The Lost World of Adam and Eve (26 page)

It is interesting that in Genesis, God’s image, humanity, is crafted from the very meanest of materials, thus emphasizing in contrast the proportionally heightened value of the divine image. Yet, as in the case of images in the ancient world, we, as his image, stand in as God’s substitutes. We represent his presence in sacred space. His essence makes us spiritual beings and constitutes discontinuity from any other creature. Just as images were revered as divine creations in the ancient world, we are considered to be the works of God in the truest possible sense.

Divine-human relationship.
In each of the previous categories, the premise of the category implied some level of relationship between God and his people. In this last category, more specificity can be provided to suggest that the relationship is best expressed in filial terms.
7
In the biblical text this can be most easily observed when Adam begets Seth “in his own likeness, in his own image” in Genesis 5:1-3. This same idea can be identified in the ancient Near East, where the image is considered to be born in heaven even though it is made on earth.

Summary of image.
The image of God provides yet another piece of evidence from the biblical text concerning the spiritual discontinuity that is characteristic of humans in contradistinction to other creatures. The four categories for understanding the image of God presented above are not mutually exclusive—all four can be accepted as each gives insight into the descriptor. When we consider the image in these four categories, we can affirm that all human beings must be considered as participating in the divine image. It is something that is more corporate than individual. Furthermore, it is clear from the occurrences throughout the biblical text that the image was not lost when Adam and Eve were sent from the garden, though it was marred. The functions that were entrusted to us in Genesis 1 are still our responsibilities, though our ability to carry out those functions may be hampered in a variety of ways by our current condition.

Even as we have seen many points of contact between Genesis and the ancient Near East, we should not neglect to notice the places where the Israelites were departing from the standard ways of thinking in the ancient world. People (God’s images) were placed in sacred space just as the images of the Babylonian gods were placed in sacred space in their temples to mediate God’s presence and God’s revelation. But images were excluded in worship in Israel—we are the only images God allows.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have not proffered a conclusion regarding material continuity. Instead we have observed that comparative genomics indicates that there is a history, so we have to decide whether the Bible claims that such a history never took place, because God created humans de novo. To the extent that we become aware of viable interpretations of the biblical text that do not require de novo, we can consider other options for understanding God’s creation of humans. Not only can we see that God the Creator is in any of these models; we can also recognize that there are numerous points of spiritual discontinuity where we recognize special creative work of God that cannot be explained by any understanding of natural change over time or identified in the human genome, even if there is a higher level of material continuity than traditionally accepted. Humans are the special, direct creation of God in certain ways—that is not in question. The uncertainty lies in how much of that special creation falls into the material category.

Conclusion and Summary

In the preceding chapters, we have examined the biblical claims concerning Adam and Eve, the garden, the serpent, and the fall. Our investigation has focused on the text of Genesis as an ancient Near Eastern document. We have been particularly interested in determining the extent to which the biblical claims may or may not conflict with the claims made in the current scientific consensus about human origins. We have studiously avoided imposing scientific or ancient Near Eastern claims on the Bible. Instead we have sought to assess the biblical claims independently and only then to compare to what we find in other ancient Near Eastern literature and to the evidence suggested by scientific findings. We expect Genesis to be characterized in part by perspectives that are found in the literature of the ancient Near East because God was communicating into an ancient Near Eastern culture: ancient Israel. We also expect Genesis, read properly, to be compatible with the truths about our world that scientists uncover because both the world and the Word emanate from God.

The first several chapters of this book summarized the interpretation I have previously offered of Genesis 1. These focused on the idea that the origins story that Genesis 1 tells has more to do with order, functions and roles than with the material cosmos. The order that God established inaugurated sacred space in the cosmos. God intended to enter into the place that he had prepared for people in his image and to be in relationship with them there.

Genesis 2 then tells of the establishment of a terrestrial center of sacred space in what is identified as a garden, where Adam and Eve are commissioned as priests to serve in sacred space mediating revelation of God and access to God. Adam and Eve are presented as archetypes in their formation: they embody all people, and the affirmations of the forming accounts are affirmations made of everyone, not uniquely of them. All humans are made of dust; womankind is from the side of mankind. Adam and Eve are also established as priestly representatives through whom life and wisdom can be achieved as people are drawn into relationship with God. Unfortunately, they failed to achieve these benefits because they opted to position themselves as the center of order (and, in so doing, becoming like God) in place of God.

A number of these elements in Genesis find similarities with ancient Near Eastern literature, while others are entirely unique in the ancient world. Proper interpretation will recognize both. We should note, however, that the Israelites often show marked dissimilarity from the surrounding cultures even when they share concepts with the ancient world. So, for example, even though ancient Near Eastern literature considers the creation of humanity to involve a large group of humans, the underlying reasons are far different from what would exist in the biblical text if en masse creation of humanity were to be seen from Genesis 1. In the ancient Near East creation narratives, many humans are created at once because many gods were intending to use many humans to supply their needs. The purposes of the gods would not be well served if only a few humans were created. In contrast, if Genesis 1 allows en masse creation of humans (as I have argued), it is not for the same reason. The God of the Bible has no needs, and the function of humans is presented in very different terms. Likewise, the roles and functions of human beings as presented in the Bible cannot be confirmed through science because science is incapable of discussing final causes.

