Transcription

1 By Kurt Willems

2 Copyright 2012 by Kurt Willems All rights reserved. All quotations and citations must be attributed to Kurt Willems with a link to ( Free to print, copy, and distribute!

3 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 DISCERNING THE PROBLEM... 1 Defining Biological Evolution... 2 The Problem of Young Adults Avoiding or Leaving the Church... 3 The Problem Pastors Perpetuate... 4 The Problem of Scientific Naturalism... 5 THESIS... 6 BIBLICAL THEOLOGY... 7 Genesis 1 and Creation... 7 The Structure and Style of Genesis Occasion for Writing Genesis Polemical Nature of the Text God s Liberating Image Chaos and Enuma Elish Chaos, Creation, and the Beginning Functional Ontology The Cosmos as God s Temple and the 7 Days of Creation Theological Approaches to Adam and Eve Option 1: Adam and Eve as Historical iii

4 Option 2: Adam and Eve as Parable Option 3: Adam is Israel s Loss of Wisdom and Exile Analysis and Implications of Genesis 1 and Adam and Eve EVOLVING EVANGELICALISM BEYOND THE CULTURE WAR Cultivate Church Communities of Openness Move Past the Culture War by Listening to Stories with Fresh Ears Quit Reinforcing the False Dichotomy in Curriculums and Sermons Bridge the Gap between Evangelical Leaders and the Pews CONCLUSION APPENDIX For Further Reading Stories from Evolution Blog Post BIBLIOGRAPHY iv

5 INTRODUCTION During my first year as a junior high director, I was close with the skateboarder kids in our youth ministry. Jeff, a really funny kid, enjoyed youth group, but maintained skepticism regarding Jesus. One random Monday night, Jeff arrived with some exciting news. Kurt, guess what? I ve decided to become a Christian! Awesome, bro! I ve been praying for you! But why the sudden change of heart? I was completely caught off guard. Well, in science class the other day, my teacher said that we re related to monkeys. I m not related to filthy old apes, right? At this point, Jeff had all of us laughing. Nope, you re not related to monkeys. That s what the atheists believe. But as Christians we believe that God created the first humans as special in God s image. Yeah. That s exactly what I remember talking about the other day. You said that the first humans were Adam and Eve. They weren t hunchbacked apes that sniff each other s butts and scratch themselves! No, they didn t sniff each other s butts or scratch themselves. That was probably reserved just for you and your cousin Richard! (also in our group). The laughter nearly derailed the conversation. Ok, ok sorry. But yes, we believe God created the world in seven days; God spoke the universe into existence. Evolution leaves no room for God and depends on a bunch of assumptions that can t be proven. Believing we came from monkeys takes more faith than believing God created us. That night Jeff accepted Jesus Christ as his Creator and Savior. And as much as I love when anyone chooses to follow Jesus, this story actually illustrates a problem in many expressions of evangelical culture. DISCERNING THE PROBLEM For me, at the time, Jeff s experience illustrated the need for solid apologetics in the church. Now, I strongly disagree. Jeff became a Christian as a result of a false polarity. His story demonstrates why the evangelical church is often perceived as antagonistic towards science. This posture of hostility communicates that embracing biblical faith is antithetical to evolution. Essentially, evangelical culture, as I have experienced it as both a pastor and layperson, 1

6 presents people with mutually exclusive options: A) believe in God as Creator to be a Christian or B) hold to biological evolution to be an atheist. In what follows, we will define what is meant by the term evolution, and then explore various problems that this issue raises in the church. After stating the problems and declaring a thesis, we will look at relevant biblical texts, and explore opportunities to move beyond this polarity. Defining Biological Evolution [Evolution] is a theory about how life has changed over time; it is not a theory about how life first appeared. 1 Evolution does not answer the question of who caused the first form of life to appear, but rather explains how natural processes led to the universe s formation. For our purposes, we will assume that biological evolution 2 includes the following: 1) the visible universe emerged approximately 13.7 billion years ago, 3 2) the first forms of cellular life came to be on the earth about 4.5 billion years ago, 4 3) all species descended from common ancestors and find their origin in a single-celled organism, 4) species change over time through mutations in DNA, 5 5) the first humans evolved from a tribe of chimp-like apes in Africa 6-7 million years ago, 6 and 6) homo sapiens can be dated to about 200,000 years ago. 7 With this understanding of biological evolution, we move forward to problems confronting the church. 1. Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), Throughout this paper I will use evolution and biological evolution interchangeably. To add biological simply reinforces that I do not refer to philosophical naturalism. 3. Brian Thomas Swimme, and Mary Evelyn Tucker, Journey of the Universe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), G. Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991), Giberson and Collins, The Language of Science and Faith, Brian Thomas Swimme, and Mary Evelyn Tucker, Journey of the Universe, Ibid.,

