CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

ENDING AT A BEGINNING

TWO FINDINGS OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE are thought to threaten the theology of Adam and Eve. First, we arise from ancestors with the great apes. Second, the ancestral population from which we arise never seems to dip down to a single couple.

Nonetheless, consistent with these findings, Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all, could have been de novo created less than ten thousand years ago. They could even be our progenitors, the single couple by which we all arise by genealogical monogenesis. In their exile, Adam and Eve’s lineage spread across the globe as they intermixed with the people outside the Garden. The only way that evolutionary science presses on this account is by suggestion, alongside the hints of Scripture, that there were people outside the Garden.

This traditional de novo account of creation fits within a larger speculative narrative of human origins. Science tells us the story of the people outside the Garden, created by God in his image. Then God creates Adam and Eve to influence their destiny. Adam makes a choice. They fall into exile. Through Adam’s sin, everyone falls into exile too. All of us now are in the image of God and fallen. This larger origin narrative contains the first. The traditional account was not false. It was just part of this larger narrative.

• ■ The larger narrative is speculative, raising many questions, but it is no worse than other ways of understanding Adam and Eve. It also comes with the benefit of being entirely consistent with mainstream science.

• ■ The full narrative contains constructive responses to several questions and objections.

• ■ The meaning of being human is linked to the image of God, so other scholars might vary on this part of the narrative. Building up a theology of worth, dignity, and freedom might encourage more flexibility in these variations.

• ■ This narrative sits at a crossroads, touching on a large range of deep questions in theology, science, and society. Open questions abound as we engage the grand mystery of our origins.

This narrative is a starting point for deeper reflection. We are now ending at the starting point of a larger conversation.

NO WORSE THAN THESE

I do not seek to demonstrate that this narrative is the best or most correct understanding. I do not seek to answer every question or fill in every detail of this narrative. Instead, my thesis is that this speculative narrative does not create any more problems for theology than accounts that do not include evolutionary science. Four comparison points are helpful.

1. 1. God-imaged Homo sapiens interbreeding with Neanderthal beasts in the distant past. This is how Reasons to Believe, a prominent old-earth creationist organization, most recently proposed we understand human origins.1 I emphasize, even as I note this example, that there are better ways to frame this, both scientifically and theologically, than as it currently stands.

2. 2. Humans and fallen angels interbreeding to produce Nephilim giants. Answers in Genesis, the largest young-earth creation organization, celebrates speculation about this in the distant past.

3. 3. A Homo erectus Adam and Eve two million years ago. An ancient Adam and Eve, with no one outside the Garden, is favored by some structuralists. This preserves neat metaphysical categories, but it reduces most of the Genesis narrative to mythology.2

4. 4. Intelligent life on other planets. The possibility of life on other planets was thought to be a threat to Christian doctrine, because it might indicate people in the image of God that do not descend from Adam. C. S. Lewis’s essay “Religion and Rocketry” gives a great example of responses to this supposed threat.3

These four test cases expose tensions that already exist in theology, many of which arise before considering evolutionary science. Perhaps some proposals are better than others, but I only want to show this narrative is no worse than these. Scientists might call these “test cases” or “controls,” which give us a way to respond to objections with a common pattern.

• ■ Some object, “The people outside the Garden are in the image of God, but they do not descend from Adam and Eve.” This is no more of a challenge than intelligent aliens in the image of God (4). Nothing in Scripture tells us that God did not make other people on other planets or universes. Maybe he did.

• ■ Some object, “Adam and Eve’s lineage interbreeds with people outside the Garden.” This, however, is less of a theological challenge than biologically different groups interbreeding (1, 2). Setting aside most objections, in the speculative narrative, God intends for them to interbreed. Interbreeding cannot be a problem if God intended for Adam and Eve’s lineage to interbreed with others.

• ■ Some object, “This infers details about our past that are not in the scriptural account.” Yes, and so does everyone else (1–4). Genesis 1–11 is just a small amount of text. Everyone fills in details because Genesis, even if it is true, cannot be the whole story.

• ■ Some object, “This does not precisely match some details of the text of Genesis narrative.” This narrative, however, matches Genesis much more closely than most other accounts (1, 3). Although the narrative affirms evolution, the “looking backward” periscope matches the text just as closely as young-earth creationist accounts (2).

• ■ Some object, “This is not demonstrated with scientific evidence.” This narrative, however, is still demonstrated entirely consistent with mainstream science, which is better than we can say for most models (1–4).

This is an effective defense. I do not yet see any objections that do not also apply to several other well-accepted accounts. This narrative is no more objectionable than other accounts of our origins, and perhaps it could be tolerated alongside them. In this sense, the narrative experiment of this book is successful, creating space for the traditional account. In time, more constructive reflection might arise.

A THEOLOGIZED NARRATIVE

The narrative already is shaped by constructive reflection and dialogue. I suppose I could have just made the scientific case and walked away. This book would be shorter, and no one would be the wiser. Somehow, I was seduced by the grander questions. The questions, objections, and exchanges shaped the narrative in this experiment. Embedded in the narrative are several theological responses to this dialogue.

