I came across Psalm 66:5-6 the other day while working with Mark Futato at Logos Bible Software last weekend (it was a reference in a presentation he made). Here’s the ESV:
5 Come and see what God has done:
he is awesome in his deeds toward the children of man.
6 He turned the sea into dry land;
they passed through the river on foot.
There did we rejoice in him…
Do you see anything unusual here . . . that pertains to our recent Adam discussion? You will have to think past the English to the Hebrew a bit, but if you’ve been reading the discussions here, it may pop out to you. So, tell me what you see and why it’s of note for the Adam discussion.
Maybe you’re suggesting that this passage could be construed as indicating that the people of Israel (not all humans) are the children of Adam. This is a helpful find.
Here’s the angle: God delivered ISRAEL from Egypt at the exodus, so when this psalm describes the things God did, youd expect the text to say he did it for the sons of Israel or Israel but what we get is sons of Adam.
Its a pretty surprising Adam Israel correlation, which goes to the Adam = Israel typology that is part of the Adam debate (how to interpret Adam).
The Hebrew says “sons of Adam” in Hebrew, translated “children of man”. Other translations will have : sons of men, humankind, people, sons of man. I wonder what you see Mike, but just to think outside the box : I think the Adam in this passage, probably, has a nuance that refers specifically to the Israelite (or sons of Israel), who are genealogically traced back to Adam, in the sense that it is God’s chosen genealogical line for the promised seed. This, because the context is Exodus 14, during the taking of the Israelite out of Egypt by God/Moses. But Im not sure, since it doesn’t mean the Israelite context here cannot at all mean that God performs wondrous deeds among humankind, among which the Israelite find themselves delivered by God.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that the Adam here is a collective rather than individualized, but this may be just stating the obvious.
good catch. What I see is that there is a description of the exodus (obvious). God delivered ISRAEL from Egypt at the exodus, so when this psalm describes the things God did, you’d expect the text to say he did it for the “sons of Israel” or “Israel” — but what we get is “sons of Adam”.
It’s a pretty surprising Adam – Israel correlation, which goes to the Adam = Israel typology that is part of the Adam debate (how to interpret Adam).
It’s interesting that this verse is *not* part of Postell’s book (dissertation)! His adviser missed that, so he got lucky!
In v. 5, the “children of man” would be the “children of adam (Adam).” If taken to be the person of Adam, Israel is referred to here not as the children of Abraham but as the children of Adam, emphasizing the connection between Adam and Israel rather than Adam and general humanity. Barking up the right tree?
bingo
On the surface, this seems like just an obvious reference to Moses and crossing the Red sea. I don’t know any Hebrew, so I can’t really see anything further. I do find the recent Adam discussion very interesting though. And, I look forward to someone explaining what can be perceived as unusual here.
On an unrelated tangent, you’ve now put this song in my head: http://www.songlyrics.com/kristian-stanfill/over-all-the-earth-lyrics/
Thanks for all your work. Your clarity of thinking and communication are really great.
What I see is that there is a description of the exodus (obvious). God delivered ISRAEL from Egypt at the exodus, so when this psalm describes the things God did, youd expect the text to say he did it for the sons of Israel or Israel but what we get is sons of Adam.
Its a pretty surprising Adam Israel correlation, which goes to the Adam = Israel typology that is part of the Adam debate (how to interpret Adam).
“toward the children of ADAM”?
Ah…….then vs 6 is about the Jewish Exodus giving Enns’ thesis support.
yes; it would be part of that argument.
yes; What I see is that there is a description of the exodus (obvious). God delivered ISRAEL from Egypt at the exodus, so when this psalm describes the things God did, youd expect the text to say he did it for the sons of Israel or Israel but what we get is sons of Adam.
Its a pretty surprising Adam Israel correlation, which goes to the Adam = Israel typology that is part of the Adam debate (how to interpret Adam).
God delivered Israel, the “sons of adam,” but not the Egyptians.
see my other replies to this thread.
If this passage is referring to the Red Sea crossing, wouldn’t this apply only to the children of Israel? Does this imply that only the children of Israel were the children of Adam?
