Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2019 "Let Us Make 'adam": An Edenic Model of Personal Ontology Marla A. Samaan Nedelcu Andrews University, samaan@andrews.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/dissertations Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Samaan Nedelcu, Marla A., ""Let Us Make 'adam": An Edenic Model of Personal Ontology" (2019).edu/dissertations/1687 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact repository@andrews.
ABSTRACT “LET US MAKE ”אדם: AN EDENIC MODEL OF PERSONAL ONTOLOGY by Marla A. Samaan Nedelcu Adviser: Richard M. Davidson ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: “LET US MAKE ”אדם: AN EDENIC MODEL OF PERSONAL ONTOLOGY Name of researcher: Marla A. Samaan Nedelcu Name and degree of faculty adviser: Richard M.
Date completed: April 2019 Personal ontology studies human constitution and human nature, an increasingly debated topic in Christian theology. Historically, the most prominent models of personal ontology in Christian theology have been substance dualist models. More recently, physicalist models have offered prominent alternatives. This dissertation studies the conflict of interpretations between these two major model groupings.
By applying a canonical theology, it then presents an Edenic model of personal ontology that can address the current conflict of interpretations. To achieve this end, the dissertation briefly analyzes substance dualism and physicalism according to the rubrics of constitution and nature, using a model methodology. It then compares the advantages and challenges each offers, and asks whether a model based solely on the normative source of the biblical canon might prove beneficial to the current debate. This question is explored next through a close reading of the Eden narrative (Gen 1-3), which is the biblical pericope that is most foundational to a study of personal ontology.
Utilizing the final-form canonical approach and phenomenological-exegetical analysis, this reading delivers answers to the questions of constitution and nature and reveals an Edenic model of personal ontology. In short, the Edenic model highlights both the physicality and the uniqueness of human ontology. It points to a human constitution that is physical, and yet it does not compromise humans’ unique identity or place in God’s creation. This is because the text shows the image of God to be the mark of human identity.
This imago Dei is manifested in every function of human nature (all of which are physically constituted), and enables humans to fulfill God’s commission to them. Next, we compare the Edenic model with substance dualism and physicalism, using the same two rubrics of constitution and nature, to see which models may have higher explanatory powers in dealing with current questions of personal ontology. We see that a model of personal ontology that arises from the Eden narrative emphasizes both human physicality and human uniqueness. Such a twin emphasis proves helpful in the current debate in Christian theology, whereas substance dualism emphasizes human identity, and physicalism often highlights human physicality more than human identity.
The dissertation ends by encouraging Christian theologians to explore further the new questions about personal ontology that are being raised, but to do so within these twin parameters and on the basis of a model that arises from Scripture. This approach will not only have implications for a study of personal ontology, but likely for an array of Christian beliefs and practices. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary “LET US MAKE ”אדם: AN EDENIC MODEL OF PERSONAL ONTOLOGY A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Marla A. Samaan Nedelcu April 2019 © Copyright by Marla A.
Samaan Nedelcu 2019 All Rights Reserved “LET US MAKE ”אדם: AN EDENIC MODEL OF PERSONAL ONTOLOGY A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy by Marla A. Samaan Nedelcu APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE: _____________________________ _____________________________ Faculty Adviser, Director of Ph. Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation _____________________________ _____________________________ Paul B. Petersen Dean, SDA Theological Seminary Pastor, Danish Union of Churches Jiří Moskala Conference _____________________________ _____________________________ John C.
Peckham Date approved Associate Professor of Theology and Christian Philosophy TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. 1 Statement of the Problem. 7 Purpose of the Study. 8 Final-Form Canonical Approach.
8 Phenomenological-Exegetical Analysis. 16 First Methodological Goal. 16 Second Methodological Goal. 19 Third Methodological Goal.
MODELS OF PERSONAL ONTOLOGY. 26 Historical Background of Models of Personal Ontology in Christian Theology. 26 Substance Dualist Models. 35 Current Views of Personal Ontology in Christian Theology.
43 Substance Dualist Models. 53 Mental-Physical Interaction. 65 iii Mental Substance. 66 Mental-Physical Interaction.
78 Critical Evaluation of Models. 79 Main Problems for Substance Dualist Models. 80 Main Problems for Physicalist Models. AN EDENIC MODEL OF PERSONAL ONTOLOGY.
92 The Similar Constitution of Humans and Animals. 96 The Creation of Two Interdependent Entities. 101 The Potential to Image God. 107 Mental-Physical Interaction.
117 Biological/Physical Function. 120 Emotional/Psychological Function. 131 Unique Significance of the Imago Dei. 136 The Image of Elohim.
142 The Image of YHWH Elohim. 145 The Image of Elohim and YHWH Elohim. 157 Uncovering an Edenic Model of Personal Ontology. 164 Summary and Conclusion.
COMPARISON OF MODELS. 172 Substance Dualist Models of Personal Ontology. 173 Physicalist Models of Personal Ontology. 173 Edenic Model of Personal Ontology.