• ■ Is this an example of the negative type of concordism, where we read modern scientific knowledge into Scripture, where it cannot be properly found? No. First, this narrative makes uses of an ordinary understanding of ancestry, rather than DNA. Second, it makes use of a textual definition of human rather than a scientific definition. Third, evolution is outside the periscope of Scripture in the narrative. The scriptural account takes place alongside the scientific account, without teaching it.

• ■ Were Adam and Eve’s descendants interbreeding with nonhuman beasts? The people outside the Garden were biologically human in every way. God intended for Adam and Eve’s lineage to interbreed with them.

• ■ How does this narrative understand the purpose of the Garden? The Garden is a cosmic temple, a place that God dwells and intends to expand across the earth in collaboration with Adam and Eve. In Revelation 20–21, we see the return of the Garden, this time as the City of God on earth.4 Revelation is a vision of what would have happened if Adam had not sinned. This theology is the basis for the inference that Adam and Eve’s original purpose was to welcome all humanity into a death-free Garden.

• ■ Did Adam and Eve’s lineage have the right to destroy and abuse the people outside the Garden? Absolutely not. Adam and Eve and their lineage were given dominion over the earth, but not over other humans. The turn to war, slavery, racism, and more is a consequence of the Fall, the corrupted dominion of Adam and Eve’s lineage.

• ■ Were those outside the Garden of reduced moral or ethical value? The limits of the good dominion, which was not over other humans, acknowledge they were created free, not subject to one another. They also had consciences, with a sense of moral right and wrong. God loved them and intended to bless them. They might have an eternal destiny, but we do not know for sure.

• ■ How do we make sense of a whole new era in the distant past? Christian theology already grapples with the transition between two eras, before and after the incarnation of Jesus. This narrative brings us to grapple with another transition, from before to after Adam, before to after the rise of civilization.

• ■ Why did God make Adam and Eve de novo, without parents, when everyone else was created through a process of common descent? They had a special purpose, one that require them to be created entirely sinless, with a clean slate. Their creation parallels, in theologically important ways, the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

• ■ Why and how is the Fall associated with the rise of civilization? Though Genesis does not talk about DNA, it surfaces the tension between the progress of civilization and morality. The rise of civilization is a major transition in our history that reshapes the entire world, bringing about a new sort of dominion. Was it good or evil? There is opportunity here to re-examine theological contemplation of society alongside Genesis.5

There are breadcrumbs throughout the narrative, sometimes in the footnotes. Some of these questions I could have written about much more. It is here, however, that others can pick up and take things forward.

Variations on this narrative are encouraged and are in fact my goal. Many objections may be resolved by making changes. The date when Adam lives can be moved more ancient in time as far as necessary. Different theology of original sin, the image of God, and the Fall could be invoked. Different readings of passages in Genesis are possible. Different inferences about Adam and Eve’s original purpose are possible too. I encourage these differences. Let us see if we can understand each other from this starting point.

WORTH, DIGNITY, AND FREEDOM

Though this narrative proposes exactly the opposite, it is common to link the meaning of human to the image of God. The meaning of the image of God is disputed. For this reason, I expect many will rework how this narrative handles the image. In some variations, the people outside the Garden may not be in the image of God. This need not be concerning. Remember, Adam and Eve’s lineage would still be fully biologically human. Polygenesis, still, would be false. Any distinctions made would only be relevant in the distant past. This move nonetheless raises questions about human worth and dignity of people outside. Our answers to these questions might shape the moral nature of the spread of civilization, early cities, and perhaps colonialism too. With these societal questions in mind, these theological questions cannot be neglected.

One of the early leaders in the Church, Gregory of Nyssa, might be helpful. In the fourth century, Nyssa wrote the first truly antislavery text in history:6

You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and you make laws opposed to God and contrary to His natural law. For you have subjected one who was made precisely to be lord of the earth, and whom the Creator intended to be a ruler, to the yoke of slavery, in resistance to and rejection of His divine precept.7

He references the image of God, but grounds his understanding of it in the specific vocation that

God said, let us make man in our own image and likeness. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?8

Nyssa’s conception of the image of God is vocational, but his grounding for opposing slavery emerges in his explication of the limits of the dominion calling (Gen 1:26-27). God granted us authority over the whole earth, but not over each other. Nyssa infers that God also gifts humans with freedom. For this reason, “domesticating” (i.e., enslaving) other humans is an unconscionable rebellion against God’s created order, usurping God’s rightful authority. Even God himself does not dominate humans, because his gift of freedom is irrevocable.

Nyssa’s understanding is helpful. Paradoxically, his explication might locate human freedom and dignity outside the image of God. He understands the image of God as a call to rule the world as does God, but not to rule one another. The dominion call, therefore, affirms a gift of freedom, which can preexist or be granted independently of the image of God. A multivalent definition of human could do work for us. The people outside the Garden, biological humans, might be first granted freedom by God (Rom 2:15), even if the dominion call of the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) is only given to Adam and Eve’s lineage. A good dominion, as Nyssa conceives it, would ratify the free nature of the people outside the Garden, in accordance with created order, reflecting God’s goodness and authority. In such a gift of freedom, moreover, God affirms the dignity and worth of those outside the Garden, even if they do not have Adam and Eve’s particular vocation from the image of God.

