The Lost World of Adam and Eve (24 page)

Looking at Paul’s picture of Adam from this point of view may be surprising to some. But it is not difficult to make oneself at home in it. This is the greatest story ever told, and it will draw all our stories up into it. Yes, many humans, though not all, are deeply aware of problems in their own lives, of pains and fears and sorrows and deep-rooted puzzles, and that may well bring them to the foot of the cross. But the message ought never to be simply about me and my salvation. It ought to be about God and God’s kingdom. That’s what Jesus announced, and so should we. The full good news is that in Jesus, and through his death and resurrection, God has become king of the world. We look out at the world and see it in a terrible mess, and we are aware in our bones that we want to do something about it. But our own sin, our greed, our pride, our arrogance get in the way, and we rush off and try to do it in our own strength and (worse) our own way, like Moses trying to liberate Israel from Egypt by Egyptian means. He first needed liberating himself. We humans know in our bones that we are called to bring God’s wise order into the world. That is our Adamic inheritance, just as much as the entail of evil. But for that to become a reality we need, ourselves, to be rescued from the same problem that afflicts the rest of the world. We are rescued by the blood of the Lamb in order to be a royal priesthood; and the way in which that works, according to the New Testament, is the same way it worked for Jesus: taking up the cross, a suffering but joyful witness. That, too, is part of Paul’s picture of the redeemed Adam: we suffer with him, that we may (in line, remember, with Psalm 8) also share his glory. The distortions Western theology has introduced into Paul’s Adam-theology are cognate with the distortions, or the downright ignoring, that have happened in relation to the kingdom of God. They belong together; and together they may give us a sense of how to talk wisely both about salvation and about origins.

Proposition 20

It Is Not Essential That All People Descended from Adam and Eve

This book has not been focusing on scientific issues because I am not a scientist, and those issues are complex.
1
Instead, I have focused on what the biblical claims are regarding biological human origins, and in that regard we have found no claims. At the same time, even very early interpreters undoubtedly considered Adam and Eve to be the progenitors of the entire human race.
2
Evidence has been presented that Genesis 2 talks about the
nature
of
all
people, not the unique
material origins
of Adam and Eve. Consequently, we do not find human origins stories in Genesis 2 that make scientific claims. That does not mean that modern scientific theories are therefore correct by default—it just means that we can consider scientific claims on their own merit rather than dismissing them because they contradict biblical claims.

Genetics

Scientific consensus regarding genetics is most strongly represented in the information that has been developed from the mapping of the human genome and comparing it to other genomes. At its most basic level, the genome shows a history through the presence of fusions, breaks, mutations, retroviruses and pseudogenes. On this no one disagrees. The disagreement arises when we question whether this history actually happened or whether God created people with a genome that looks like it has a history. This is similar to the age-old question of whether Adam had a belly button.

If someone were to look at a dental x-ray of my mouth, they would see implants with titanium pegs, crowns, root canals, fillings, cracks in the enamel, etc. These would all stand as obvious evidence to a history, and in that way the evidence in my mouth is comparable to the human genome. With the genome, however, the history is passed on from generation to generation and can be compared with the genomes of other species. In such a comparison, remarkable similarities become evident that have indicated a material continuity between species, suggesting relatedness or similar histories. This is the understanding of common descent where genetic analysis provides evidence of a gradual development that would explain genetic diversity.
3

The evidence for this shared history uncovered by comparative genomics is compelling and would be readily accepted were it not for the belief of some that, if such a history actually happened, it would contradict claims that are made in the Bible. Many who take the Bible seriously therefore insist that the history to which comparative genomics testifies in fact never happened.

To substantiate the position that this genetic history never happened, it is necessary to contend that God (1) created Adam de novo (distinct from any predecessors, using no biological process) with a complicated genome. This genome would contain parts that do not function as they do in other species, mutations that disable genes, etc. Furthermore, the genome just happens to look a lot like the genomes of related species with most of the same genetic history evident in them (same flaws in the same places). Or God (2) totally disrupted the genome, not only of humans but of all species (in very similar ways) as a response to the fall.

If the Bible makes such claims that the evidence of history in the genome needs to be denied in one of these ways, so be it. That an act of God could bring about a product that has marks of a history that never actually occurred has been attested in Jesus turning the water into wine. In terms of probability, the resurrection looks highly unlikely, yet we affirm its reality. At the same time, denying de novo human origins would not be a case of denying a miracle that the Bible affirms if the Bible does not affirm it. So, before we dismiss the evidence of a genetic history provided by the genome, let’s take a hard look at the biblical claims to decide what stand we need to take as those who take the Bible seriously.

Two questions will be addressed in this chapter:

1. Does the Bible claim that Adam was the first human being ever to exist?
   
2. Does the Bible claim that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve?
   

Current scientific understanding maintains that there was no first human being because humanity is the result of an evolving population. The evidence of genetics also points to the idea that the genetic diversity that exists in humanity today cannot be traced back to two individuals—a single pair—but that such diversity requires a genetic source population of thousands. If the Bible claims otherwise, then we would have to take a stand against this emerging scientific consensus.