7 The Problem of Young Adults Avoiding or Leaving the Church In a recent study conducted by the Barna Group called, Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church, the third reason claims, Churches come across as antagonistic to science. 8 Other reasons include: Churches seem overprotective; The church feels unfriendly to those who doubt; and Teens and twenty-somethings experience of Christianity is shallow. All of these reasons are pertinent to this discussion, but antagonism toward science specifically highlights our concern. The study continues: 29% (three in ten young adults) feel that churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in; 25% dislike that Christianity is anti-science; and 23% are turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate. The dispute between evangelicalism and evolution is pushing young adults out of the church. The same perceptions prevail in my interactions with non-christians. A close friend, a spiritual agnostic, has a brother intensely committed to convincing him of the error of his ways. Creationism consumes much of their dialogues. This brother embraces a seven-day creation, and has traveled to the Mecca of creation science: The Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY. This museum displays Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and children co-existing with dinosaurs by Eden s Rivers. 9 After viewing the exhibits of the Earth s supposed 6,000-year history, the brother confronted my friend with arguments for this literal approach to Genesis. My friend told me that a major turnoff to Christianity is this militant anti-science agenda. This instinct resonates with the majority (72%) of religiously-unaffiliated Americans, who believe that evolution provides the best explanation for human origins Six Reasons Young Christians Leave the Church, Barna Group, (accessed February 9, 2012). 9. About, Creation Museum, (accessed February 9, 2012). 10. Allison Pond, Gregory Smith, and Scott Clement, Religion Among the Millennials: Less Religiously Active Than Older Americans, but Fairly Traditional in Other Ways, Pew Research Center: A Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life Report (2010): 21, (accessed February 9, 2012). 3

8 Another friend, my next-door neighbor, married a woman from a traditional evangelical family. This neighbor is thoughtful and well-read. He worries that accepting evangelical faith would mean dismissing his intellectual integrity. Until he heard about the perspective explored in this paper, traditional creationism remained his one major stumbling block to Christ. A similar scenario came up in a conversation with a single mom at my former church. She loves the church, and embraces the idea of being missional in the city and world; yet, she remains a skeptic regarding the full acceptance of Christ because of her beliefs about the Earth s origins. The posture of evangelicalism toward the scientific community continues to be a stumbling block between people and a life of committed Christianity. The Problem Pastors Perpetuate In my experience, some evangelical pastors are open to the idea of theistic evolution. While holding this perspective as a viable option alongside young and old-earth creationism, they often choose to preach and teach as though Genesis 1 is to be read as a description of how creation took place. Such pastors may never mention other faithful methods for interpreting this passage in order to avoid congregational conflict; therefore, many people in the pews assume that the traditional reading is the only correct one. Unfortunately, most mainstream evangelical materials defend young or old-earth creationism over and against atheism. By equating evolution with atheism, members are presented with a false polarity. This environment fosters situations like the one above, where the single mom holds out as a skeptic because she cannot reconcile science with the Bible. Other evangelical churches and pastors approach this issue in a more focused way. These churches are convinced that the Bible teaches a literal 7-day creation and that the world is only 6,000 years old. These same congregations may implement curriculum from organizations such 4

9 as Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research. With an elevated view of modern apologetics, these churches perpetuate a false polarity as well. 11 A recent survey is quite telling regarding general pastoral perspectives. According to a Lifeway poll, 64% of protestant pastors strongly disagree that God used evolution to create people [emphasis mine] compared to only 12% who strongly agree. Also telling, at least 30% strongly agree that the earth is 6,000 years old (16% somewhat agree ). 12 A large number of pastors in the United States disagree with modern scientific understandings about human origins. The Problem of Scientific Naturalism Any evolutionary theories incorporating scientific naturalism (or evolution as worldview) absolutely conflict with Christian belief. Pastor Timothy Keller insists: Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a worldview. 13 Scientific naturalism, distinct from biological evolution, holds that all that exists is physical and can be reduced to its elemental material composition. 14 Therefore, god is myth; only matter is eternal. In this view, various forms of matter, called essences, existed eternally prior to the point in evolutionary history that led to the observable universe. 15 As a result, naturalists believe that appealing to God (or any spiritual entity) distracts from human progress because problems in the 11. Two mega-churches in Fresno exemplify this approach. The first, The Well Community Church, is a church with many young adults. Their discipleship program called, The Academy, teaches young earth creationism ( The second, Northside Christian Church, hosted an Answers in Genesis seminar called: Not Ashamed Creation, Evolution, and the Biblical Worldview (Northside Christian University: Fall Course Catalogue, 2010). 12. Poll - Pastors oppose evolution, split on earth's age, LifeWay Research (2012), (accessed February 11, 2012). Detailed research findings and images available at website. 13. Timothy Keller, Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople, BioLogos Foundation, (accessed February 11, 2012), Steve Wilkens and Mark L. San, Hidden Worldviews: Eight Cultural Stories That Shape Our Lives (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), Ibid.,