Figure 17.1. The speculative narrative envisions people outside the Garden are created in the image of God (left). This reading works whether Genesis 1 and 2 are read sequentially or as recapitulated accounts. Some will, instead, understand the image of God as unique to Adam and Eve’s lineage (right). This is not necessarily a problem. It is possible that working out a grounding for freedom before Adam and Eve might ease concerns.

Perhaps aided by Nyssa, attention to questions of dignity, worth, and freedom will reduce anxiety about models that do not see people outside the Garden in the image of God. If Nyssa’s theology of freedom is not adopted, hopefully other proposals can be explored. For example, if Adam and Eve’s original purpose is to bless those outside the Garden, this affirms their worth and dignity too. Denying their worth and dignity is a corrupted consequence of the Fall, inconsistent with Adam and Eve’s original good purpose.

A CROSSROAD IN THEOLOGY

There are a large number of unanswered questions visible. The range and depth of these questions is a strength of this narrative, not a weakness. This narrative sits at the crossroads of a large number of interesting and important questions, surfacing dozens of questions at the intersection of science, theology, and society.

• ■ How do archaeology and anthropology fill in the details of this narrative? Does this data guide us to a particular date to place Adam? Does it shape our understanding of how civilization was corrupted?

• ■ How does ancient Near Eastern literature give additional insight? Does it support or detract from this narrative?

• ■ What is the nature of the “soul?” When and how did it arise among our ancestors?

• ■ How does atonement interact with the people outside the Garden? How does the incarnation of Jesus, his life, death, and resurrection, influence our understanding of their place in theology?

• ■ Recovering the deeper traditions of the Church, how do we understand the purpose of death? Does it function to limit evil?

• ■ What is the eternal destiny of the people outside the Garden? Scripture does not tell us. We know that God will be just and merciful, but what do we think happens to them? Were they under a different dispensation of grace?

• ■ How would the narrative change if Adam and Eve were much more ancient? What if they lived about when Homo sapiens arise?

• ■ How do we understand mercy and justice in a world governed with inheritance? In what ways might our understanding of societal justice be informed by the Fall?

• ■ How do we reckon the history of racism in origins? It arises in all camps, both in theology and in science. How should we receive the inheritance, good and bad, of this history?

• ■ How does this model adjust in different theological traditions? How would Reformed and Catholics take hold of this? How would Lutherans and Baptists make sense of it within their theological context?

In time, some of these questions might be answered in helpful ways, perhaps by engaging existing work. It is also likely that some of these questions are touching on great mysteries. They may not be possible to be answered with confidence. In time, we might still find a diversity of interesting proposals, extending into the unknown in meaningful speculation of what could have been.

AN ECCLESIAL STARTING POINT

This speculative narrative contains a traditional account of the creation of Adam and Eve. It does not solve all the problems or answer all the important questions. It is, however, a starting point for an exchange, a place where we might understand and embrace our differences. I look forward to seeing the conversation grow. As biblical scholar John Hilber explains the significance of this contribution, “It is significant not because it solves all the problems but because it leaves open more possibilities that were not really in the mix.”9

The theologian Andrew Loke is publishing a book, continuing his project to reconcile literalism with evolutionary science.10 He understands Adam and Eve as chosen from a larger population and spiritually refurbished. The image of God is unique to Adam and Eve’s lineage. Loke sits at a middle ground between the structuralists and vocationalists.

The theologian Jon Garvey, a retired physician, is also publishing a book, arguing that biblical theology grows more coherent with the people outside the Garden.11 He engages more with ancient Near Eastern literature than do I. Garvey’s recent book, God’s Good Creation, may be particularly helpful in recovering a more traditional understanding of death in a good creation. This recovery of the deeper traditions of the Church might help make sense of the death of biological humans outside the Garden.

The genealogical Adam and Eve creates space for biblical theology. Several other theologians tell me they will make their own contributions, making use of the space created here. The philosopher William Lane Craig is in the middle of a two-year project, studying the science and theology of Adam and Eve, intending to publish a book of his own. It is not clear yet if Craig will choose to adopt a variation of the genealogical Adam and Eve or not. Finding out what he does will be part of the fun. Perhaps, not too long from now, we might see books or articles from Richard Averbeck, Ken Keathley, and others.

The end result of this inquiry will not be total agreement or a final solution. Mystery will remain for a long time to come. Denis Alexander’s advice is wise:

We really don’t know the precise answer. There are simply too many unknowns in both the evolutionary account, and in our own interpretation of Scripture, to be dogmatic on this issue.12

The indeterminacy is what makes the exchange dynamic. Whether or when Adam and Eve lived is not the heart of the inquiry. We are all concerned with questions about who we are as human beings. What should we make of our relationship to nature, other animals, and the world we construct around us? We are wondering about what it means to be human.