So far in this book, however, the analysis of the relationship of Genesis 1 and 2 has raised the possibility that the Adam and Eve account in Genesis 2 could have come after an en masse creation
4
of humanity in Genesis 1 (chap. 7), though Adam and Eve should be considered as having been included in that group. Paul does not demand that Adam and Eve are the first or only humans. When he speaks of Adam as the “first man,” he is most interested in the archetypal role of Adam and in the theological issues surrounding sin (chap. 10). Finally, we should note that the two questions posed above are not concerned with whether Adam and Eve are real people in a real past—I have already affirmed that I believe they are. If Genesis 2 is not making claims about human origins or demanding that Adam and Eve are the first or only humans, does it make such claims elsewhere? We are especially interested in whether the Bible is making claims about human origins that have scientific ramifications and could therefore stand in contradiction to the scientific consensus of today.

Before we turn our attention to other biblical passages that have been thought to make claims about human origins, I want to note briefly some of the scientific conversations that are taking place that attempt to reconcile scientific conclusions and claims with biblical interpretation.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam.
There has been much interest in conclusions drawn by scientists to the effect that there is a single female, dubbed Mitochondrial Eve, from whom all current humans are descended. That is, she is the most recent common ancestor of all humans. Likewise, the Y-chromosome that is found only in males can be tracked back to a single source. But we can’t get too excited about this, because the so-called Mitochondrial Eve (an African woman who lived about 180,000 years ago) and Y-chromosomal Adam (an African who is believed to have lived about 210,000 years ago) cannot be considered husband and wife! They are separated by 30,000 years. Furthermore, these two cannot succeed in lending support to the traditional Bible claims because to accept their existence means accepting many other premises of genetics that push in a different direction (e.g., the way in which the genome shows a history and suggests continuity and common descent). For example, the same sort of information that identifies them shows that they are both members of large populations. While all humans today may share single ancestors such as Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, they are not our only ancestors. I have no intention of arguing for or against the science. I only make the point that this information does not offer a way to integrate scientific findings with traditional biblical interpretation.

Size of the genetic source population.
Population geneticists generally claim that the evolved human population was never less than 5,000 to 10,000 individuals. They estimate that the smallest number occurred at a population bottleneck about 150,000 years ago. These numbers are derived from computer models, and arguments can be mounted that the models may not have all the parameters set precisely enough to generate full confidence. True as that may be, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that with more precise models the number would go down to two. Population genetics at this stage does not offer a path to reconciliation with traditional biblical interpretation.

Adam and Eve among an initial population.
In some models Adam and Eve are thought of as two of the members of a small population of humans and that through the course of time as generation followed generation, their descendants spread through the population and other lines died out such that by today everyone has genetic material from these two. This view attempts to place Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 among an en masse creation of humans and still retain the idea that Adam and Eve are the parents of us all. It affirms that Adam and Eve were (among) the first humans and that (through a complex process) we are all descended from Adam and Eve. Though it looks nothing like the traditional biblical interpretation, it makes similar affirmations while at the same time accommodating common descent and affirming that the history evident in the genome actually took place.

These all maintain aspects of traditional biblical interpretation while at the same time adopting some of the basic aspects of the current scientific consensus. They require selective acceptance of scientific findings and/or significantly adjusted biblical interpretation. We need to ask whether such complicated attempts at reconciliation are necessary, and so we return to the questions above: Does the Bible claim that Adam is the first human being to exist and that all are descended from him?

Does Acts 17:26 demand “one man”?

Genesis 2 has already been discussed at length, as has the reference to Adam as the “first man” in 1 Corinthians 15. But the verse that many point to as the most persuasive on these issues is Acts 17:26: “From one man he made all the nations [“nations of mankind,”
ethnos anthrōpōn
], that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.” This is found in Paul’s speech to the philosophers on Mars Hill concerning the “unknown god.” First, Paul presents the true God as non-contingent (Acts 17:24, “made the world and everything in it”), as transcendent (Acts 17:24, “does not live in temples built by human hands”), as not operating in the Great Symbiosis (Acts 17:25, has no needs) and as one on whom all people as his creatures are contingent (Acts 17:25, “gives everyone life and breath and everything else”). These statements all pertain to God’s role as Creator.

In Acts 17:26, Paul’s rhetoric transitions to a geopolitical, historical and societal focus. He indicates that nations, historical roles and territories are all dependent on God. I would contend that in this verse he is not talking about biology or about human origins. He is discussing national origins. God’s “making” (
poieō
) of a nation is not a material act but an organizational one. We may well ask how and where in Scripture God makes the nations. The nations come into being through lines of descendants, and the Bible communicates that process very explicitly in Genesis 10, the so-called Table of Nations. There the lines of Noah’s three sons are traced as a means of identifying the lineage of the seventy known countries and peoples in the author’s time.
5
Genesis 10:32 concludes that from these three sons of Noah come all the nations: “These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations [
ethnōn
] spread out over the earth after the flood.” This is the only verse in the Old Testament that talks about the origins of the nations as a group and is therefore arguably the verse to which Paul refers. If that is so, the “one” that he refers to is Noah, not Adam.
6

If human origins were the point, we might expect Paul to use the basic
anthrōpōn
rather than making the nations the focus. Furthermore, the concept of national identity fits better in this verse in connection with historical periods and territorial boundaries. Finally, he brackets this part of the speech with the conclusion “we are his offspring” (end of Acts 17:28), which parallels the beginning of Acts 17:26 (“from one man he made”). Between this and the focus on geopolitical entities, we can rightly question whether Paul was making a statement about material biological origins. Was he making a claim that argues against a wider range of genetic sources for humanity (polygenism)? That would be a dubious conclusion; Paul, of course, knew nothing about genetics. He is instead pointing to the remarkable work of God’s formation of multiple national identities from the three sons of Noah.