decade ago, I have spent a considerable amount of time on Biblical studies, revisiting almost every doctrine I was taught and finding that many of them were incorrect, in part or in toto.
Anyway, I thought Joshua and I had some very interesting exchanges. I hope you, the reader, also find this interesting (Note: Because we were both typing responses at the same time on occasion, sometimes a response is delayed and circles back. I’m not going to spend the time to edit those sorts of things for readability).
Rob: “Joshua, I've been kicking around an idea and thought I'd run it by you to see if you think there's any merit to it. I haven't gotten around to researching the scholarly stuff related to it yet - maybe it's not even worth spending the time to look into it. And I'm still thinking through the concepts, so I may not explain it very well.
I was recently having a conversation with a friend who is a Ken Ham follower who believes that there was no animal death before the fall. Even though he's from that sort of background, he's willing and interested in at least considering other possibilities. I, of course, raised the idea that Romans 5:12 says the result of the curse was HUMAN death, not animals... etc...
The discussion led him to raise Romans 8, where the earth is described as corrupted and he asked if that was an effect of Adam's fall. I did some research on that issue, gave him some links, etc...
And my first thought when he raised the corruption of the earth was Genesis 3:17:
"cursed is the ground because of you"
Obviously, from that passage, the fall had SOME effect on the ground.
Typically, that curse on the ground is interpreted as "you're gonna have a harder time growing food and preventing weeds from growing". And for good reason, as those effects are essentially listed later in the passage.
That perspective largely seems to view it as GOD cursing the ground by doing something to it to make it harder to grow things.
I'm not sure I'm convinced of that position.
In my response to the fellow, I noted the distinction between the location that is Eden and the rest of the earth - my reading of the dominion mandate is that Eden was the ideal area where things were very, very easy because of the presence of God, and the remainder of the earth needed to be subdued - it was imperfect and needed some work. Which implies that things were harder outside Eden than inside Eden - even before the fall.
And then it occurred to me that there could be another aspect to the curse that isn't typically thought about.
Again, the section reads in ESV:
"cursed is the ground because of you"
KJV has it:
"cursed is the ground for thy sake"
Young's Literal Translation has it:
"cursed is the ground on thine account"
Is it possible that an aspect of the ground being cursed because of Adam is a result of Adam's (humanity's) CHOICES after being forced to work it in less efficient conditions? I.E. that because Adam was removed from the garden's ideal/efficient growing conditions, things would be more difficult, planning for the future would have to be undertaken, etc... In other words, that scarcity entered the world as the default living condition and - as a result - Adam would be tempted to cut corners in order to survive, thereby "cursing" the ground.
The human response to scarcity often shows up as “corner cutting”. I'm hardly a "green" environmentalist, but it's beyond dispute that humans have often harmed the earth in some degree or other in their attempts to overcome scarcity. Farming the land year after year after year without allowing it to rest (something the Old Testament addresses). Overfishing the oceans in some areas. Not being particularly careful to prevent oil spills. And on and on.
As a result, I think it's hardly a stretch to say that the actions of humanity have "cursed" the ground - or that the ground is "cursed because of humanity". Because of the actions humanity has chosen to take that harm the earth.
Do you think that's a tenable aspect of interpretation for the passage?
Joshua: I think that makes a lot of sense.
Rob: Good to hear I'm not crazy. LOL.
Joshua: I've looked at the "curses" in Genesis 3 (most of them aren't explicitly called that, though this one is) as etiological statements explaining the condition of human life in this world and I think they are linked. Mortality leads to scarcity, which leads to general male dominance. Because scarcity engenders conflict. And scarcity also means that women are more valuable than men, when it comes to reproduction. You don't send women off to war, when you're worried about propagating the next generation so perhaps they can win the war so your tribe can survive. I hadn't thought about it in terms of the ground then being cursed by humanity's attempts to overcome scarcity, because our actions to do that cause disruption upon the earth. But it fits.
I do wonder if that is a more modern look at it, though... just thinking about the differences between ancient farming practices and what we do now. It's certainly a concern that has become more obvious to us now, given the scope of our technological manipulation.
