The Lost World of Adam and Eve (13 page)

The treatment of Melchizedek in Hebrews 5–7 offers an opportunity to explore the complex ways that intertextuality can work. Even a casual reader can detect that there are characteristics attributed to Melchizedek in Hebrews that clearly do not derive from Genesis or Psalms. When we investigate what precursors Hebrews might be drawing from, our attention begins to focus on the intertestamental literature of Second Temple Judaism.

The Hasmoneans, seeking to establish a messianic dimension to their rule, justified their priestly-royal prerogatives by reference to Melchizedek. This practice was continued by the Sadducees.
3
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11QMelchizedek and 4QAmran both show that Melchizedek has become the subject of much speculative interpretation. The former assigns him a judging function in heaven and associates Psalms 7:8-9; 82:1 with him. 4QAmran identifies him as Michael and calls him the Prince of Light. He is depicted as a heavenly redeemer figure, a leader of the forces of light who brings release to the captives and reigns during the messianic age. He is the heavenly high priest to whom archangels make expiation for the sins of ignorance of the righteous.
4
In the Talmud (
Nedarim
32b) and
Targum Neofiti,
Melchizedek is identified as Shem. The former attributes irreverence to him and thereby transfers his priesthood to Abraham. In the later apologetic works of Justin Martyr (
Dialogue with Trypho
19 and 33), Melchizedek is portrayed as a representative of the Gentiles who is seen as superior to the Jewish representative, Abraham. Philo of Alexandria (
Legum allegoriae
3.79-82) considers him the eternal Logos.
5

By the time we get to Hebrews 7, these Jewish traditions are mixed into the consideration of Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews is not drawing his information on Melchizedek solely from the Old Testament; he is also interacting with the traditions known to his audience. It is the Jewish profile of Melchizedek, not just the canonical profile, that informs his comparison. The author has all along been addressing his audience on their own level and in relationship to their own beliefs. He need not accept their beliefs, but he is demonstrating that Christ’s position is superior to the position in which they have placed others. He therefore relates not only to the Melchizedek of history but to the Melchizedek of Jewish imagination. In some ways this would be like speaking to a Buddhist about how Christ is superior to Buddha. There is both a historical Buddha and the Buddha that has become the central focus in the traditions of Buddhism. The point for the author of Hebrews is not to argue the validity of his audience’s belief one way or another but to use their beliefs for a comparison to Christ. There is no attempt to establish that Jesus is superior to the image cast of Melchizedek, only that the priesthood represented by Jesus on the basis of Melchizedek’s precedent (Ps 110) is superior to the Levitical priesthood.
6

As a result, there is nothing in Hebrews or anywhere else to suggest that we need to believe that Melchizedek was anything other than the Canaanite king depicted in Genesis 14. The profile in Hebrews combines the biblical information about the historical Melchizedek from Genesis 14, the theological-political prototype of Jerusalem-based royal priesthood that finds its precedent in Melchizedek, and the literary-traditional view of Melchizedek evident in Jewish speculative theology. These three strands are inextricably woven together with no roadmap given to the audience to allow them to distinguish the strands. All three are legitimate for the inspired author of Hebrews to use, even though they are not of the same nature.

If the author of Hebrews can employ such strands in sophisticated and complex ways, we must inquire whether Paul could do the same with Adam and Eve. As would be expected, such analysis requires a very sensitive hermeneutic rather than wholesale application that happens to coincide with someone’s predetermined outcome. Hebrews offer a comparison between Melchizedek and Christ just as Paul offers a comparison between Adam and Christ. Likewise, both Melchizedek and Adam/Eve have substantial “afterlives” in Hellenistic Jewish literature. But that is where the similarities cease.

In the case of Melchizedek, we identified the literary/traditional elements by observing statements in Hebrews that had no foundation in the Old Testament. In this approach we affirm as historical that he was a priest/king, was from Salem, was associated with El Elyon and had the encounter with Abram (Heb 7:1-2). In contrast, Hebrews is picking up traditional elements in the description of Melchizedek as without father or mother and without beginning or end (Heb 7:3). The comparison that the author of Hebrews draws is not dependent on the factuality of the information in Hebrews 7:3. In fact, the author notes that Melchizedek was “without genealogy,” whereas he makes the explicit point that Jesus is “descended from Judah” (Heb 7:14). The comparison is based on Melchizedek’s royal priesthood (independent of Levitical priesthood) and on the tithe that Abram gave to Melchizedek. It is not important what the author of Hebrews or his audience actually believes about the profile of Melchizedek. What matters are the affirmations that he makes as a foundation of his teaching.

When we turn our attention to Paul’s use of Adam and Eve, we first ask whether there are points that Paul makes that he did not get from the Old Testament and that do find expression in the traditions developed in Hellenistic Jewish literature. Paul’s points about Adam and Eve include:

1. Sin and death entered through Adam (Rom 5:12).
   
2. Adam was of the dust of the earth (1 Cor 15:47).
   
3. Eve was deceived (2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14).
   

Though these find significant elaboration in the Jewish traditional literature, they all have their rooting in the Old Testament text. As a result, they cannot be dismissed as simply reflecting Jewish tradition with which Paul is interacting.

Alternatively, some might claim Paul is simply referring to well-known literary details and that doing so does not necessitate that the details be affirmed as historically factual. They would distinguish between literary factuality (yes, this is how the familiar story goes) and that which is historically factual (yes, this is what really happened in time and space). This is the path typically followed in the interpretation of Jude 14: “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them.” Even very conservative interpreters consider this a reflection of a literary truth, not a historical truth. None of them seriously considers the Enoch from the book of Genesis to be the author of the intertestamental book of
Enoch.

