From Eden to Eden
A man created from dust, and a woman created from that same man’s rib: surely we’re more intelligent than to actually believe in this, right? Prior to the nineteenth century, rarely did Christians deny the historicity of this Genesis account. However, it has become quite common to do so in modern Christianity, as many professing believers doubt this seemingly unbelievable account of creation.
Some have done so for literary reasons, claiming that the Adam and Eve narrative is a myth intended only for spiritual and theological insight. Others have done so for scientific reasons, hoping to reconcile Christianity with evolutionary theory. While liberal theologians welcome such developments in theology, many evangelicals are concerned—and for good reason.
Is this debate merely a polarizing issue for the church, or is there something more at stake? I propose that the debate is not superficial, but affects the very heart of the Gospel. My purpose in this essay is (a) to illuminate the issues surrounding this debate; and (b) to identify why an historical Adam and Eve is an integral facet of the Gospel.
Literary Objections
Some reject the historicity of Adam and Eve for literary reasons. Genre and chronology play an important role in these scholars’ objections. First is the issue of genre. Is Genesis 1-3 history, myth, poetry, science, or something else? Some scholars, such as Bruce Waltke, claim that it is most likely “all of the above,” excluding science [1]. Others, such as C. John Collins, suggest that it is historical in the sense that it tells of literal events. But he also suggests that it does not need to fit within a particular genre necessarily [2]. Still, other scholars believe that Genesis’s author adapted Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths to recount an alternate, Hebrew account of creation.
Related to the issue of genre is that of chronology. Many question whether these chapters were intended as a chronological account of historical events. These suggest that certain parts of the creation story are repetitive and seemingly out-of-order. For example, Genesis 1:26-27 includes mankind’s creation on the sixth day of creation, but then Genesis 2:7 again recounts the same story, though with more detail. Similarly, God creates light (Gen. 1:3) before He creates the Sun (1:16). These tensions lead some scholars to deny that the creation account is an orderly, literal one.
Such critics then propose a series of questions: Did God really create two, literal human beings in the beginning, or are Adam and Eve merely representative of mankind? Are they mere “figure heads” for mankind to explain the creation myth and mankind’s “fall”? In other words, these critics suggest that God created mankind in mass, as He did with the animals and plants. Such critics believe that Genesis’ author added these opening chapters to the “creation myth” to add beauty and theology [3]. Though a theological liberal himself, James Barr criticized such questions. He believed that they have false premises, since they leave no room for an historical Adam and Eve [4].
Scientific Objections
While some scholars doubt an historical Adam and Eve for literary reasons, others do so for scientific ones. For example, the Biologos Foundation is a leading organization that attempts to wed Christianity with evolutionary theory. One of its more recent accommodations concerns the human genome. They doubt an historical Adam and Eve because they do not believe that so much diversity within mankind’s DNA could result from only two people. Dennis Venema concludes, “[T]he expectation that the Genesis narratives provide scientific biological details of human ancestry fails in light of human genomics evidence on two points: humans share ancestry with other forms of life; and our speciation was through an interbreeding population, not an ancestral pair” [5].
It is important to remember that these Biologos scholars are not radical atheists seeking to debunk Christianity. Rather, they’re hoping to unite science with faith and rescue Christianity from the supposed facts of science—similar to many theologians in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For example, one evangelical scholar stated several years ago, “[I]f the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world” [6]. Such thinking suggests that we must accept science’s findings when Scripture conflicts with it.
Others have shared similar sentiments. But in so doing, do these possibilities not compromise a vital part of the Gospel? This possibility merits closer consideration.
The Implications
Can we forfeit a literal Adam and Eve, and still maintain the Gospel’s message? I believe not. The implications for it are too great. Fundamentally, this is not a debate of science versus faith. Fundamentally, it is a debate of theology and our redemption.
NPR radio host Barbara Bradley Hagerty made this plain when she stated the following concerning John Schneider: “Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College…says it’s time to face facts: There was no Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, [and] no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence” [7]. Schneider is a prime example of the “slippery slope” that such thinking produces. To forfeit an historical Adam to is forfeit a literal Creation and a literal Fall. And without a Fall, we have no need for Redemption [8]. Albert Mohler later challenged Schneider, suggesting that his approach has no boundaries. In other words, if Schneider doesn’t believe in a literal Adam, why not deny Christ’s literal divinity or a literal Virgin Birth [9]?