10 world can only be solved through science. 16 Alvin Plantinga makes the distinction clear: What is not consistent with Christian belief is the claim that this process of evolution is unguided that no personal agent, not even God, has guided, directed, orchestrated, or shaped it. 17 Christians often fail to leave room for a God-directed evolution, and naturalists often assume atheism can be deduced because of science. Both views wrongly assert a false polarization. THESIS St. Augustine 18 believed that humans ought to approach the quest for knowledge by holding together the two sacred forms of revelation given to humanity by God: the book of Scripture and the book of nature (or the natural world). He believed that these two books are God s perfect and complementary modes of truth communication. Therefore, the interpretation of texts should not be held so tightly as to fail to leave room for the book of nature to reveal truth about reality. 19 With this concern in view, Augustine wrote: Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. 20 This applies today as well-meaning evangelical leaders teach that the biblical origins accounts conflict with evolution. This antagonistic stance is unnecessarily hindering some people from becoming or remaining part of the Christian faith, 16. Ibid., Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), The source of the following: Lawrence M. Principe, Science and Religion, The Teaching Company: Great Courses, (accessed February 11, 2012). 19. Ibid., See: Course Book, As quoted by: I. Howard J. Van Till, God and Evolution: An Exchange, First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, no. 34 (June 1993). Humanities International Index, EBSCOhost (accessed January 4, 2011),

11 when in fact, the biblical witness of cosmic and human origins in no way conflicts with modern science. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY Scientific developments, particularly within the study of biological evolution, create an opportunity to dig deeper into the biblical text. In doing so, we will not seek to redefine Scripture to accommodate for science, but rather will be interested in the task of refining our interpretations with the utmost regard for biblical authority. We will begin by exploring one of the most beautiful, Holy Spirit-inspired passages in all of the biblical narrative: Genesis 1. We will then investigate Adam and Eve s historicity. The following interpretation, while incomplete, provides a model for maintaining the biblical authority of the book of Scripture while also maintaining an open posture toward modern views about the book of nature. Genesis 1 and Creation In the beginning there was conflict. The chaotic waters of the deep in verse 2 remind us of our cultural quarrels generating from interpretations of Genesis 1. The following approach attempts to demonstrate that this passage is not describing how the world was made, but instead declares who organized the world to function with purpose. The Structure and Style of Genesis 1 Many interpreters of Genesis 1 21 appeal to the text as a work of poetry. The way poetry usually functions is to point to larger ideas, not to convey a literal lists of facts. In this case, some say that if the first chapter of Scripture is indeed poetic, then it demonstrates that: God created; humans bear the image of God; and God intimately loves what God made and declares all creation very good. 21. Genesis 1 in this paper actually refers to the textual unit of Genesis

12 It is evident that the writer of Genesis 1 chose stylistic prose. However, the pericope uses a sequential future verb form throughout, which is the typical marker of an Old Testament narrative text. 22 Therefore, it uses a unique form that Walter Brueggemann calls poetic narrative. 23 This passage was probably utilized as a liturgy of Israel, 24 evidenced by its doxological character, 25 which may explain why the text is both poetic and narrative in form. DAY The following outline demonstrates the poetic stylizing of Genesis 1: 26 Form (versus tohu: unformed ) It becomes obvious that the various days of creation parallel each other. Day 1 goes with day 4, 2 with 5, and 3 with 6. For this reason, many people who challenge the 7-day perspective ask how 24-hour days were marked when the sun was not created until day 4. That is one of many benefits to paying close attention to form. The poetic narrative also demonstrates another pattern: Time: there was evening and morning Command: God said, Let there be Execution: And it was so. Assessment: God saw that it was good. Time: there was evening and morning Fill (versus bohu: unfilled ) 1 Light (1.3-5) Lights [greater and lesser] ( ) 4 2 Firmament (1.6-8) Inhabitants ( ) 5 Sky Birds Seas Fish 3 Dry Land (1.9-10) Land Animals ( ) 6 Vegetation ( ) Human Beings ( ) 22. Prior to taking Hebrew in seminary, I took for granted that this text was purely poetry. 23. Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), Terrence E. Fretheim, The New Interpreter's Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes - Volume I, Genesis (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001), 57. DAY 8

