The Lost World of Adam and Eve (27 page)

All these points could be discussed at great length, and some are undoubtedly a matter of interpretation for which other bona fide explanations could be offered. Regardless, it illustrates the true focus of the historical Adam question. Even if we accept without question all these points, we could still maintain that no theology is built on the scientific implications commonly associated with Adam and Eve: that they must (theologically speaking!) be created de novo, as the only people at the beginning of humanity and those from whom we are all descended. Throughout this book, I have offered biblical support for the possibility that humanity was created en masse in Genesis 1, that the presence of other people is assumed in Genesis 4 and that Genesis 2 does not intend to offer an account of fully de novo material human origins. If the evidence should prove persuasive that (1) no theology is dependent on or derived from the traditional assertions of de novo creation or Adam and Eve as the first two humans, who were alone in the world and the direct progenitors of the entire human race, and if (2) sound, faithful, exegetical analysis offers plausible alternative interpretations, then we would have no reason to be committed to those traditional beliefs as the only acceptable interpretation. In such a case, inerrancy and the text would not demand them from us, and we would hold them by our preference. In short, there may be a wider range of possibilities for a biblical and theological understanding of human origins than previously recognized. If it turns out (as I believe it does) that science offers evidence to the contrary, we are free to consider its claims. In other words, if neither exegesis nor theology intractably demands those conclusions that argue against the modern scientific consensus premised on common descent, we have no compelling reason to contest the science. That does not mean that all questions can now easily be answered. But progress can be made.

Some readers will feel some reticence about adopting new interpretations of the biblical text. How dare we disregard two millennia of church history? Are we better than the church fathers? Would God leave us without sound interpretation for so long? These sorts of questions show a commendable impulse to caution. As we address these concerns, however, we might recall that opponents of the Reformers would have raised similar objections. Furthermore, it will be noted that in this work the suggested innovations are primarily exegetical rather than theological.

This question concerning the place of theological tradition is an important one and has been dealt with in works that are dedicated to that study.
3
Here I will only offer seven brief observations for readers to consider.

• The church fathers often disagree deeply with one another. This means that they cannot all be right, and there was never total unanimity.
  
• The church fathers regularly make statements and hold positions that no one today accepts. We are not bound to their thinking.
  
• The thinking and writing of the church fathers was driven by the needs of their time, whether Gnosticism, Stoicism, Arianism, the numerous heresies that regularly arose or the theological debates that dominated. They were not simply dealing with text, and they rarely were attempting to get back to what the authors of Scripture intended to say.
  
• The church fathers were primarily driven by Christology. This gave them very little reason to think about the text in its ancient context. Theologically it was important for them to focus on clarifying this important aspect of Christian doctrine. Unfortunately, the resulting attention to Christology tended to overbalance their theology and their hermeneutics—an inclination that remains at times today.
  
• Through many periods of church history, writers and thinkers were not familiar with the biblical languages. They were not therefore in a position to do close reading of a Hebrew text.
  
• The church fathers had no access to the ancient world. They were lacking the resources that have been recovered today through archaeological excavation. Over a million cuneiform texts now offer us unparalleled access to important information about the ancient world in which the Old Testament was written.
  
• Some of the ideas that are presented in this work actually were considered by some interpreters in the early history of the church, so they are not as new as we might think.
  

These comments do not suggest that we neglect or ignore the history of interpretation, only that we recognize that a history of faithful interpretation continues and that as the textual evidence dictates, we may still find occasion to take our departure from some traditionally held ideas.

We can contend that Adam and Eve are theologically and historically significant even if they were not the first humans. We can contend that Adam and Eve are appropriately positioned as fountainheads of humanity even if we are not all their direct descendants. We can contend that humanity has a distinct place in the created order, unique among species, even if Adam and Eve are not de novo creations.

The most significant issue that we have been examining is whether the Bible and science make mutually exclusive claims about human origins. The current scientific consensus is that humans share a common ancestor with other species based on the evidence of material (phylogenetic) continuity. Our close reading of the biblical text and theological studies has indicated that they would allow for such material continuity and common ancestry.

I am not in an advantageous position to suggest a hypothetical scenario that accounts for both the biblical and scientific data, and such has not been my intention. This book represents a much more limited endeavor: to determine what the Bible and theology require with regard to human origins so that we can conclude which scientific proposals we may be obliged to reject. The analysis offered in these pages suggests that a careful reading of Genesis as an ancient Near Eastern document results in exegetical conclusions and theological affirmations that do not inherently conflict with common descent or conclusions drawn from and implications derived from the history that is observable in the human genome (see chap. 20). Acceptance of the principle of common descent or the idea that the history attested to by the genome actually happened is not the same as accepting the theory of evolution as it exists today, though it would clear the way for some theory of evolution to be compatible with the Bible. The rest would call for science to make its best case.

In conclusion, we might ask why all of this is important. I therefore will close with four reasons why this conversation needs to move forward: creation care, ministry, evangelism and considering the future.

