The Lost World of Adam and Eve (25 page)

Mother of All Living

Genesis 3:20 is another verse from which some interpreters inferred a biblical claim that all humans trace their genetic heritage back to Adam and Eve. Here Adam gives his wife the name Eve (Hebrew
ḥ
awwāh
= life), indicating that she was “the mother of all the living.”
7
Does this constitute a biblical claim that all humans are genetically descended from Eve? Several observations militate against that conclusion. First, the reference to the “living” in the explanation of her name is a word that can refer to all creatures, yet all animals are not biological descendants of Eve. Second, the expression “mother of all . . .” is not necessarily one that pertains to biology. Notice that in Genesis 4:20, Jabal “was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.” In Genesis 4:21, Jubal “was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes.” These usages show that this sort of expression has larger associations in mind than just biological descent.

Genealogies

Another argument from the biblical text is that the genealogies consistently go back to Adam (Gen 5; 1 Chron 1; Lk 3:38), suggesting that he is the first human being. It would not be surprising if Israelites in Old Testament and New Testament times believed that Adam was the first human. The hermeneutical issue, however, is more subtle. Were they teaching that Adam was the first human being? Were they building theology on that concept? Or is God simply using their contemporary concepts as a framework for communication?

We have already used the examples of physiology and cosmic geography as examples of God using familiar ideas of the time rather than updating science. We noted that there is no new revelation in the Bible concerning the regular operations of the natural world. The allusion to physiology (for example) does not constitute revelation about physiology or a divine endorsement of a particular physiology.

We could make the same claim with regard to genealogy. Adam is the first significant person in their realm of knowledge (and he is indeed historically and theologically significant), and they drive all significant connections back to him. In Genesis, the genealogy offers the line from Adam (however he fits in) to Noah. In 1 Chronicles, the concern is about Jewish identity as the representatives of the kingdom of God. It is natural that Adam be viewed as the fountainhead of the people of God. That role does not depend on particular views of genetic ancestry or material continuity. His federal headship would easily serve as an appropriate basis for the genealogy to go back to him.
8
The genealogy in Luke 3 traces the lineage of Jesus back through genealogies to establish his place in history. It does not just go back to Adam; it goes back to God. This is a lineage through Joseph, so it is specifically
not
his biological lineage. Adam is the first significant human and the connection to God because of the very particular role that he had (again, federal headship gives an adequate connection, as does his priestly role).

In all these cases, while the Bible
could
be read as suggesting that Adam was the first human being, it is more debatable whether it is making a scientific claim that would controvert the possibility that modern humanity is descended from a pool of common ancestors as indicated by the genetic evidence. I would then conclude that any contention that the Bible is making a claim that Adam is the first human being or that all humans are descended from him is debatable.

Proposition 21

Humans Could Be Viewed as Distinct Creatures and a Special Creation of God Even If There Was Material Continuity

In the last chapter, we discussed Adam and Eve’s relationship to all of us who have come after them. In this chapter, we will begin by turning our attention to their relationship to what came before them. The modern scientific consensus affirms that there is material continuity between all species of life (technically designated phylogenetic continuity). Evolutionary models offer an explanation of how this gradual change over time from a common ancestor took place. It is one thing to believe that all species have a common ancestor, and it is quite another to explain what mechanisms drove the process of change. The former idea is almost universally affirmed among scientists; the latter is still under vigorous debate.

The fossil record, comparative anatomy and the genome likewise all point to common descent, but they offer no information about what factors drove the changes. In one sense, all of these offer snapshots at various stages, whereas evolutionary models attempt, in effect, to incorporate those snapshots into a video. Consequently, one could theoretically accept the concepts of phylogenetic continuity and common descent (based on the information from comparative genomics or the fossil record) yet be very skeptical of the current mechanisms proposed by evolutionary models (e.g., mutation, natural selection).

Evolution can be defined as an interpretation of the world around us that posits a material (phylogenetic) continuity among all species of creatures (biological and genetic, not spiritual) as the result of a process of change over time through various mechanisms known and unknown.
1
It is not inherently atheistic or deistic. It has plenty of room for the providence of God as well as the intimate involvement of God. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss whether evolutionary models are correct or not. The more important question is whether the conclusions of common descent and material continuity are compatible with a faithful interpretation of the Bible.

Today many of those who are proponents of evolutionary models see those models as an alternative to the involvement of a Creator God, and some insist that such models show that the need for a Creator God is obsolete. Obviously, such conclusions cannot be accepted by Christians. Other scientists, however, accept the concept of common descent, and even some evolutionary models, but view God as one who is creating through a process that features change over time from a common ancestor. This approach is known as “evolutionary creation.”
2
Therefore, to consider change over time, common descent, material continuity or even an evolutionary model is not a decision that automatically rules God out of the picture. These do not necessitate the conclusion that there is no God or that he was not active in creation. God can be viewed as Creator even in the context of such scientific conclusions.

At the same time, we would have to readily acknowledge that nothing in the biblical text suggests such an understanding of human origins. Since Genesis is an ancient document, we would not expect it to address these modern ideas. Nevertheless, we need to ask whether information based on the authoritative teaching of Scripture rules out such a possibility. Could someone who takes the Bible seriously believe in common descent and material continuity?