13 Both the framework of the days and the patterns of the command-execution sequences exhibit the passage s literary intentionality. 27 Genesis 1 as poetic narrative (or liturgy) demonstrates that it was written with intent, not merely as a list of literal descriptions about how the world came into existence. Yet, we must also recognize the temptation to dismiss this passage as only poetic. Many who claim a form of theistic evolution are content to stop there. Such an interpretive approach irresponsibly neglects the need for further theological inquiry, based on genre related issues. Knowing that Genesis 1 is both narrative and poetry invites careful interpreters to discover the various nuances of meaning beyond the broad truths that God created and humankind was made uniquely in God s image. Integrity to the complex literary form (not to mention biblical authority) pushes us to think more deeply about the theological purposes and authorial intent of the first chapter of the Bible. Occasion for Writing Genesis 1 In order to understand the author s intent in Genesis 1, examining the original historical context will prove helpful. Although well-meaning evangelical apologists have written much to the contrary, 28 the entire book of Genesis did not come into its final form until the post-exilic age. 29 Genesis 1, the first creation narrative, is the relatively newer text (composed by the Priestly redactor [ P ]) addressing issues arising from the exilic / post-exilic period, and Genesis 2-3, the second creation narrative, finds its roots well before the exile ( J source). For P, one purpose was to address the despair of God s people who were divided, pillaged, and forced out 27. Brueggemann, Genesis, See: Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, rev., updated, and expanded ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), ch He argues for the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch. 29. Brueggemann, Genesis, 16. 9

14 of their land. The text provides a reflection on God as the creative organizer of the cosmos within a historically disorienting set of circumstances. The two creation accounts ought to be read as two distinct stories. 30 These texts with different origins and transmission histories were intentionally brought together in a coherent way by a redactor to complementarily provide the canonical picture of creation. 31 Polemical Nature of the Text Genesis 1 functions as a polemic against the gods of Israel s exilic conquerors. To accomplish this end, the liturgy utilizes older narratives about the creation of the cosmos from Israel s neighbors. Elements of Egyptian and Mesopotamian stories find their way into the biblical text, but are deliberately subverted. 32 Genesis 1 provides a central interpretive concern, from which the creation theology finds its proper rooting. In order to make meaning out of their experiences with God in the midst of exile, Genesis 1 refutes the theology of 6 th century Babylon by reminding Israel that God alone brings life and order to humanity and the earth. 33 Peter Enns states this well: Placing Genesis in its ancient Near Eastern setting strongly suggests that it was written as a self-defining document, as a means of declaring the distinctiveness of Israel s own beliefs from those of the surrounding nations. In other words, Genesis is an argument, a polemic, declaring how Israel s God is different from all the other gods, and therefore how Israel is different from all the other nations Ibid., Fretheim, The New Interpreter's Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes - Volume I, Brueggemann, Genesis, Ibid., Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2012), 6. 10

15 God s Liberating Image The climax of Genesis 1, seen here, concerns humanity: So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them (Genesis 1.27). Many conflicts regarding biological evolution stem from this passage, because the common assumption is that humankind is unique. This is true, but our uniqueness is in our vocation, not in our biological origins. To make this point, it will be helpful to consider this verse in the context of the ancient world. In the context of the passage, Brueggemann states: It is now generally agreed that the image of God reflected in the human persons is after the manner of a king who establishes statues of himself to assert his sovereign rule where the king himself cannot be present. 35 Placing tangible physical images in regions where the ruler could not be present served to remind the subjects of the identity of their ruler. A key difference in Genesis is that the kingly language does not refer to iron-fisted dominance. Rather, this is a subversion of Mesopotamian ideology. J. Richard Middleton writes, But whereas power in the Babylonian and Assyrian empires was concentrated in the hands of a few, power in Genesis 1 is diffused or shared. 36 In God s economy, humanity is called to a fundamental mutuality in a shared task, 37 involving the stewarding of God s creation project. Therefore, the image of God ultimately describes the egalitarian role of imaging God to all the earth, and as such, endows all humankind with intrinsic value, thus liberating humanity from the oppressive values of empire Brueggemann, Genesis, J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), Ibid., Ibid.,

16 Chaos and Enuma Elish Of the texts that Genesis 1 appropriates and subverts, Enuma Elish stands out as a key to comparison (which dates back at least to the 7 th century BCE [pre-exile], but may have traditions reaching back to the 3 rd millennium BCE). Enuma Elish makes us acutely aware of the theology of Babylonian peoples during the exilic period, which Israel s creation theology intentionally countered. 39 Enuma Elish tells the story of the victorious god Marduk, who during a cosmic battle kills his great-great-grandmother, the goddess Tiamot. Then, Marduk separates her dead body into two pieces; one half becomes the heavens and the other half forms the earth. There is a rhetorical connection between Genesis 1 and this Babylonian epic. Where Tiamot personifies chaos that must be tamed (through violence), Israelite theology deliberately depersonalizes chaos as the deep (Hebraic tehom with linguistic ties to the word Tiamot). God alone tames the dark chaos without the use of violence, 40 and is too powerful to consider a conflict with lesser deities from surrounding pagan nations. 41 Chaos, Creation, and the Beginning Verse two contains a counter-intuitive claim: God created by bringing order to preexisting chaos. According to the NIV, the world was formless and empty at creation. This description should not be confused with physical nothingness, but refers to the earth as void/empty in the sense of something desolate and unproductive. 42 The historical despair of Israel being expelled from their land parallels the chaos that must again be tamed by God. Only a fresh creative act enables the restoration of the people of God. For Israel in exile, they appealed 39. Conceptual similarities between the two stories include: darkness and chaos precede creation, light exists prior to the sun, depiction of a method for keeping the waters separated above the earth, a sequence of creation days followed by rest, and connections to temples (a point that will be explored below). 40. Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins, Raymond Van Leeuwen, 1343, in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1997), Fretheim, The New Interpreter's Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes - Volume I,

