The Lost World of Adam and Eve (10 page)

Some have objected that it would not be possible for God to say that creation was good if people were created mortal and there was death all around. As I have proposed previously (chap. 5), there is no sound reason to understand the “good” creation in that way. So we return to the proposition that dust in Genesis 2:7 has the significance of indicating that people were created mortal.
8
This interpretation stands in contrast to the all-too-facile modern presupposition that we must believe that “formed from dust” has scientific implications in order to take the text literally. Yet, it is perhaps odd that those same interpreters often do not apply the same understanding to Genesis 2:19, where the animals are “formed out of the ground.” More importantly, they rarely read scientific implications into Genesis 1:24, “Let the land produce living creatures.”

Adam and the Rest of Us

The next question to consider is whether this statement about Adam pertains to him uniquely or to all of us. The core proposal of this book is that the forming accounts of Adam and Eve should be understood archetypally rather than as accounts of how those two individuals were uniquely formed. When I use the word
archetype,
I am not referring to the way that literature uses
archetypes.
I am referring to the simple concept that an archetype embodies all others in the group. An archetype in the Bible can well be an individual and usually is. I am quite prepared to affirm the idea that Adam is an individual—a real person in a real past. Nevertheless, we have seen in the usage of the term
ʾ
ā
d
ā
m
that the use of the definite article tends toward an understanding of Adam as a representative of some sort, and an archetype is one form of representation.

Paul treats Adam as an archetype when he indicates that all sinned in Adam (Rom 5:12). In this way, all are embodied in the one and counted as having participated in the acts of that one. In order to determine whether the treatment of Adam in the text focuses on him primarily as an archetype or as an individual, we can ask a simple question: is the text describing something that is uniquely true of Adam, or is it describing something that is true of all of us? If only Adam is formed from dust, then it is treating him as a discrete and unique individual. If God only breathes the breath of life into Adam, he is thereby distinct from the rest of us. If Eve’s formation conveys a truth about her that is true of her alone, then it is the history of an individual. If, however, any or all of these are true of all of us, it would cease being a reference to a unique, individual event and would have to be interpreted more broadly to capture its intended sense.

When we begin to examine the evidence with these questions in mind, our findings may surprise us. First, we discover that all of us have the breath of life and that it comes from God (Job 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; 34:14-15; Is 42:5). Then we discover that all creatures have the breath of life, presumably given by God (Gen 7:22). But this is neither surprising nor controversial and has little to do with the question of human origins.

More significantly, as we examine the biblical evidence, we must conclude that we are all formed from dust. Psalm 103:14 states,

The vocabulary here (formed, dust) is the same as in Genesis 2:7.
9
Paul alludes to this universality when he contrasts the first man of dust and the second man of heaven, then indicates that all of us on earth share that “dust” identity:

On the basis of biblical evidence, we must therefore conclude that all people are formed from dust (see also Eccles 3:20). This is confirmed when we learn in Genesis 3:19 that dust is an expression of mortality—dust we are and to dust we will return. All of us share that mortality. We thus discover that Adam’s formation from dust does not pertain uniquely to him; it pertains to all humans. Further evidence can be found in Job 10:9:

Here Job sees
himself
as molded by God, which is not a claim that he was not born of woman like everyone else. When the text reports Adam being formed from dust, it is not expressing something by which we can identify how Adam is different from all the rest of us. Rather, it conveys how we can identify that he is the same as all of us. Being formed from dust is a statement about our essence and identity, not our substance. In this, Adam is an archetype, not just a prototype.

If we are all formed from dust, yet at the same time we are born of a mother through a normal birth process, we can see that being formed from dust, while true of each of us, is not a statement about each of our material origins. One can be born of a woman yet still be formed from dust; all of us are. That means that even though Adam is formed from dust, he could still have been born of a woman.
10
“Formed from dust” is not a statement of material origins for any of us, and there is no reason to think that it is a statement of Adam’s material origins. For Adam, as for all of us, that we are formed from dust makes a statement about our identity as mortals. Since it pertains to all of us, it is archetypal.

Special attention to Adam’s forming is best connected to his role. In Egyptian iconography, we see reliefs of the pharaoh being formed on the potter’s wheel by the god Khnum as part of the pharaoh’s coronation. The gods have formed him
to be king.
In Jeremiah 1:5, we read that the prophet had been formed in the womb for a particular role—“appointed . . . as a prophet to the nations.” These statements have to do with one’s destiny and identity, not one’s material origin. All the evidence points to understanding Genesis 2:7 in the same way. Adam’s significance pertains to his role in the garden and what happened there. Given this reasoning, we have other alternatives beyond thinking that this is an account of material origins, and in these other options, Genesis would not be offering a competing claim to the scientific account of human origins. That does not mean the science is right; it means only that the Bible does not offer a competing claim. The Bible’s claim is that whatever happened, God did it. He is the one responsible for our human existence and our human identity regardless of the mechanisms or the time period. The Bible does not say clearly how he did it. Consequently, the Bible does not necessarily make a de novo claim for human origins, though it
does
make a claim that God is the ultimate cause of human origins.

“Rib”

The first question to ask is whether the text suggests that Adam thought of Eve as having been built from his rib. The text gives us the answer: he did not. The first words out of his mouth were: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). More than a rib is involved here because she is not only “bone of his bone” but also “flesh of his flesh.”