God delivered ISRAEL from Egypt at the exodus, so when this psalm describes the things God did, youd expect the text to say he did it for the sons of Israel or Israel but what we get is sons of Adam.
Its a pretty surprising Adam Israel correlation, which goes to the Adam = Israel typology that is part of the Adam debate (how to interpret Adam).
I’m not quite sure what you’re seeing. I see in verse 5 that “children of man” in Hebrew could be rendered “children of Adam.” And then verse 6 seems to connect “the children of Adam” with Israel as they crossed the Yam Suph. I can’t quite see the implication, though. Is it something to do with the question of who (throughout time) is God’s elect (the children of Adam / the children of Israel)?
See my other replies to the comments on this thread.
If the above is better understood to be “children of Adam,” then it may imply there are others.
not quite; See my other replies to the comments on this thread.
Well I have no doubt you are talking about ?????????? ?????. But I have to admit that I haven’t finished reading up on the discussion. Maybe your point is that ????? can be taken to mean either “Adam” or “humankind” once more.
Although as to the role of verse 6, I have no clue. Before checking the Hebrew, I thought that there might be an “adam – adamah” connection as well, but the term for “dry land” is a different one here.
see my other replies to this.
I see what you mean about Hebrew not working on your blog. What a handicap considering the topic!
For the convenience of other readers: In a very rough and unscientific transliteration, the “question mark” terms above would be “al-bene adam” and “adam”.
I wish I had a remedy.
Greetings MSH,
The first thing I noticed it that the author for some reason uses Children of man (Bene Adam) rather than the expected ( Bene Yisrael) in relation to what appears to be an account of the exodus. In verse six ‘sea'(Yam) is equated with the ‘river'(Nahar) if one takes this as an example of Synonymous parallelism. On, the other hand it could could just refer to the tide of the sea. Now, “Bene Adam” is certainly a lot of universal in feeling than “Bene Yisrael”, at least to my ears. And, They (vs) We is of interest, too!
I am not sure how this all connects with your discussion of Adam in Genesis other than fact that Adam is not always use of a particular personality, but rather as a generic term for humankind.
????????? ?????????? ?????? ????? ?????????????? ??? ????????
God delivered ISRAEL from Egypt at the exodus; this psalm describes the things God did, so youd expect the text to say he did it for the sons of Israel or Israel but what we get is sons of Adam.
Its a pretty surprising Adam Israel correlation, which goes to the Adam = Israel typology that is part of the Adam debate (how to interpret Adam).
I could be wrong, but:
A: The “they” in verse 6 references Israel.
B: Verse 6’s “they” is a pronoun linked to the phrase “children of man” in Verse 5
Meaning, “children of man” and “Israel” are synonymous here. While the phrase “children of man” may seem all-encompassing regarding all of humanity (in English), it does not seem to be so in at least this case.
“children of Adam” instead of “children of Israel” or “Israel” – see my other replies to these comments.
Had to run earlier, so I posted what I had written to that point. That said, if one unpacks the passage a bit, it could be read as indicating an assumed distinction on the author’s part between YHWH’s established (archetypal) “Adam” line (that Christians believe was intended for redemptive purposes) and the rest of humanity.
Is there something strange with, He made the sea dry land…. and we passed through the river on foot ???
Sonds like it could be way back in the beginning, as in Gen one after the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the deep. But anyway… I looked into nahar and was pointed to Gen 2 among many others but as we are on Adam i thought i’d look at Gen 2:10.
So Could psalm 66 be alluding to passing the river flowing out of Eden. Rather than the Egyptian crossing ???
A few verses after Gen 2:10 comes verse 15 “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. ”
the only problem is the word “they” as in they passed the river on foot, which is consistent with the Hebrew 3rd person plural.
So i guess i have nothing………except a headache
it’s simpler than that!
God delivered ISRAEL from Egypt at the exodus, so when this psalm describes the things God did, youd expect the text to say he did it for the sons of Israel or Israel but what we get is sons of Adam.