17 to the ultimate beginning of the world, from chaos to order, as a way of speaking to the need for stability in the midst of disarray. For many evangelicals, the phrase In the beginning God created does not evoke the contextual reality of exile experienced by the ancient people of God. Instead this verse regularly leads to a disregard for evolution. Some might say: If God created in the beginning, what else is there to discuss? I say, there is much to discuss! To start, we must discern the beginning to which the writer is referring. For much of Christian history, the church assumed an original beginning and an ex nihilo (out of nothing) creation. One helpful perspective is that the opening phrase, specifically the word beginning (Re'shiyth), does not refer to the absolute beginning of all things, but to the beginning of ordered creation. 43 The chapter communicates a relative beginning after the pre-genesis world of chaos. 44 This is radically different from the gap theory (the view that there is a significant time-lapse between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2). There is no gap in this text; rather pre-historic matter or chaos is assumed preexist at creation. More will be discussed on that point in a moment. Evangelical scholar John Walton provides a related, but slightly nuanced, perspective. Walton persuasively demonstrates that the word beginning is used to introduce a period in time, rather than a point in time. 45 Therefore, it is evident that, verse 1 serves as a literary introduction to the rest of the chapter. 46 Throughout the rest of Genesis is a phrase: this is the account of, which introduces the eleven sections of the book that follow, beginning with verse 2.4. Therefore, verse 1.1 uses beginning to introduce the initial period outlined in the whole of the book of Genesis. The following eleven sections are also introduced by the above phrase. 43. Fretheim, The New Interpreter's Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes - Volume I, Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, and n Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, Ibid. 13

18 Consider Walton s proposed translation of the first verse in the Bible: In the initial period, God created by assigning functions throughout the heavens and the earth, and this is how he did it. 47 Functional Ontology The above translation assumes God created by assigning functions. Bara, the word English Bibles translate created, only refers to God s own activity in the Old Testament. Up until the time just prior to Jesus (2 Maccabees 7.28), bara never implied a creation out of nothing. Rather, it was understood as the bringing of order to the world. 48 One source argues for the traditional meaning of the word arguing that its primary emphasis is on the newness of the created object. However, Laird-Harris concedes that such a concept is not necessarily inherent within the meaning of the word. 49 We might avoid the tendency to hold onto the ex nihilo perspective if we scrutinize our presuppositions as moderns compared to that of the Ancient Near East. Bara occurs 50 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to physical manufacturing but rather to assigning roles or functions in various contexts. 50 This assigning of functions out of pre-existing chaos, again, demonstrates God s allpowerfulness in direct confrontation to the gods of Mesopotamia. 51 This should not be taken to say that God is not also the source of materiality; this particular text does not attempt to make the same point that moderns often do in interpretations. Exilic Jews certainly would have affirmed God as the source of material origins, but their questions focused on the functional realities of 47. Ibid., Theodore Hiebert, Create, To, in The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: A-C, ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, ), 1: R. Laird Harris et al., eds., 278, in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1: John H. Walton, Creation, in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. David Baker and T. Desmond Alexander (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), Ibid.,

19 the cosmos. Eventually, the New Testament states that God created out of nothing (Rom. 4.17, Heb. 11.3), but that was a relatively new claim. 52 The Old Testament never makes this claim. Moderns hold to a view of existence called material ontology, 53 the belief that something exists by virtue of its physical properties and its ability to be experienced by the senses. 54 In contrast, ancients held to what is called functional ontology, the ancient world believed that something existed by virtue of its having function in an ordered system. 55 Imagine that a grocery store is going to be constructed down the street from your home. Perhaps you notice a foundation being laid or the walls going up. Later, you see a sign on the building that says Whole Foods. Is this now a grocery store or simply a building? It does not function as a grocery store, so perhaps at this point, it is merely an empty building with the potential to become something more useful. It will finally become a grocery store when the employees are in place to make the building function so that it is stocked with food and ready for customers. This sort of ordering is comparable to a functional view of reality. Walton explains: In this sort of functional ontology, the sun does not exist by virtue of its material properties, or even by its function as a burning ball of gas. Rather it exists by virtue of the role that it has in its sphere of existence, particularly in the way that it functions for humankind and human society In a functional ontology, to bring something into existence would require giving it a function or a role in an ordered system, rather than giving it material properties. Consequently, something could be manufactured physically but still not exist if it has not become functional Brueggemann, Genesis, Ontology is a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence. Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam- Webster, Inc. 54. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, Ibid., Ibid. 15