175 iv Substance Dualist Models of Personal Ontology. 176 Physicalist Models of Personal Ontology. 176 Edenic Model of Personal Ontology. 177 Comparison: Substance Dualist and Physicalist Models of Personal Ontology.
184 Edenic Model of Personal Ontology: A Way Forward?. 191 Constitution and Nature. 191 Current Questions of Personal Ontology. 196 The Edenic Model’s Contribution.
203 Summary and Conclusion. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. 218 Introduction and Methodology of Study. 219 Survey of Historical Background of Models of Personal Ontology in Christian Theology.
222 Conflicting Models of Personal Ontology in Christian Theology. 226 Investigation of Personal Ontology in the Eden Narrative. 241 Edenic Model of Personal Ontology. 249 Comparison of Models.
250 Comparing Substance Dualist and Physicalist Models of Personal Ontology. 252 Edenic Model of Personal Ontology. 367 v LIST OF TABLES 1. Comparison of the Categories of Personal Ontology between the Two Model Groupings.
Comparison of the Categories of Personal Ontology between the Two Models Groupings and the Edenic Model. Comparison of Important Questions of Personal Ontology between Two Model Groupings and the Edenic Model. 197 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS From the age of sixteen, I felt God’s calling to serve him and earn a Ph. Many years have passed since then, but I finally offer this dissertation to Him in gratitude.
He is my ultimate Teacher, and I am also thankful to Him for the many teachers He has blessed my life with through the years—teachers who have inspired and guided me through the sharing of their minds and hearts. First, I want to thank my first teachers—in life and school—my parents Dr. Philip and Sherilyn Samaan. Thank you for setting me on this path and encouraging and supporting me along the way.
Thank you so much for your love and your faithfulness to Scripture that have shaped who I am. Next, I want to honor two significant teachers in my life who are now awaiting the resurrection of life. Jan Haluska (1941-2015) was my first college professor who opened my mind to see earth’s history as the unfolding of philosophical systems—and from then on I was hooked! He modeled how Christian ideas can engage with those systems, and inspired me as a result. Miroslav Kiš (1942-2016) was my Seminary professor whose example of faithfulness to Scripture and neighborliness was a true blessing.
He encouraged my academic goals from my teenage years on, suggested this topic for my dissertation, and was my doctoral adviser and a member of my dissertation committee. Fernando Canale, my dissertation chair before his retirement, has had the most profound impact on my intellectual thinking for nearly two decades. He showed me how to recognize the underlying philosophical presuppositions of any notion, and how to bring the philosophy of Scripture into dialog with them. Because of you, I want to continue seeking to articulate a biblical system of theology for my whole life.
Thank you for your time and energy in guiding me through my graduate studies. Richard Davidson, my current dissertation chair, has my immense gratitude for helping me to accomplish my doctoral goals and finish my dissertation. It has been wonderful to engage with a scholar who not only loves the biblical text, but the same texts and topics as I do. Thank you for your guidance and support to me always, and especially this last year.
Next, I have been enriched by the kindness and guidance of my two other dissertation committee members as well. Paul Petersen, thank you for stepping up to this task, and thank you for staying on through the end. I so appreciate the perspective you have brought to my study. John Peckham, thank you for accepting to be on my committee this last year and for guiding me so well.
I am inspired by your scholarship, and thankful that the vision Dr. Canale imparted to us in his classes continues to develop ever more through your work. These are the professors who have been the most involved in my dissertation work. But my life is what it is because of the support, belief, and inspiration of so many others at Andrews University and Southern Adventist University.
Thank you for believing in me, for employing me, for being there for me. I have also been blessed by the most amazing sisterhood of friends. You have prayed me through this dissertation and everything else in my life—in person, by viii voicemails, and through texts! We have laughed and cried, grown up and praised God together. Thank you also to all the wonderful women and girls who have watched my children so that I could study.
Obviously, there would be no dissertation without you. A special thanks must go to Mrs. Lucinda Cox, who even now is caring for the kids and preparing a celebration with them for when I finally submit this dissertation. You have been a godsend to me, and I thank you for blessing our family with your kind servant’s heart.
Finally, my husband and children, you are God’s good gifts to me. Adrian my love, I have been working on this degree our entire married life, and never once have you spoken words other than encouragement for my academic pursuits. You wanted to marry a smart and capable mate, and even if I would not always call myself these, it is an unspeakable blessing to be married to one who values and assists me in what God has called me to do. Thank you for your loyalty, love, and support.
Simon my buddy, you have expanded my mind to study the mysteries of the universe as I attempt to learn alongside your excellent curiosity. Thank you for helping me to love science and engineering, and all of God’s creation. Thank you for all your special surprises to encourage me as I study. Nadia my jewel, what a joy you are.
Thank you for your laughter and smiles, for your love of music and prayer and people. May you and Simon ever live out God’s dreams for you. ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background The ontological question is one of the earliest questions in philosophy. In Western philosophy, it arose as early as the Milesian School; in Eastern philosophy, it can be found in the teachings of Zoroaster and, 600 years earlier, in ancient Hinduism.