Rob: Yea, I think fundamentalists (I was one for a long time) have got it wrong.
It's not so much that God is "cursing" people as in casting a spell that causes them to be born with birth defects or have towers fall on top of them (were those worse sinners than the others?).
It's that the results of being removed from the garden (God's active presence) result in lots of negative things that hurt humanity.
"Curses" are essentially God leaving humans to the natural results of their choices.
God gave them over to dishonorable passions. It’s God saying, “Fine... you don't want to do it my way - which is the way which will bring you the most benefit. Have at it doing it your way and let's see how that works out for you.”
Joshua: Ohhhh yes. I'll take it one step further. It's common among Western Christianity - influenced largely by Augustine - to see expulsion from the Garden - and the connected mortality of humanity - as capital punishment for disobedience.
I think that's hogwash. I do think it was an act of discipline, but that's different. I think it was also a gift. It enabled repentance. I think it was exile for the sake of reconnection. "You're not in a place where we can interact safely now. So I'm going to bring you through a process that will prepare you for safe fellowship with me, again."
I think this is part of "The God who declares the end from the beginning." God WILL accomplish His original purposes for humanity and creation. That's inevitable. The Fall/Falls can't stop that. They are now part of how God is bringing things to fruition. Are you thinking about what I posted in Lord of Spirits? About the Image of God in relation to this? If you haven't seen that, I can share those ideas, too
Rob: But looking at it this way undercuts the ENTIRE method of "evangelism" of the fundamentalists. They insist on constantly preaching against sin. Another fundamentalist friend posted a quote from Ray Comfort last night:
-------
"When we teach children that salvation is as simple as saying a prayer, it often results in the terrible tragedy of a teenager being "gospel hardened." He thinks he "tried Jesus" when we was a kid, and it didn't work.
It also reveals shallow theology on our part. It is an absolute necessity for the Holy Spirit to bring conviction of sin, because if there is no conviction of sin, there cannot be any repentance from sin. And without repentance there can be no salvation. Although we may work with the Holy Spirit, salvation isn't something we can in any way manipulate or create." - Ray Comfort
-----
To the fundamentalist, "repent" almost always equals "feel bad for immoral/bad acts and promise you'll stop doing those things".
But that's the RESULT of repentance. Not repentance itself.
Repentance is merely changing one's mind. So it can obviously apply to one's view of bad deeds one commits.
But in terms of "repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" it's not about bad deeds.
It's about turning one's allegiance from whatever one is worshiping to YHWH.
The fundamentalists can't seem to fathom how or why a person would turn to YHWH without being convicted of bad deeds they've committed.
But look at Abraham, the father of the faith. When he was called, there was ZERO mention of him feeling bad/convicted of bad deeds he had committed. He was called and followed. Again, no mention of any sins he had committed. God didn’t demand he “repent” of sins, and Abraham doesn’t even seem to have thought of doing it.
Jesus forgave the sins of at least two people who weren't even seeking forgiveness (they came for healing and he started with forgiveness - because they were already following Him).
Pastor Mike Winger (the featured teacher of BibleThinker online ministry) has posted on FB that he believes a primary task of believers is to preach against the sins of the day - which he believes to be abortion and homosexuality.
But both of those things existed in Jesus' day, and Jesus didn't preach against them.
As I've looked into this, I've noticed that Jesus didn't spend a lot of time preaching "against sin".
It now looks very bizarre to me that fundamentalists somehow came to focus on preaching “against sin” as the primary means of evangelism.
Joshua: So... some connected things... How familiar are you with the New Perspective on Paul?
Rob: Podcast episodes mostly. I listen to N.T. Wright's and it's come up in others like OnScript if I recall. What I know of it sounds reasonable to me.
Joshua: And you're familiar with the pushback on in by more traditional Reformation/Reformed people?
Rob: Yea, to some extent. Not surprised. It's like a Catholic's reaction to Dr. Michael S. Heiser's interpretation1 of "on this rock I'll build my church."