When we shift our attention to the archetypal roles, the fact that ancient Near Eastern texts also feature an archetypal view of human origins helps us to recognize that this way of thinking would not be unusual for Israelites in their cultural context. At the same time, we find that the message to be found in the archetypal presentation in Genesis is of a totally different sort from what is found in the ancient Near East. The messages associated with the archetypal representation in Genesis are as follows:

• Humankind was created with mortal bodies.
  
• Humankind was provisioned by God (garden).
  
• Humankind was given the role of serving in sacred space (implies relationship with God).
  
• Humankind was divided into male and female and so would seek out new family relationship.
  

These points constitute the main teaching of Genesis 2. They convey important ideas about the nature of God, the nature of humanity, and both horizontal and vertical relationships.

Once the forming accounts are recognized as archetypal, they cease to be meaningful in terms of chronology or history of material human origins, even given my continued assertion that Adam and Eve are historical persons. If the accounts of their forming are archetypal in nature rather than material, those forming accounts are important not as events of material creation but as ideas about the nature of humanity. Nevertheless, I have identified in the text evidences that the Israelites as well as the New Testament authors believed Adam and Eve to be real people who lived in a real past. The question to be asked, however, is whether this belief is simply cultural and therefore not binding. The hermeneutical principle that I use to make that determination is whether the text hangs theology on the belief. For example, in the ancient world they believed that the heart was the center of intellect and emotion, and the text affirms that belief. But no theology is built on it in the biblical text. Therefore, once that is recognized as simply a cultural way of thinking in the ancient world rather than the inspired, authoritative revelation of God, I can safely set aside that belief.

The question, then, is whether theological teachings are derived from the historicity of Adam and Eve. On this question we can draw a distinction between the theology connected to the doctrine of Scripture and that connected to other doctrines (e.g., sin). If we simply say that inerrancy demands that we accept a historical Adam because he is mentioned in the genealogies, we are failing to distinguish between that which the Old Testament authors may have incidentally believed and that which the Bible affirms as its authoritative teaching. Where might God be accommodating their current thinking? To return to the example of thinking with the heart, one could not claim that inerrancy demands that we believe that the heart is physiologically the center of our intellect. Inerrancy pertains to that which the text affirms, and we have concluded that physiology is not affirmed by the text; instead the ancient views of physiology were accommodated. If someone were to claim that the historicity of Adam is theologically mandated because of inerrancy, they would have to make the case that historical Adam is part of the authoritative message that the text propounds. This case can be made, but other faithful interpreters may well develop an interpretation that comes to a different conclusion. Historical Adam is only tied into inerrancy to the extent that it can be demonstrated not just that the biblical authors considered him historical but that the biblical teaching incorporated that understanding into its authoritative message. If someone were to contend that belief in a historical Adam was cultural, not affirmed in the theological or revelatory intent of the text but rather part of the framework of communication, then inerrancy would not apply, just as believing that Melchizedek had no parents would not be an issue of inerrancy. I raise this distinction theoretically because I do affirm the historicity of Adam. But I do not consider interpreters who are trying to be faithful to Scripture to be denying inerrancy if they arrive at a different conclusion.

It is evident that this distinction between the affirmation of the text and the accommodation of the text is not just a modern issue from the fact that it is addressed as soon as scientific sophistication began to raise questions about biblical interpretation. John Calvin, for example, addressed the hermeneutical issue in the introduction to his commentary on Genesis when he discussed Moses’ accommodation to the audience of his time with regard to scientific elements:

The method and perspective that Calvin laid out for the solar system can be just as easily applied to human origins.

We must then consider whether theological assertions other than inerrancy are intertwined with the historicity of Adam. The primary (and some would contend the only) theological discussion in the Bible that relies on a historical Adam is the theology of the fall—particularly the idea that sin (or at least accountability for sin) entered the cosmos at a specific moment due to a specific act and that through that act we all became subject to sin and its consequence, death. Thus
the historicity of Adam finds its primary significance in the discussion of the origins of sin rather than in the origins of humanity.
This is tacitly affirmed in the pastoral response provided by Philip Ryken in
Four Views on the Historical Adam.
His response contends that “we cannot understand the world or our faith without a real, historical Adam.”
2
Though Ryken gives brief attention to the idea that Adam is presented as a real person in the text, the bulk of his argument concerns sin (or, even further removed, sociological [no. 3] or missional [no. 5] issues):

1. The historical Adam explains humanity’s sinful nature.
   
2. The historical Adam accounts for the presence of evil in the world.
   
3. The historical Adam (with the historical Eve) clarifies the biblical position on sexual identity and family relationships.
   
4. The historical Adam assures us that we are justified before God.
   
5. The historical Adam advances the missionary work of the church.
   
6. The historical Adam secures our hope in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.