Conclusions:PQRC 4
| Question PQRC 4 — Meaning of "very good" | ||||||||||
| In Genesis 1:31 all of God’s creation was described as “very good”. This has been taken to mean that humans (as part of God’s creation) were neither immortal nor (yet) dying. Is this a justifiable interpretation? | ||||||||||
|
Answers generally positive
Answers generally negative
User:Bruce
A statement of the facts
The English phrase "very good" has been treated as a technical term, though lacking an agreed formal definition, since its use in the Clause IV of the BASF where it appears in a description of Adam as a living soul, or natural body of life, "very good" in kind and condition. Some interpret this to mean that he was "neither mortal nor immortal"; others say that the phrase in Genesis 1:31 is simply a description of the entire pristine creation.
Identification of issues involved
In the BASF the phrase was enclosed in quotation marks, certainly to acknowledge the allusion to Genesis and perhaps also as "scare quotes," acknowledging that the Bible does not apply it either to Adam's kind or to his condition, whatever distinction between those two properties may have been intended. The neglect of this original punctuation has caused confusion.
It is also problematic that the absurdity or otherwise of "neither mortal nor immortal" is treated as a matter of opinion, without agreement even on what domain of discourse the question belongs to.
The third problem is that more than a century of theoretical disagreements about atonement has given the phrase significance far removed from its Biblical context, and turned it into jargon (a "very good" state or a "very good" estate), a slogan or even a shibboleth.
Summary of solutions offered
Several Sutherland members assume a plain reading of the phrase in context: he was "very good" like the whole of the rest of creation, which was described the same way. One explicitly applies the term "very good" state to the narrative of Genesis chapters 2 and 3: even in that state, and in a "perfect paradise environment temptation is irresistible. Such is human nature." Others emphasise Adam's archetypal nature as the human made of dust, and thus the identity of his nature with our own, in that according to the Bible, we too are created from the dust.
With respect to the phrase "neither mortal nor immortal" L G Sargent treated the question as a simple matter of logic and pronounced it absurd: he agreed with Dr. Thomas that Adam was created "capable of death, but not subject to death". This is supported by the clues in Genesis hinting at what access to The Tree of Life might have done for Adam and Eve, even after their punishment — see Genesis 3:22-24. Others with a more mythological approach (though rejecting the term) are happy to take "very good" from Genesis 1:31, equate it with "neither mortal nor immortal," and splice it into the second Genesis creation narrative, variously understood.
The third problem identified above is exemplified by the Christadelphian Inter-Ecclesial Advisory Committee (Adelaide) who interpret the BASF itself, and claim that the entire phrase “very good” in kind and condition "is used to mean that Adam was not created with a nature flawed by the imperfections that we experience." (Reference here.)
Description of arguments raised in favour of the various solutions
Clearly the plain reading should have the advantage in the absence of Biblical precedent for a sophisticated reading. In fact, the many scriptures linked from Formed from the dust give strong support to the plain reading, which is that that the man called "Man" was very good along with all God's other creatures, and in the same way — by this reading he was created "capable of death, but not subject to death" as at least some Christadelphians have believed since the days of Dr Thomas; the phrase "very good" would thus simply mean "very good" in the Bible, as a survey of usage shows. For what it's worth, the description of Adam in the BASF as "created out of the dust of the ground as a living soul, or natural body of life" accords with that.
The plain reading of the phrase "very good" does not in itself preclude any of the ways that we understand the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, even to the extreme of believing that God "implanted a physical law of decay" in Adam, as it was put in the superseded 1873 Statement of Faith. Some of these understandings are summarised for PQRC7 at The Origin of Mortality. Nevertheless, the phrase has been adduced in defence of the concept of "neither mortal nor immortal" so often over the years that confusion arises on account of the assumption that the phrase actually means that. Another strong argument along these lines is reasoned, not from the Bible but from the BASF Clause V which states that the sentence of death "defiled" Adam, and "became a physical law of his being" — from this it is inferred that there must have been a physical change inflicted as punishment, which has been inherited ever since, and this is then read back into the words of Genesis. (An alternative reading of the BASF emphasises that it was the sentence that defiled him, and the consequences that we inherit.) Arguments across the spectrum can be mounted from Romans 5:12, sometimes read according to Jerome's ruinously bad translation into Latin which led to the concept of inherited guilt in Western Christianity.
In my personal view, Bro Sargent's tight logic is misapplied. There are many adjectives which fit the pattern that he finds absurd (neither healthy nor unhealthy, for example) and the concept of lost immortality is widespread in ancient myths, for example in Brunhilde's case.
The IEAC cite Romans 7:23 and 8:2 with their claim about the intent behind the BASF's phrase “very good” in kind and condition but these verses make no mention of the creation of Adam. The verses do mention human imperfections, though, and may support the case of those who believe that the primary significance of Adam is as the archetypal human, representative of humankind as a whole. Without additional evidence the claims about the original intent of the phrase in the BASF are of little value, and in any case they do not have the authority of Scripture.
Reasoning relevant to balancing the arguments and resolving the problem
The BASF correctly rules itself out as a "source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth": its statements should be considered seriously but not taken as axioms to be reasoned upon, and the same goes for the Unity Agreement of 1957.
Fifty English translations at Bible Gateway give us "very good", one gives "supremely good", and one "excellent in every way". Two paraphrases describe God's pleasure. They all make perfectly good sense in context. The right to overthrow this witness in favour of a disputable technical meaning would require authority greater than that of the Bible itself.
The punctuation of the BASF shows that while it was alluding to the phrase, it was at least hinting that too much weight should not be put on it.
A decision or non-decision as appropriate, considering relevance to salvation
The phrase clearly means "very good". The claim that it has implications about life and death is quite unreasonable, if not as absurd as Bro Sargent said. This is not to say that the claims made about human and animal mortality are necessarily wrong, simply that "very good" in Genesis 1:31 does not support them.
Recommendations
The answer to this question is so clear that it reflects badly on the thinking of any who take on themselves the authority to dictate that the confabulated alternative must be accepted.
Name(s) of author(s)
User:Paul
A statement of the facts
Identification of issues involved
Summary of solutions offered
Description of arguments raised in favour of the various solutions
Reasoning relevant to balancing the arguments and resolving the problem
A decision or non-decision as appropriate, considering relevance to salvation
Recommendations
The interpreted phrase “very good” was God’s judgment of the creation as a whole. In this Adam was included, but this designation should not be applied specifically to Adam in a particular state. Some have applied a meaning that is not warranted by the definition of the phrase found by examining it usage elsewhere in the OT.
Name(s) of author(s)