Rather, an historical Adam and Eve is crucial for the Old Testament’s narrative. C. John Collins explains: “Genesis 1-11 is the backcloth of the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob story which is the backcloth of the Exodus story. This prehistory grounds the call of Abraham by showing how all human beings are related, and therefore equally in need of God’s blessing, and equally reachable with that blessing.” Collins then explains beautifully: “Abraham is God’s answer to this universal need (Gen. 12:1-3): he is to be the vehicle of blessing to ‘all the families of the earth,’ starting the family through which all mankind, which is now estranged from God, will come to know the true God” [10].
However, let’s press the issue a little further. Without a literal Adam and a literal Fall, there is no need for a literal Christ. The apostle Paul clearly makes this connection when he identifies Jesus as the second and greater Adam: “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come…For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:14a, 19). Tom Schreiner insightfully comments: “[T]he relation between Adam-Christ is so tight in these verses that one cannot deny a historical Adam without denying a historical Christ” [11]. Without a literal Creation and Fall, Christ died for naught on Golgotha’s hill, and Paul perpetuated irrelevant myths.
Was Adam literal? Paul seems to believe so. As a matter of fact, this has been the predominant view throughout church history. More importantly, the New Testament writers believed it. Why then are we so quick to shed this 2,000-year+ position?
Conclusion
When science and Scripture appear to be in conflict, modern Christians often give science the priority—despite the fact that scientists frequently change their positions on these questions. Stephen Wellum writes, “Inevitably it is always Scripture which seems to get re-interpreted in light of current thought” [12]. Sadly, many Christians bow their knees to scientism in order to accommodate culture, or else be relevant to it. Although Bruce Waltke notes that Christians risk “cult” status for refusing to acknowledge science’s findings, it wouldn’t be the first time that secular society has viewed the Church as odd. As a matter of fact, the Gospel has always been a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23).
Ultimately, to forfeit Genesis’s Eden is to forfeit that greater Eden in which we place our eager expectation and hope. Genesis’ account of Adam in the Garden anticipates a literal place and sinless time of perfect communion with God. However, sin entered the world through an historical Adam and destroyed our world. The story of Jesus Christ tells us of a second Adam who mediates a new covenant by His blood, promising us an eternal return to the paradise we once lost. Adam brought alienation, but Christ reconciliation, making peace by the blood of His cross. Indeed, the Second Adam is our only hope of returning to the new Eden.
____________________________________
[1] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 74-78.
[2] C. John Collins, “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62 (September 2010): 147-65.
[3] I’m not using the word “myth” in this section to refer to some sort of lie. By myth I mean something more similar to a story that conveys a deeper spiritual or theological meaning. What J. R. R. Tolkien gives us in the Lord of the Rings is similar to this type of myth. Theologians also refer to the Genesis accounts as myths because they resemble other Mesopotamian myths around the same time that these accounts were recorded.
[4] James Barr, “One Man or All Humanity A Question in the Anthropology of Genesis 1,” in Recycling Biblical Figures; Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam, 12-13 May 1997 (ed. Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten; Studies in Theology and Religion; Leiden; Deo, 1990), 10.
[5] Dennis Venema, “Genesis and the Genome,” http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/venema_genesis_genome.pdf, accessed on January 8, 2012.
However, I’d respond to this in the following: If Adam and Eve were perfect beings, this means that they were perfect biologically, which means theoretically (or should we say theologically), that they could have had enough diversity in their DNA for all of mankind to descend from them. To the extent that people criticize this, are they limiting God? I suggest that they might be.
[6] Interview with BioLogos. BioLogos has removed the video interview at Waltke’s request. But you can find this quote as well a link to Waltke’s attempt at clarification here: http://biologos.org/blog/why-must-the-church-come-to-accept-evolution/
[7] Barbara Bradley Hagerty, “Evangelicals Question the Existence of Adam and Eve,” http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve, accessed on January 8, 2012
[8] R. Albert Mohler Jr., as well as many others, have led the way in explaining this very thing. To see how Mohler addresses the issue, you can watch a lecture he gave for Ligonier Ministries here: http://www.christianity.com/ligonier/?speaker=mohler2.