We still have to deal with taking a hermeneutically realistic view of what the author is doing with the material he cites. The argument of the author of Hebrews would not work if Abram did not give a tithe to Melchizedek. In the same way, I would contend that Paul’s argument would not work if there was not a historical moment when sin entered the world (points 1 and 3 in the list above). His whole approach to the presence of sin, the need for redemption and the role of Christ to bring such redemption is based on these details.

The conclusion of this analysis is that a mix of historical and traditional elements is possible within the framework of biblical authority, as the treatment of Melchizedek in Hebrews attests. At this time, however, I would contend that Paul’s information about Adam is not in the same category, so we cannot treat Adam the same way. Nevertheless, we see that Paul’s affirmations about historical Adam pertain primarily to sin and the fall. This is sufficient to defend a historical Adam, but it does not yet decide questions concerning Adam being the first human being, the only human being or the ancestor of all humans today. Those issues will be discussed in chapter twenty. As with Melchizedek, it is not significant what Paul and his audience may believe about Adam and Eve; what matters are the elements Paul makes the foundation of his teaching. After all, Paul would have believed in a geocentric universe like everyone else around him, but if that does not become a foundation of his teaching, it makes no difference.

Why Believe in a Historical Adam and Eve?

When we identify Adam and Eve as historical figures, we mean that they are real people involved in real events in a real past. They are not inherently mythological or legendary, though their roles may contribute to them being treated that way in some of the reception history. Likewise they are not fictional. At the same time, there may be some elements in their profile that are not intended to convey historical elements. I have already noted (chap. 6) that their names are not their historical names. Likewise, if the forming accounts are archetypal, those are presenting truths about the identity of Adam and Eve rather than historical events. Despite these qualifications and caveats, I believe the textual information leads to the conclusion that Adam and Eve should be considered real people in a real past for several important reasons.

Genealogies.
The genre of genealogy can function differently in different cultures.
7
We cannot assume therefore that any genealogy we encounter in another culture’s literature is governed by the rules that govern ours or that the genealogy will function in the same way and serve the same purpose.
8
So the question that we must ask is whether there is evidence that lists of ancestors in Israel or in the ancient world could contain characters that do not represent actual individuals who lived in the past. This is important because Adam is included in ancestor lists in Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3.
9

As we explore the genealogies from the ancient world, we are interested in whether they include in their list any who are not human individuals. Deviations might be that they would include gods,
10
legendary characters
11
or toponyms.
12
Studies in the ancient world have concluded that genealogies typically are more interested in political unity than in lineage ties, but as such their objectives would not be achieved if imaginary or legendary characters were used. Future discoveries may yet provide an example that could lead to a different conclusion, but based on the information currently available, genealogies from the ancient world contain the names of real people who inhabited a real past.
13
Consequently there would be no precedent for thinking of the biblical genealogies differently. By putting Adam in ancestor lists, the authors of Scripture are treating him as a historical person.

Fall.
The Old Testament as a whole does not give retrospective information about what we call “the fall.” Once the events are reported in Genesis 3, no further reference is made to those events or to their ramifications. If we were working from the Old Testament alone, there would be a lot of flexibility concerning how we thought about the entrance and spread of sin.

The New Testament, however, particularly the discussion of the impact of the work of Christ, places many more demands on our theological interpretation. The New Testament views the reality of sin and its resulting need for redemption as having entered at a single point in time (punctiliar) through a specific event in time and space. Furthermore, Paul correlates that punctiliar event with a corresponding act of redemption: the death of Christ with its resulting atonement—also a punctiliar event. The details of this will be discussed in chapter nineteen (in the excursus by N. T. Wright), but for now we observe that the punctiliar nature of the redemptive act is compared to the punctiliar nature of the fall, which therefore requires a historical event played out by historical people.

In conclusion, then, both a textual element (genealogies) and a theological element (sin and redemption) argue strongly for a historical Adam and Eve. At the same time, it must be observed that for them to play these historical roles does not necessarily require them to be the first human beings, the only human beings or the universal ancestors of all human beings (biologically/genetically). In other words, the question of the historical Adam has more to do with sin’s origins than with material human origins. These have not often been separated in the past, perhaps because there has been no impetus to do so. In light of the developments that have come about, particularly with regard to the human genome (see chaps. 17 and 20), it has become more important to ask whether questions of historical Adam on the one hand and material human origins on the other always track together. I have suggested that one can accept the historical Adam without thereby making a decision about material human origins. This has the advantage of separating scientific elements (material human origins) from exegetical/theological elements, with the result that conflict between the claims of science and the claims of Scripture is minimized without compromise. This reading of the biblical text has not been imposed on it by the demands of science, but science has prompted a more careful examination of precisely what the text is claiming.

Proposition 12

Adam Is Assigned as Priest in Sacred Space, with Eve to Help

The garden into which Adam was placed would be a familiar setting for sacred space in the ancient world. The image of fertile waters flowing from the sacred space of God’s presence is one of the most common in the iconography of the ancient Near East (more on this in the next chapter). Given this background, we can see that the Garden of Eden is not simply beautiful green space (though it is) to provide people with food (which it does). Far more than anything else, it is sacred space that reflects the fact that God is dwelling there (notice that Ezek 28:13 refers to Eden as the “garden of God”; cf. Ezek 31:8). We learned in Genesis 1 that God was coming to dwell in the cosmos, thus making it sacred space.
1
But we were not told where the center of sacred space would be. In Genesis 2, that is clarified. Since the seven days of Genesis 1 have been associated with temple inauguration, it would be logical to assume that the terrestrial location of the center of sacred space, the temple concept inherent in the garden, takes place in close time proximity to Genesis 1. Despite the continuity that this concept has with the ancient world, there are also some sharp contrasts. For example, rather than the produce of the garden providing food for the resident god, this garden was planted by God to provide food for people.