Joshua: Yes. I think the ideas we are talking about are connected. The Puritan view of the Fall as capital punishment, of Adam and Eve in a covenant of works, of Israel in a covenant of works, and of Jesus bringing a covenant of grace are directly connected. Thus, Lutherans constantly seek to divide Scripture between things that are Law (commands/obligations that bring death) and Gospel (good news of grace that brings life.)
I think that's also hogwash. The Gospel itself requires a response. It's good news for all, but also not good news for pagans that don't want to repent of worshiping their gods. The Law was a grace given to Israel, to help them have clarity about how to live safely with God in their midst
Rob: Well, once one drops the "repentance=feeling bad for sin" and "the Fall as capital punishment", one is forced to rethink almost everything. Because those are foundational issues.
I mean it's literally taken almost a decade of serious Bible study for me to get out of those fundamentalist doctrines to this position. And by serious Bible study, I mean I've done far more of that in the last decade since leaving that cultish fundamentalist church I grew up in than I did in 30+ years of being there.
Joshua: So where the New Perspective gets after these kinds of ideas, this second look at human mortality as a gift, rather than a punishment, reframes a lot of serious things.
Here are some related thoughts... I think the moment when God clothed Adam and Eve was both an affirmation of humanity’s continued vocation to be imagers of God, and therefore an additional slap in the face to the serpent. Why?
In broad strokes:
1. There are connections between divine images, clothing, adornment, and glory/splendor in Scripture (and in how cultures around Israel understood them.) To clothe a divine image signified moving it/them closer to properly functioning as a representative of God (or the gods, for Israel’s neighbors.)
2. Adam and Eve, made in the image of God, found themselves naked after they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in rebellion against God’s command.
3. They were meant for garments of immortality and glory (inferred from a Biblical theology of imaging God, glory, immortality, etc., as in Daniel 12:3, 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8, etc., Genesis 2&3, Revelation 2&22.) But they couldn’t take those on, while in rebellion, without then being made distorted images of God.
4. They were ashamed, and tried to hide their shame with fig leaf coverings that didn’t work to cover their nakedness (because they still considered themselves naked when God called for them.) This inversion would have been EXACTLY what the serpent would have wanted - derailing God’s purpose for humanity so they couldn’t surpass the serpent.
5. Instead of leaving them in this state, God gave them garments of skin. He gave them mortality. This not only enabled repentance, but also enabled them - in a more limited capacity - to image God in the world they were going to now live in, outside of Eden. This would have signified a move toward proper function for a divine image - though a more limited one. It signals God affirming the vocation He had created humanity for, rather than a total departure from His original plan.
6. #5 would have been a slap in the face to the serpent, alongside the “head crusher” prophecy and the curses.
Rob: Yep. And the "non-religious" laws of the Old Testament were essentially the same as our laws against theft, speeding, etc... They're just ways to create a functional society, not mandates that should apply in every culture at all times.
My former church implicitly taught that the proper punishment for adultery/homosexuality is the death penalty but we can't do that because it's not the law today and we have to obey the government.
Adultery carried the death penalty for cultural reasons in the ANE. It's not that it should always result in the death penalty.
Joshua, you stated:
"I think the moment when God clothed Adam and Eve was both an affirmation of humanity’s continued vocation to be imagers of God, and therefore an additional slap in the face to the serpent."
Very nice. Well said and logically consistent.
Joshua: You're right that this is foundational. I've been looking a lot at the Atonement, and at sacrifices, in general.
The Puritan view of things seems to be that mortality was a punishment. So death is a punishment. Sacrifice usually involves death, so it must be a punishment. Exile would lead to death, so it must be a punishment. Therefore exile = death = punishment, and sacrifice = death = punishment. I see a lot more nuance there now.
Rob: Dr. Heiser's blog post on substitutionary atonement2 and Ronn Johnson's series on "The Big Story of the Bible"3 opened my mind to a lot of possibilities re: atonement.
Joshua: Yes, they were really good. Also - the Puritan approach equates death with eternal punishment, too. I no longer see any of this that way.