This leads us to ask then about the meaning of Genesis 2:21, which
NIV
translates, “He took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.” Adam’s statement leads us to inquire whether the translation “rib” is appropriate for the Hebrew word
ṣ
ēlā
ʿ
.
The word is used about forty times in the Hebrew Bible but is not an anatomical term in any other passage. Outside of Genesis 2, with the exception of 2 Samuel 16:13 (referring to the other side of the hill), the word is only used architecturally in the tabernacle/temple passages (Ex 25–38; 1 Kings 6–7; Ezek 41). It can refer to planks or beams in these passages, but more often it refers to one side or the other, typically when there are two sides (rings along two sides of the ark; rooms on two sides of the temple, the north or south side; etc.). On the basis of Adam’s statement, combined with these data on usage, we would have to conclude that God took one of Adam’s sides—likely meaning he cut Adam in half and from one side built the woman.

When we investigate the Hebrew word and the way that it has been handled throughout history, we discover much supporting evidence for this reading. Beginning with the way that the cognate
ṣ
ēlu
is used in Akkadian (Assyrian and Babylonian), we find that the word has a certain ambiguity. Rarely, it refers to a single rib. Most times it refers to the entire side or to the entire rib cage. This is comparable to our English use when we talk about a “side of beef.”

When we turn our attention to early translations, we find that the Aramaic translation in the Targums (Aramaic:
ʿ
il
ʿ
) can refer to either rib or side, and the same is true of the word chosen by the translators of the Septuagint (Greek
pleura
can be either rib or side). In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome used the Latin word
costis,
which can be either rib or side. One of the earliest discussions found in the rabbinic literature is in the comments in
Midrash Rabbah
by Rabbi Samuel ben Nahmani,
11
who was already arguing the use of “side” instead of “rib.”

By the time we finally get to the period of English translations, the interpretation “rib” has become entrenched (Wycliffe Bible, Geneva Bible, Great Bible and King James Version). Based on the lexical information above, however, we can see that this is an interpretation from a word that in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin could mean either “side” or “rib.” Adam’s own statement and the more dominant use of the word both suggest that “side” would be the better choice.

This conclusion poses a conundrum for us. If God cut Adam in half, that is pretty radical surgery. Certainly God can do whatever he wants, but would Israelites naturally think in terms of surgery? Would they think that Adam was anesthetized when God put Adam in a deep sleep? Israelites knew nothing of the use of anesthesia, and, if God were going to perform such a profound miracle, he could simply make Adam impervious to pain. In fact, many would claim that there was no pain before the fall, thereby rendering anesthesia unnecessary.

The text, however, leads us in another direction. We need to examine the word “deep sleep” (
tardēmâ,
from
rdm
). The noun occurs seven times and the verbal root from which it is drawn another seven times.
12
We find that the sleep the word describes could be used in three different sorts of circumstances.

1. When someone is unresponsive to circumstances in the human realm induced by something in the human realm (Sisera’s exhaustion and warm milk, Judg 4:19, 21; horse and charioteer in the sleep of death, Ps 76:6; sloth brought on by laziness, Prov 19:15; cf. Prov 10:5)
   
2. When someone is unresponsive to circumstances in the human realm and equally unresponsive to deity (Saul, 1 Sam 26:12; faithless Israel, Is 29:10; Jonah, Jon 1:5-6)
   
3. When someone has become unresponsive to the human realm in order to receive communication from the divine realm (Abraham, Gen 15:12; Eliphaz, Job 4:13; Daniel, Dan 8:18; 10:9; cf. Job 33:15)
   

Michael Fox adds the insight that the word pertains to “untimely sleep or stupefaction, not to normal sleep at night.”
13
In all three categories, this sleep blocks all perception in the human realm.
14
In each of these passages there is either danger in the human realm of which the sleeper is unaware, or there is insight in the visionary realm to be gained. Pertaining to the latter possibility, it is of interest that the Septuagint translators chose to use the Greek word
ekstasis
in Genesis 2:21. This word is the same as the one they used in Genesis 15:12, suggesting an understanding related to visions, trances and ecstasy (cf. the use of this Greek word in Acts 10:10; 11:5; 22:17 [
NIV
: “trance”]). This interpretation is also evident among the church fathers (Ephrem, Tertullian).
15
For the Vulgate, Jerome chose the Latin word
sopor,
which refers to any sort of abnormal sleep, including that which comes about in trances.

From these data it is easy to conclude that Adam’s sleep has prepared him for a visionary experience rather than for a surgical procedure. The description of himself being cut in half and the woman being built from the other half (Gen 2:21-22) would refer not to something he physically experienced but to something that he saw in a vision. It would therefore not describe a material event but would give him an understanding of an important reality, which he expresses eloquently in Genesis 2:23. Consequently, we would then be able to conclude that the text does not describe the material origin of Eve. The vision would concern her identity as ontologically related to the man. The text would therefore have no claim to make about the material origin of woman.

Furthermore, once we see that gender identity is under discussion, we conclude that the text is not expressing something that is true about Eve alone; it is true of all womankind. This interpretation is confirmed in Genesis 2:24, where the text offers an observation that is true of all mankind and all womankind. Again the archetypal element is clear because what has transpired pertains to all, not just uniquely to Adam and Eve. All womankind is “from the side” of all mankind. Marriage is being rejoined and recovering humanity’s original state. This should not be mistaken to infer that someone who does not marry is less than a whole person or that there is a particular spouse that is your other half. The text is referring generically to the corporate human race that is ontologically gendered.

Genesis 2:24 is responding to the question of why a person would leave the closest biological relationship (parents to children) in order to forge a relationship with a biological outsider. The answer offered is that marriage goes beyond biology to recover an original state, for humanity is ontologically gendered. Ontology trumps biology. This has shown Adam that the woman is not just a reproductive mating partner. Her identity is that she is his ally, his other half.