Creation Care

Who we believe we are as a race has significant influence on how we interact with the world around us. It is interesting that both militant atheists and fundamentalist Christians might agree in a full exploitation of the environment: atheists, because one’s own self-interests are all that matter, and Christians, who believe that the earth is doomed for destruction anyway so there is no need to exercise care. Yet, at the same time, atheists could be concerned about earth-keeping because they take the long view on human existence. Christians should care about the environment because we have come to understand that God has appointed us as caretakers of his world. As his vice-regents, we have been charged with subduing and ruling, but that leaves no room for exploitation or abuse. We have the responsibility to maintain the space that is ultimately sacred and ultimately his.

Ministry

Many Christians who work in the various fields of science find themselves in treacherous waters. If they are bold in making their faith known in the workplace, they can be easily marginalized by their colleagues and bosses because of the supposed ways in which faith is thought to undermine one’s ability to function in a scientifically oriented world. They may find themselves not taken seriously, and their careers might suffer because of their faith commitments.

When these people come to the church expecting to find support and encouragement as they face the struggles of their workplace, too often they find that the church is suspicious of them. And worse, if they have come to accept some of the tenets of the scientific consensus that the church has traditionally disparaged, they are also marginalized in the church. The message is loud and clear: leave your scientific conclusions at the door.

We are not doing a good job of ministering to these brothers and sisters. We have communicated that their commitment to Christ is subverted, their service to the church is unwanted and their very salvation is suspect. We have to do better in providing safe contexts for people in the sciences, and we would do well to learn from them. At times, however, they are confused, and it would be appropriate for the church to help them work through these difficult issues—not by making them choose (Bible or science) but by charting a path of convergence and compatibility.

Evangelism

Many non-Christians opposed to the gospel and to Christianity habitually ridicule the church for what they paint as a naive commitment to an ancient mythology. Some of the traditional opposition that some Christians have mounted concerning the age of the earth or human origins has become fodder for those who seek an excuse to reject the teachings of Christ. But not all are antagonistic; some sit on the sidelines and watch. They are intrigued by Christianity, particularly when they have met Christians who impress them. Despite their curiosity and intrigue, they have heard that to accept Christianity means to abandon their brains. They have heard from both the secular world and the Christian world that to accept Christ means to reject certain scientific conclusions—a step they cannot take. They have been told that to become a Christian means to believe the Bible; to believe the Bible means to jettison science that they find convincing. So they remain outside looking in.

The church has to do a better job of presenting an unencumbered gospel. Given the conclusions reached in these pages, we can easily alleviate the concerns of those inquiring about Christianity when they ask whether the Bible requires them to believe that the earth is young or that no evolutionary model is acceptable by a Christian. The gospel is clear—believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

Considering the Future

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, whenever we misrepresent what the Bible says by positioning it as being in conflict with science, we force people to make a choice. Certainly we make a choice when we affirm that God is the Creator. But when we tell the young people reared in a Christian faith that there is a war between science and faith and that if they accept certain scientific conclusions, they will be abandoning the Bible, they often believe us. Then, when they are confronted with a very persuasive presentation of an old earth or a case for common ancestry from the genomic record, they decide that the Bible must go. It is not because they no longer believe in Jesus but because they have been taught that believing in an old earth or believing some form of evolutionary theory is not compatible with believing the Bible. They have heard their revered pastors tell them that people who believe in evolution cannot be Christians. In repeated surveys of those who have become disillusioned with the church, this is listed as one of the primary reasons.

We cannot claim that the Bible/science debate is the only culprit responsible for people leaving the church, but it is one of the most commonly mentioned ones. What if we could tell them that their scientific conclusions did not make a difference and that they could still believe the Bible, could still be in relationship with Christ, could still be members in good standing in the church? Wouldn’t that make a difference? There is no need to lose our young people to this debate. It does not matter whether you as a reader are sympathetic to scientific conclusions or not. It does not matter whether you find the exegetical and theological conclusions in this book persuasive or not. If we can think beyond ourselves and accept the fact that a vital Christian faith need not have exactly the same interpretive profile that we believe, we might see that the church is bigger than any of us. Certainly there are beliefs (or, more often, unbeliefs) that place one outside this big tent we call the church. But there is room for a variety of beliefs as long as they derive from sound exegesis, sound theology and sound hermeneutics. We have tried to demonstrate that Genesis 1 is concerned with God’s ordering of sacred space with the goal of being in relationship with us. We have tried to demonstrate further that the Adam account is more concerned with the entry of disorder into the world than with giving an account of human origins. These are conclusions that derive from a faithful reading of Scripture and offer legitimate alternatives even if they do not convince all readers.

Think, then, of our children and grandchildren. When they come home from college having accepted some scientific understanding about human origins that we do not find persuasive, are we going to denounce them, disinherit them and drive them from the doors of our homes and churches? Or are we going to suggest to them that there may be a way to interpret Scripture faithfully that will allow them to hold on to both science and faith? Can we believe that such a path does not represent a compromise that dilutes the faith but rather one that opens new doors to understanding that the next generation may find essential even though we find ourselves paralyzed on the threshold? Let us pray together that we can chart a path of faithfulness and stop the hemorrhaging.

Notes

Introduction

1
Peter C. Bouteneff,
Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), pp. ix-x. His focus is on the Greek patristic literature.

2
And its inerrancy rightly understood.

Proposition 1: Genesis Is an Ancient Document

1
Significant portions of this chapter are adapted from John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy,
The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013).