Its a pretty surprising Adam Israel correlation, which goes to the Adam = Israel typology that is part of the Adam debate (how to interpret Adam).
It’s clear now, perhaps thats why i went off on a tangent regarding the rivers of Eden. If the sons of Israel were there instead of sons of Adam the Egyptian crossing would be clearer. Interesting.
Seems the Children of the promise motif is an underlying thread throughout the entire Bible. I can hear the pc complaints saying were not the Egyptians sons of adam also ?
This ties in with the monogeneise and Isaac and how Esau was a man but not a man of the promise thats was the younger brother Isaac.
The dry land coming up out of the sea, is that not a type of Mikvah?
So was this a type of baptism from Gen 2.
Also Adam is the Elect, He was set apart and placed into the Garden to be the
keeper of the Garden. Just as John 15:16 states.
see my replies to others in the comments section.
I’d offer some thoughts:
1) This passage may be discussing the crossing of the Yam Suph and the Jordan River (Seems to anyway).
2) Jews are the children of Adam, like Gentiles(traditional view).
IF Adam is Israel as such, then who are the Gentiles after the Adam story?
That’s something I’d ask Enns. If Adam reps Israel, what does Gentile even mean in the narrative? Where does the text not talk about Israel if Adam = Israel?
Isn’t the narrative somewhat chronological? Creation, fall, God’s judgment and solution for it, the decline of humanity via human hostility to God& the nephilim, flood, nephilim again and dispersion of the Gentiles, then Abraham enters the scene and Yahweh declares His rulership of Jacob, but, the “ethne are My inheritance”?
#2 is a good question!
I think the flow does seem “approximately chronological”
Hi Mike,
I wonder if you’ve considered that this is a reference to Israel as true humanity, the seed of the woman? The Bible sets itself up between two lines of men (one of the woman’s seed, which is represented in Abel/Seth and their descendents, who are said to be in Adam’s image because they take upon the role of the imago Dei in the tetrateuchal narrative) and the line of the serpent, which is represented by Cain and his descendents. Both of these are said to be children of Adam biologically, but only Seth is said to be his image (i.e., the offspring of true humanity). Hence, it is very possible that Israel, which is considered to be of the Adam/Seth line, are considered his children as opposed to those who are viewed as chaotic agents and are of the line of the serpent (represented by Cain’s line before the flood and the nations after the flood). Hence, the offspring of the woman, Eve, and those made in the image of Adam, are one group, and those who follow the path of the serpent, the other. The Israelites are the sons of Adam. The Egyptians are the seed of the serpent. Just my two cents on that.
The point is only that, since we have the Red Sea crossing in Psa 66, it’s very odd to say that God did that for the benefit of the “sons of man/Adam” and not simply Israel. But if there is an Adam/Israel congruence in the Hebrew Bible, that doesn’t seem at all incongruent.
Thanks Mike. Sorry for the late reply. I think the issue I was trying to tackle there is that it isn’t very odd within the framework of the narrative. I think we may have not said it that way, but within the layout of the tetreuchal narrative in Genesis and the first half of Exodus, this presentation of one side being in Adam’s line as God’s representatives on earth versus the rest of humanity as within Cain’s line is not at all a foreign or “odd” reading of the story we find here in the Psalm. Hence, when I read that phrase, I immediately think of what is said at the beginning of Seth’s line concerning being made in the image of Adam and the conflict between the serpent’s offspring and the woman’s offspring that sets up the entire tetrateuchal narrative in Chapt 3. I guess I just don’t agree that it’s odd at all, and so don’t see it as evidence that Adam is Israel, but rather that Israel represents Adam as his sons in a world where the serpent’s sons dominate (in this case among the Egyptians).
Well, it wouldn’t be odd if the writer intended Adam to have some meaningful relationship to Israel (especially typological). By “odd” I meant “unexpected,” since most readers of Adam would not be thinking in such terms — but this verse lends weight to the idea.
Could you repeat your point, Mike?