20 Genesis 1 is not concerned with material origins, but with functional origins. Genesis 1 is about God taking unorganized preexistent materials (which also originated in God) and organizing them into their various functions. 57 The Cosmos as God s Temple and the 7 Days of Creation Having placed Genesis 1 within a functional ontology, we are now free to re-imagine its relation to science. This particular text is clearly not about the beginning of materiality (this does not mean that God is not the source of materiality this was already implicit to Israel). We now look to the issue of the 7-days of creation in Genesis 1. Are these days that represent long epochs of time (as in the Day-Age Theory), or are they representative of 24-hour periods? For those frustrated with methods that attempt to make day denote a long time, I agree with you. A day in Genesis 1 is a day. What we often fail to notice, however, is the purpose of framing the functional creation around a 7-day liturgical pattern. Understanding the purpose of the 7-day pattern is now our focus. To recognize the significance of the 7 days in Genesis 1, the cosmic temple inauguration view is imperative for interpretation. 58 Medieval rabbis recognized that Genesis one s creation mirrors both the tabernacle of Moses and the temple of Solomon. This connection to primordial time ultimately functioned to connect the Sabbath week to God s designed purpose of the cosmos. Significant parallels ought to be noted between the creation week and the creation of a functioning temple/tabernacle. When Moses constructed the tabernacle, its inauguration took seven days, culminating with Moses having finished the work (Exodus 40.33). Genesis 2.2 has this same sort of finishing on the seventh day. Many other examples of theological mirroring exist between Genesis 1 and the inauguration of the tabernacle (and eventually the temple), 57. Ibid., Ibid.,

21 because building a sanctuary is a microcosm, the re-creation of the cosmos on a smaller scale. 59 In the ancient world, deities dwelt restfully in temples. Day 7 reflects that when God finished organizing the functional elements of the world to operate for the benefit of human image bearers, God rested. The difference here, in opposition to Solomon s temple, is that this passage envisions the whole universe as God s cosmic temple. After the chaos was arranged to function with order, God rested upon the cosmic temple as the ruler of all things. 60 Theological Approaches to Adam and Eve We now move to a second area of concern for many evangelicals: Adam and Eve. Two problems evolution cause for Christians are: 1) to have been made in the image of God, it seems right that Adam and Eve needed to result from a special creation; and 2) if Adam is dismissed as non-historical, this minimizes Paul s view that Christ saves humanity as the second Adam. First, as we discussed above and will investigate in-part below, to bear God s image identifies humankind with a particular vocation and intrinsic worth. This role in God s good world does not require that Adam and Eve were the first humans, specially created from the dust. In fact, the text demonstrates something entirely different is at work in Genesis 2. Second, in the first of three options explained below, there is no conflict between traditional beliefs about original sin because Adam will be presented as historical. His sinful actions became a representative choice, and thus, the consequences were handed down to all of Adam s contemporaries and their descendants. In the second and third options for understanding Genesis 2-3, Paul s perspective on Adam will become apparent. 59. Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins, Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate,

22 All three of the following approaches to Adam and Eve offer careful readers of the books of Scriptures and nature helpful interpretive grids, which are faithful to Christian orthodoxy in general, and evangelical faith in particular. Option 1: Adam and Eve as Historical According to John Stott, his acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-adamic hominid may have existed for thousands of years previously. 61 Many human-like creatures existed prior to Adam. They developed cultures, made cave drawings, and buried their dead. Calling these creatures homo sapiens is not a threat to a historical reading of Genesis 2-3 as long as we recognize that Adam was the first homo divinus; the image-bearer of God. If one accepts this view of Adam, it must be asked: How is it that Adam is part of the evolutionary process if we are told in Genesis 2.7 the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground? Although this sounds like a special creation, we do well to look at a similar passage in Job where God creates Job out of dust by molding him together like a potter with clay. This is a metaphor, as Job was born through natural childbirth. The same could be true of Adam who was born through the natural evolutionary process, but then set apart to become the image-bearer with his wife Eve 62 (who could have literally been formed from his rib, or could represent a form of relationship). 63 Elements of the Adam and Eve story are figurative because, in the ancient world, true stories increased in mythology over time, not vice-versa. Therefore, although the early chapters of Genesis have some myth-like characteristics, we need not conclude that they are merely myths John R.W. Stott, Understanding the Bible, expanded ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1999), 62. Keller, Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople, John Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone: Part 1, Old Testament for Everyone (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010),