[9] You can read the transcript or listen to Barbara Bradley Haggerty’s piece here: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve
[10] C. John Collins, “Adam and Eve in the Old Testament,” SBJT 15 (Spring 2011): 4-25.
[11] Thomas S. Schreiner, “Sermon: From Adam to Christ: the Grace that Conquers all our Sin” SBJT 15 (Spring 2011): 80-90.
[12] Stephen Wellum, “Editorial: Debating the Historicity of Adam: Does it Matter?” SBJT 15 (Spring 2011): 2-3.
____________________________________
Further Resources: Kevin Hester, “Adam and Eve and Maple Tree Leaves,” available here.
January 9, 2012
Amen!
January 12, 2012
Hey there. I’m new to this forum as I kinda randomly stumbled upon it when I was googling some about Superheroes. I hope I’m not too late to chime in.
However, there has always been something I’ve wondered about this, and I figure since it seems like you’ve thought a lot about these things that you could answer my question.
Given a literal reading of Genesis 1-3, with a literal Adam and Eve, a literal serpent and Apple, and a literal account of the Fall, how do we make sense of the very end of the story in 3:24 where it says, “(24) So [God] drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life” ?
Are we to assume that there is a literal Cherubim somewhere in the world standing guard with a flaming sword? I guess my question is two-fold: How do you (or anyone reading here who could help me) make both literal and theological sense of this last verse?
Thanks!
January 31, 2012
Mr. Midrash,
Thank you for your insightful comment, and I apologize for my delayed response.
In response to your inquiry, I think there are options for interpreting Genesis 1:24 within the bounds of a literal reading of the text. Before I launch into a long response, I want to make sure I fully understand your concern. Does your question simply concern the possibility of a literal cherubim standing guard somewhere in our modern world? If so, the Bible gives us several examples of this. Numbers 22 even gives us the option of a literal cherubim that is invisible to the human eye.
February 17, 2012
Thank you for your reply, and I, too, apologize for my delay. Hopefully we can each attend to this discussion in the future without so much lag.
While certainly one of my concerns with the text is whether there is a literal cherubim standing guard with a flaming sword, I would agree with you that elsewhere the Bible indicates that cherubim could be invisible to the human eye. However, how do we make literal sense of the garden of Eden? Perhaps an invisible cherubim is still standing guard with a flaming sword somewhere in the world, but this would have to be an actual physical location, wouldn’t it? If we read this passage literally, then where is the Garden of Eden on the physical earth?
Furthermore, I do not know how to make theological sense of this passage. Why, exactly, did God expel Adam and Eve from Eden, and why has He set a cherubim there to prevent anyone from returning? How do these actions fit in with a Christocentric reading of the whole Bible and with the metanarrative of God’s redemptive plan?
My questions about the passage are twofold: 1) How do we make literal sense of what’s going on? – i.e. Where is Eden and what about the Cherubim with the sword? Do we have reason to beli!eve that these literal facts would have changed? and 2) How do we make theological sense of these literal facts? Why did God do these things in this way and what do they implicate about the whole redemptive story?
Thank you!
February 22, 2012
Allow me to begin with the assumption that the Garden of Eden was a literal place. Adam and Eve inhabit the Garden, and commune with God in a perfect manner (without sin). Then sin enters into the World through their sin in the Garden . They are removed from the Garden literally, but more importantly they are removed from this radical presence of God. They are removed from this place designed for intimate communion where God has chosen to interact with them. After their sin and removal from the Garden, the cherubim with flaming sword enter the narrative.
But now we must consider what the cherubim are guarding:
“Therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the Garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.” (Gn. 3:23–24)
It appears that the cherubim are not guarding the Garden as a whole. The cherubim are guarding the Tree of Life.