The easiest, casual reading of the text (and one that has been believed for millennia), or one that did not have access to ancient Near Eastern texts, would suggest a de novo creation of human beings. In a fully de novo view, there is material discontinuity—no human or other primate predecessors with whom humans shared a common ancestor. In this view, God is directly involved in the special creation of Adam and Eve distinct from other creatures and not derived from them in any material way. That remains a very plausible interpretation, but, again we ask, is such a view the actual claim of Scripture with the weight of authority behind it such that failure to read this way constitutes rejection of biblical truths?

In previous chapters, I have offered what I believe to be a faithful reading of the authoritative claims of Scripture in its own literary, theological and cultural context that suggests that the Bible does not need to be read as affirming a de novo view. Instead, I have suggested that the Bible does not really offer any information about material human origins. This would mean that the scientific claims of common descent and material continuity would not be automatically ruled out.

It is important, nevertheless, to realize that the adoption of common descent and material continuity does not eliminate the idea that human beings are created by God and are uniquely spiritual beings who possess the image of God. The image of God is not neurological and not materially defined in terms of neuroscience or genetics; it has no material component, though the image is embodied.

Human Distinctiveness Is Spiritual

We can discuss spiritual uniqueness in three basic categories. First, based on the discussion in chapter twelve, we can see that Adam and Eve are distinguished from any other humans that may have existed in their time by having been designated as priests serving representatively in sacred space. This is presented as a role given to them by God, a role that is spiritual in nature. Note that in similar ways Abraham is not materially distinct from any others of his time, but he is selected by God and assigned a spiritual role.

Second, it is the Christian belief that humans have a spiritual nature of some sort. There is still much discussion (and perhaps even increasing disagreement) over how that spiritual part of us needs to be described and understood, but we believe that we are more than biological specimens; we are more than carbon-based life forms. Neuroscience can provide explanations about how we came to
realize
that we are more than biological specimens but not how we came to
be
more. Whether we call this the soul or spirit and whether we are dualists or monists or something else, as Christians we believe that there is some part of us, in fact, the most important part of us, that survives the death of the body. This is not something that can evolve; it is not possessed by those other creatures in a line of common descent. It represents a spiritual discontinuity even if one concludes that there is material continuity. It is granted by God (we don’t know how or when) as a direct, special creative act of God, and it differentiates us from every other creature.

The third aspect of our human spiritual uniqueness is found in the image of God that we have been given. The image of God is not the same thing as our spiritual nature, but like our spiritual nature it is not something that just develops in the human species over time. One of the most common ways to define the image of God is to start with the proposition that the image of God distinguishes us from all creatures, and with this I would agree. I would, however, disagree with then drawing the conclusion that anything that distinguishes us from other creatures tells us what the image of God is. Fortunately, such theories focus on mental capacities rather than the presence of opposable thumbs. Even so, the image of God must be seen as more than the sum total of capacities whose developments can be traced by neuroscience. The image of God is, by definition, who we are as human beings. It is not the mark of humanity; it is how humans are marked. It is not what makes us human, but, as humans, we have the image of God. I believe that the image of God is something that is a direct, spiritually defined gift of God to humans. For those who believe that humans are biologically a product of change over time through common descent, the image of God would be given by God to humans at a particular time in that history. It would not be detectable in the fossil record or in the genome. So now we must take a closer look at what the image of God is.

Image of God

The image of God has been the topic of numerous dissertations and monographs in a variety of disciplines (e.g., exegetical treatments of Genesis, theology, philosophy, art history, neuroscience/psychology), so this treatment will be embarrassingly brief. I have only space enough to survey the aspects of the image of God that these studies (as well as my own) have identified. This will entail a brief presentation of four aspects: function, identity, substitution and relationship. These are not mutually exclusive alternatives, and I would propose that each of them is true.

Function.
The understanding of the image of God as an assigned role with an inherent function has long been part of the discussion. Most recently, it has been championed by J. Richard Middleton.
3
In this view, humanity corporately functions as God’s vice-regents—stewards who are charged with subduing and ruling as articulated in the very context in which the image is granted (Gen 1:26-30). As a corporate designation, it differentiates humanity from all other creatures and species. Those capacities that can be discussed neurologically (self-awareness, God-awareness, etc.) may well be understood as allowing us to carry out this task, but they would not themselves define the image of God. All humans have a role to play in this aspect of our corporate identity, regardless of how well they function mentally or physically.

Identity.
This aspect of the image of God expresses our core identity: this is who we are.
4
We should recall that naming is an act of creation in the ancient Near East. It then follows that when God designates humankind as his image, that is what humankind becomes. The image becomes interwoven in our destiny and our nature. Like any name in the Old Testament, it takes on reality over time in any number of possible ways. This identity is assigned by our Creator; it is not something we could take on our own for ourselves, and it is not something that can just develop in us. Just as naming is an act of creation in the ancient world, so this giving of identity is a spiritual act of special creation.

Substitution.
When a king in the ancient world had an image of himself placed by the gate in a city he had conquered or at the border of a land that he claimed, the image proclaimed the king’s presence there. It was a substitute, but it was more than just a stand-in. In its aesthetics, it communicated important ideals about the king and about kingship.
5
The images of the gods in the temples did the same on a larger scale because the images of the gods had been inaugurated by a ritual that endowed the image with the divine essence. In this way, the material nature and existence of the image faded almost into nonsignificance (though the very best materials had been used). It had become a fit repository for the divine essence, and that was the most important thing about it. The image did not just contain the divine essence; it was transformed into something spiritual in nature.
6