23 presented as history; for in fact, the opposite is true. 64 In this view, there was an actual historical couple that chose to rebel against God whose sinful choice still affects us all. As a result, the possibility of immortality (mediated through the Tree of Life) was lost, and Adam and Eve were doomed to the natural consequences of evolutionary history: eventual death. 65 Option 2: Adam and Eve as Parable Timothy Keller believes that space exists for differing opinions on the historicity of Adam and Eve. He states: One of my favorite Christian writers (that s putting it mildly), C.S. Lewis, did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and I do not question the reality or soundness of his personal faith. 66 Another option, aside from the historical perspective, understands Adam s story as a parable. Just as Jesus used parables to describe deeper truths about God s kingdom, so also this perspective holds that Genesis 2-3 are essentially parabolic in character. If someone had a camcorder when the two creation accounts and the fall took place, they would not have been recorded exactly as we read them in Genesis. Rather, the reality that God created and humanity rebelled is what the parables illustrate. This is why it is possible to have two different creation stories presented complementarily in chapters 1 and 2. As John Goldingay states: If you take them as would-be literal historical accounts, you have your work cut out to reconcile them, but this is unnecessary if they are historical parables. 67 In light of this, it is important to highlight an interpretive principle at work here: biblical accommodation. Denis Lamoureux states, in order to reveal spiritual truths as effectively as possible to ancient people, the Holy Spirit employed their understanding of nature God came 64. Keller, Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople, Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, Keller, Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople, Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone: Part 1,

24 down to their level and used the science-of-the-day. 68 The science of the day taught that humans always gave birth to more humans; therefore, there must be an original human couple as the source of all. In this case, the Holy Spirit accommodated to this idea so the ancient Jews would understand God as their Creator. Adam is simply an ancient vessel that delivers eternal truths about our spiritual condition. 69 Adam and Eve are therefore not presented as historically real people, but as parabolic actors on an all too familiar stage of rebellious self-glorification. 70 Goldingay summarizes: I am told there are readers of Genesis who argue like this. If evolution is true, there was no Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no fall. If there was no fall, we didn t need Jesus to save us. But this argument is back to front. In reality, we know we needed Jesus to save us. We recognize the way Genesis describes our predicament as human beings. We know we have not realized our vocation to take the world to its destiny and serve the earth... We know there is something wrong with our relationship with God. We know we die... The question Genesis handles is, was all that a series of problems built into humanity when it came into existence? And its answer is that this is not so There was a point when humanity had to choose whether it wanted to go God s way, and it chose not to. The Adam and Eve story gives us a parabolic account of that God brought the first human beings into existence with their vocation and they turned away from it. 71 Paul seems to think that Adam and Eve were historical figures, so does it not follow that we should as well? The answer to this could be the simple reality that Paul reflects the common scientific worldview of his day. 72 Some might respond, if we are not descended from a literal Adam, then how do Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 fit, where Adam is compared to Christ? Jesus brought life to all and Adam brought death to all. To this question Goldingay points out: 68. Denis O. Lamoureux, I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2009), Ibid., Peter Enns and Jeff Schloss, How Does the Fall fit into Evolutionary History? Were Adam and Eve Historical Figures?, Biologos Foundation, (accessed February 16, 2012). 71. Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone: Part 1, Lamoureux, I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution,

25 But everyone is not physically descended from Christ, so the parallel would not require all humanity to be descended from one original pair. 73 In other words, if we are not all physically Christ s descendants, but are still saved by his obedience, it does not follow that all humanity must come from Adam s biological lineage. Option 3: Adam is Israel s Loss of Wisdom and Exile Peter Enns puts forward a third option for understanding Adam and Eve. Although I see all three perspectives as viable, I gravitate toward Enns approach. The following idea is essential: The early chapters of Genesis are not a literal or scientific description of historical events but a theological statement in an ancient idiom, a statement about Israel s God and Israel s place in the world as God s people. 74 As discussed earlier, Genesis 2-3 comes from the J source, which is older than Genesis 1. In ancient Israel, possibly around the time of Solomon, 75 the theme of the Adam story was parabolic of Israel s loss of wisdom. Adam is depicted in such a way as to be the proto- Israelite. In other words, Adam is Israel. 76 In its earliest forms, the story of Adam and Eve was not really a story of the beginning of humanity but of one segment of humanity (66). The story is not lacking in universal overtones, but is primarily a self-defining document of origins for a singular people Israel (Ibid.). The story might have circulated orally in various forms prior to its final form and was probably rethought and retold along the way as Israel grew and developed in its self-understanding (141). 73. Goldingay, Genesis for Everyone: Part 1, Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins, Brueggemann, Genesis, Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins, Note: the following citations from this resource will be done within the text. 21