While both the Garden and the Tree of Life are literal things, they also reveal greater theological truth. In this way of further revelation, they are mythical—literal, but also representative. The Garden is the dwelling place of God. The very real Tree of Life seems to possess some literal purpose that God has granted it, but beyond that it is also representative/symbolic of eternal life and God’s presence.
We know from the Revelation that was given to John, that this Tree of Life even plays a central role in the Eternal Eden (Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). Because of this, it seems logical to conclude that at some point this Tree of Life is removed from Earth, and is currently present in God’s dwelling place. Hence Revelation 2:7: “…the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” Access to this tree (i.e. God’s presence) will be restored through the reinstatement of Eden on the new Earth. Beyond that, there is no need to assume that the cherubim are not still guarding this Tree in the paradise of God. There’s nothing within the text that limits a literal reading, but also providing a symbolic or theological understanding. The cherubim are guarding this Tree of Life in the same way that they later guard God’s presence in the Tabernacle and Temple (Ex. 25:22; Num. 7:89; 1 Chron. 13:6).
While I do think there is great value in thinking on these things, we must admit that we only have a certain amount of revelation regarding these things. While we faithfully attempt to put these pieces together, we must be careful not to wander too far into speculation. I hope that I have not done that here.
February 6, 2012
Among many questions, the one question I really want to raise is whether this blog can achieve its purpose “This venue exists fundamentally to promote theological dialogue within the life of the Church”
My impression from the article “From Eden to Eden” is that there is a strong conservative predisposition. To me, what you try to say is that christians must accept the historicity of Eden otherwise the Gospel will be at risk, despite all scientific evidences point to the opposite direction.
In addition, many examples support strong predisposition:
“While liberal theologians welcome such developments in theology, many evangelicals are concerned—and for good reason.” You’re labeling believers taking an alternative view because of better explanation from recent research (not necessarily correct) are liberals, and unfaithful to the Gospel.
“But in so doing, do these possibilities not compromise a vital part of the Gospel?”. It feels like your first priority is to preserve an established interpretation of the Gospel, though not defined in this article, and such interpretation is immutable, and absolutely correct.
“When science and Scripture appear to be in conflict, modern Christians often give science the priority—despite the fact that scientists frequently change their positions on these questions.” I think it is virtue of science. It displays huge self-correction power. If not, we could still believe that the sun revolves around the earth.
I fully support your effort to create a forum for open discussion about theology, spirituality, etc. However, I don’t see such spirit being carried out in the forum. Therefore, learning from the “blind men and the elephant” could be beneficial to readers.
February 7, 2012
Eric,
Thank you for your comment. Let me begin by addressing your observation of my predispositions. You are correct that I have a “strong conservative predisposition.” You are also correct in that I firmly believe that there is a great deal at stake in forsaking the majority, historical understanding of Creation & Fall. I hold to these beliefs because of my committment to the teachings of Scripture and the New Testament’s inseperable association and portrayal of both Christ and Adam as historical figures (cf. Romans 5:14-19). I address this issue towards the end of my essay.
Also, I’m not quite sure that “ALL scientific evidences point to the opposite direction,” in reference to the Creation account. The issue here is that one must choose what his or her ultimate and final source of revelation will be. For some that will be the ever-changing findings of science, and for others it will be Scripture. I realize that science appears to be the humble option because it is always open to refinement and correction when it is wrong. But when Science and divine revelation appear to be in conflict I have consciously chosen to follow God’s revelation of Himself and His creative work. This appears to be the less humble (and even foolish) option because it claims final, absolute correctness. While science is seemingly open to correction, does it not also claim absolute authority when its findings oppose the Bible?
Many see Darwinian Evolution as a Copernican Revolution of sorts. And it appears that many in the Church are going to look just as foolish now as many did before. I suppose the real difference is that the Bible does not make any overtly clear statements about the Earth’s rotation around the Sun. One would be hard-pressed to say the same about Creation. It speaks very clearly about Creation and the theological implications of it.
Finally, I do not want to be guilty of labeling Christians who hold to some sort of Evolutionary Theory as unfaithful or liberal (although I do not think they would mind the term liberal just as I would not mind being labeled as a conservative). My point is not to distribute labels. My goal is to show the historical understanding of Creation and the theological implications of rejecting this interpretation.