It’s in a half dozen of the replies, but here: The point is only that, since we have the Red Sea crossing in Psa 66, it’s very odd to say that God did that for the benefit of the “sons of man/Adam” and not simply Israel. But if there is an Adam/Israel congruence in the Hebrew Bible, that doesn’t seem at all incongruent.
b”h
I don’t think you can press much out of b’ney adam in Ps. 66.
“For the leader. A song. A psalm.
Raise a shout for God, all the earth; sing the glory of His name, make glorious His praise. Say to God, ‘How awesome are Your deeds, Your enemies cower before Your great strength; all the earth bows to You, and sings hymns to You; all sing hymns to Your name.’ Selah. Come and see the works of God, who is held in awe by men [b’ney adam] for His acts. He turned the sea into dry land; they crossed the river on foot; we therefore rejoice in Him.” Psalm 66:1-6, JPS Tanakh 1985
Seems to me the psalmist calls all people to rejoice at the great redemption God worked for Israel. In that context “b’ney adam” is simply a Hebrew term for “people” and is not surprising.
“For the leader. Of the Korahites. A psalm.
Hear this, all you peoples; give ear, all inhabitants of the world, men of all estates [gam b’ney adam, gam b’ney ish], rich and poor alike. My mouth utters wisdom, my speech is full of insight.” Ps 49:1-4, JPS.
Call to all people and evidently wouldn’t exclude the people of Israel.
“For the leader. Of David. In the LORD I take refuge; how can you say to me, ‘Take to the hills like a bird! For see, the wicked bend the bow, they set their arrow on the string to shoot from the shadows at the upright. When the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous man do?’ The LORD is in His holy palace; the LORD — His throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His gaze searches mankind [b’ney adam]. The LORD seeks out the righteous man, but loathes the wicked one who loves injustice.” Ps. 11:1-4, JPS.
“For the leader; on mahalath. A maskil of David.
The benighted man thinks, ‘God does not care.’ Man’s wrongdoing is corrupt and loathsome; no one does good. God looks down from heaven on mankind [b’ney adam] to find a man of understanding, a man mindful of God.” Ps. 53:1-3, JPS.
B’ney adam here appears to be a generic term for humanity in which Israel can also be found.
“How abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You, that You do in the full view of men [b’ney adam] for those who take refuge in You.” Ps 31:20 JPS
Similar to Ps 66.
Ezekiel continually uses the singular about himself: “He said to me, ‘O mortal [ben adam], I am sending you to the people of Israel [b’ney Israel], that nation of rebels, who have rebelled against Me.'” Eze. 2:3 JPS.
Hard to imagine he’s somehow distinguishing himself from Israel, rather than just being called a human being. Same with Yeshua who also called himself ben adam, the son of man. Arguably he refers both to Ezekiel’s station as a prophet applying to himself as well, and to his humanity.
Daniel wrote that the angelic messenger looked human: “Then one who looked like a man touched my lips,” and the term is “demut b’ney adam.” Daniel 10:16, JPS.
Joel writes about an invasion: “The vine has dried up, The fig tree withers, Pomegranate, palm, and apple — All the trees of the field are sear. And joy has dried up among men [b’ney adam].” Joel 1:12, JPS.
This invasion is taking place in Israel, so he’s evidently just calling Israel human beings.
Best.
The point isn’t that Israel is excluded (?); rather, The point is only that, since we have the Red Sea crossing in Psa 66, it’s very odd to say that God did that for the benefit of the “sons of man/Adam” and not simply Israel. But if there is an Adam/Israel congruence in the Hebrew Bible, that doesn’t seem at all incongruent.
Your preliminary conclusion may not give God enough credit for subtlety. It presupposes that God’s work, including the work the Red Sea, was only for Israel’s benefit. The point of the verses may well be that it was for the eventual benefit of humanity.
Wasn’t Israel set apart as a witness and to foster a milieu for Christ’s advent? Didn’t God tell Abram the nations would be blessed by his seed?
it’s not a prophecy, and the exodus event was never cast as a prophecy.
But your point would actually be consistent with an Israel-Adam correlation.