26 Early on, Adam s narrative functioned within the genre of Israel s Wisdom literature. For instance, When read in light of Proverbs, the Adam story is about failing to follow the path of wisdom and reach maturity and not about a fall from perfection (142). Interestingly, the Hebrew Scriptures never speak of Adam as a universal source of sin and death; they hardly ever refer to him. For the Old Testament writers, Adam is a marginal character (82-84). Adam is depicted as similar to the son whom the Proverbs attempt to train in wisdom. God desires for Adam and Eve to gain wisdom, but this must be done at a pace consistent with God s path for them. The problem is not that they sought wisdom, but that they did so via their own methods rather than following God s way forward. Just like Adam took the fruit from the tree, so also in Proverbs, wisdom is referenced as being a tree of life to those who take hold of her (Proverbs 3.18). Abundant life comes from wisdom and so the tree of life maintains this status. Enns further explains: Life can only be gained through wisdom, and wisdom is rooted in the fear of God which in the garden story means obeying God s command. When Adam and Eve depart from the true path, they lose life they are barred from eating of the tree of life, to which they had been given free access previously (90). Much more could be said about the connections to wisdom, but ultimately it suffices to note that the Adam and Eve story serves as a narrative account of the broad themes in the book of Proverbs. Ultimately, the striving for wisdom down a path of folly led to Israel s suffering as a people, the very thing the Adam story both warns against and retells (90-91). By the time the text came into its final form, during and after the exile, the Adam is Israel theme was fully focused. The editors of the Pentateuch (the priestly redactors) placed the specific story of Israel s origins on the back of the cosmic origins story in Genesis 1. Genesis 2-3 does not reflect literal history, but a narrative that mirrors Israel s story from exodus to exile (66). The logic follows this pattern: a) Israel is created as a nation in the exodus after a period of instability, and Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the chaos of Genesis 1 is put into order; b) 22

27 Israel inherits a lush land to dwell in, Adam is placed in a lush garden; c) Law is given to Israel as a condition for remaining in the land, and Law (the tree of knowledge) is placed in the garden and Adam s obedience is required in order to stay; and d) Israel continues in a pattern of rebellion leading to their exile into Babylon, and Adam and Eve are exiled from the garden because of their rebellion. 77 Finally, we must examine the Apostle Paul s approach to Adam. Peter Enns brings two issues to light. First, Paul appropriated the story of Adam and Eve to reflect his understanding of the resurrection of Jesus. New Testament writers often gave fresh readings to their Scriptures as they attempted to explain the significance of the saving work of Jesus. Paul used the Adam story to highlight the work of Christ and the equality of Jew and gentile (142). This idiom provided a clear means of communicating the problem of sin and death and the solution that God provides in Christ (143). Secondly, Paul used this interpretive grid in a culture that already had several interpretive perspectives on the Adam story, specifically within the conventions of Second Temple Judaism. He does not do a plain exegetical study of Genesis 2-3, but under the influence of the Holy Spirit, uses it to point to the supremacy of Christ, for both Jew and Gentile. Paul s ultimate point is that the problem of sin and death has been dealt with through the cross, and all humanity is equally subject to the same universal dilemma, sin and death, and so both require the same Savior (81). To summarize: Jews and gentiles share the same plight, and Jesus came to solve it. And all of this stems from Paul s rereading of his Scripture in light of the central and prior conviction that God raised Jesus from the dead Explaining Paul s Adam this way shows a high view of Christ so high that even Israel s story, specifically Adam, must be recast to account for Christ. Paul invests Adam with capital he does not have either in the Genesis story, the Old Testament as a whole, or the interpretations of his contemporary Jews. His reading of 77. Ibid., See Also: Peter Enns, Adam is Israel, BioLogos Foundation, (accessed February 20, 2012). 23

28 the Old Testament in general is creative, driven by hermeneutical conventions of the time and most importantly by his experience of the risen Christ. Hence, Christians who take Paul s theology with utmost seriousness are not also bound to accept Paul s view of Adam historically (135). Analysis and Implications of Genesis 1 and Adam and Eve Now that we have looked at three viable theological options for interpreting Genesis 2-3 (and Paul) in light of the book of nature, our task is to reflect on the implications of both Genesis 1 and Adam. Genesis 1 emerged in the midst of exilic realities, as Israel sought to reclaim their self-definition as the special people of God. One need not believe that it was written after the exile (one could still hold to Mosaic authorship) in order to accept the broad theological perspective presented. Beyond the polemical makeup of this passage, it operates within a worldview that differs from our modern context. With functional ontology in place, Genesis 1 yields a viewpoint that God is the one who took the primordial chaos and arranged it all to function for the benefit of human image-bearers. Humankind bears the image of God in that we are given a unique identity and vocation in the world: to represent God s care for God s creation. After the pattern of an ancient 7-day temple inauguration (both in Israel and for her neighbors), God s world is ultimately God s own temple or dwelling place, which runs its course through evolutionary history under God s sovereignty. Connecting the literary patterns, and the polemic and ontological perspective of the text, no conflict exists between biological evolution and this Holy Spirit inspired poetic narrative. As Brueggemann states: Israel is concerned with God s Lordly intent, not his technique. 78 After exegeting Genesis 1, we directed our attention to helpful theological options for understanding Adam and Eve. It is completely feasible to believe that they were literal historical people, and still be open to evolution. With this perspective, however, we may need to abandon 78. Brueggemann, Genesis,