Sacrifice = gifts of hospitality offered to begin/deepen/repair relationship. Yes, this often involved death, but that's how you make BBQ. LOL
And how you get blood for ritual cleansing, which God also established as part of Israel's practice. Exile and death are not the same. Death and eternal death are not the same. Exile is done for the sake of enabling return.
Rob: As to the law, these podcasts linked below really changed my understanding of Biblical/ancient laws. As a lawyer, I tend to view them like modern laws (as do most modern people who grew up with statutory law). But they're not that.
WHY SCRIPTURE DOESN'T TALK ABOUT LAW, RELIGION, OR BELIEF
WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED LAW?
Joshua: Even death, as we understand it, is more like exile, than exile is like death. God provided a way for us to return from it, purified, through Christ!
Yeah, I bet, as a lawyer, you can probably relate to why Calvin saw things the way he did, more than a lot of people. Without spending time viewing Scripture through other lenses, it would be easy for a lawyer to let the legal frame dominate, and that's exactly what Calvin did.
Rob: The fundamentalists focus on sins/bad acts as ARBITRARILY bad. Basically, "God said don't do these things and if you do them, you've pissed Him off and made him kill his own son".
When in fact, what appears to be going on is that God said, "Don't commit adultery BECAUSE it will ruin your family" and "Don't steal BECAUSE it will harm the other person AND destroy trust in society" and "Don't have premarital sex BECAUSE a child could result from that sex and children need stable, committed, two parent families in order to thrive."
The fundamentalist thinks of sin as "bad stuff that makes God angry".
God thinks of sin (bad deeds) as "why are my children hurting themselves and others? Please stop doing that."
And God knows that people are most likely to stop doing that if they acknowledge Him and try to please Him.
Joshua: On sacrifice and atonement, I had a really good discussion about a month ago with some brothers, after we listened to the first few episodes the Bible Project did on Leviticus, and kept finding things that were subtle that we wish they'd approached differently. Discussion here:
Tim Mackie [of the Bible Project] is his own thinker, and that came out more as they developed the series. But his reliance on Michael Morales, and influence that being in Presbyterian/Reformed circles has had on Morales was pretty obvious to us.
Rob, you said:
"The fundamentalists focus on sins/bad acts as ARBITRARILY bad. Basically, "God said don't do these things and if you do them, you've pissed Him off and made him kill his own son"."
YESSSS!!!!
And they therefore misread Romans 3:23 because of it. What did we fall short of? God's list of arbitrary rules!
I think the answer for Romans 3:23 is obvious. Our sin has rendered us less able to properly function as Imagers of God. With Glory and the Image of God being intimately connected.
Rob: It's really bizarre when you think about it. God is repeatedly described as a father, but fundamentalists don't see Him that way AT ALL.
Fathers KNOW that their kids are going to "sin". It's not surprising, nor does it make the father especially angry in most instances. The Father's job is to train the child to cooperate and live well with others. To stop “sinning”. But the sin is inevitable. See I John 1:8:
“If we say we have no sin [present tense and active in Greek], we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”.
Joshua: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. They see God as Judge first. And justice only within a retributive frame.
When God is Father first, and ontological IS love. Exercising His justice primarily in creative and restorative ways. With retributive justice serving a sub-purpose within that frame, when people/peoples/angels have matured too much in their opposition to His restorative work, and continue to threaten it.
Rob: And that explains why Jesus saved almost all of His REALLY harsh criticisms for RELIGIOUS LEADERS who were imaging God badly.
Jesus considered their sin (which was largely not immoral acts) as FAR WORSE than those who were committing immoral acts.
See: Woman caught in adultery, woman who had 5 husbands, was currently married and living with a man she wasn't married with, etc...
How would a fundamentalist treat those sorts of people vs. how Jesus treated them?
Joshua: YES.
Rob: Which makes me think that Jesus would have some harsh words for fundamentalist leaders.
Joshua: Yes, I believe He would.
End of Part 1 of Discussion. Looks like there will be two (2) additional parts.