Also in this series:
Part
Two: Authority from Tradition – the Jewish Sages and the Early Church Fathers
Part
Three: The Weight of Traditional Views
Part
Four: Man’s Fallible Opinions
Part
Six: More Clues in the Text
Part
Seven: What are the Days of Genesis?
Part
Eight: Misconceptions of Paradise
Part
Nine: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, I
Part
Ten: Life and Death in the Pre-Fall Animal World, II
Part
Eleven: The Other Realm and the Other Fall
Part
Twelve: Tracing the Advent of Man, I
Part Thirteen: Tracing the Advent of Man, II
Competing Views of the Genesis Text
Before I present my own view of Adam and Eve, I would like to spend some time examining recent interpretations of Genesis that have been touted as making the creation account compatible with—or at least not an obstacle to—the evolutionary theory of man’s origins. I might have covered these issues earlier by way of setting the stage for how we should approach Genesis in general, but I address them here because they touch with especially heavy relevance on the creation of man. As always, my purpose will be to evaluate such ideas on the basis of what we can plausibly—or not, as the case may be—deduce from the biblical text itself.
The Account of Man’s Creation
The biblical account of man’s creation, particularly in Genesis 2, reads like any other fiat miracle described in the pages of scripture. God forms man [Hebrew – ha-a-dam, “the man”] from the dust of the ground, breathes “into his nostrils the breath of life,” and the man becomes a “living soul [or being].” We see only singular forms of the relevant nouns in use here, such as in “the man” and “his nostrils.” This is also the case where God “fashioned a woman” and brought her to “the man”; and a single couple is evidently in view where Moses says that “the man and his wife” were naked and unashamed (Genesis 2:25).
The language of the text here strongly indicates a single human pair being directly created by God, as per the traditional view. Adam’s creation puts one strongly in mind of Christ’s healing of the man born blind in John 9, where Christ gathers material from the ground and repairs the man’s eyes. The instantaneous transformation of that earthy material into living human flesh lends considerable supporting evidence for a literal reading of Adam as a de novo creation from the dust, especially in light of the apostle John’s declaration that Christ himself was the agency of creation (John 1:2).
In Genesis 1:11-12 and 24-25, where God creates plant and animal life, he says “Let the earth sprout,” and “Let the earth bring forth.” Conceivably, one could read these passages and get the idea that God prompted the earth through some kind of evolutionary process to give rise to plants and animals. The Hebrews of Moses’ time, those who had just lived through the events of the Exodus and the miracles in the wilderness, would probably have seen these passages as describing acts of special creation, however, given that they had seen God perform a host of instantaneous miracles, including bringing forth lice from the earth and water from rocks.
Nevertheless, as I’ve indicated before, these statements could also be read as revelatory imagery, just as God’s being “refreshed” on the seventh day was not literal on his part but was meant to encourage the Hebrews to physically rest on the seventh day of their week. Just because God brought forth creatures like lice instantaneously in Egypt, does not mean that such creatures were originally created in that fashion. For these reasons, I have to give the theistic evolutionist his due here: it’s plausible that the text could be indicating a gradual rise of plant and animal life under divine guidance. If so, then the Holy Spirit must have meant for people of later generations to pick up on this, as the ancient Hebrews would almost certainly not have.
Where Adam and Eve are concerned, however, the text seems prohibitive. While it certainly describes God as engaged in various formative acts, it does not support the idea that Adam and Eve arose from other life forms or were “promoted” out of a group of some type. The idea simply isn’t there, whereas the notion of special creation is very strongly indicated. Given these things, Christians who affirm the evolution of human beings from lower life forms (or else remain open to the possibility) tend to favor strongly metaphorical and allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Among these are the views of John Walton and William Lane Craig.
John Walton’s ‘Cosmic Temple Inauguration’ View
John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, and currently a popular author and lecturer on Genesis, argues that Genesis focuses on “functionality” in the creation account rather than on explaining material origins. According to Walton, ancient Israelites “had little concern for the material structures” of creation and their origin, rather, “significance lay in who was in charge and made it work.”[1]
Central to this ancient train of thought was the temple, which Walton says was not primarily a place for public worship, but was instead the “sacred space” in which a god dwelt, “his headquarters—the control room” of creation.
When the deity rests in the temple it means that he is taking command, that he is mounting to his throne to assume his rightful place and his proper role.[2]
Thus, from Walton’s point of view, which he calls the Cosmic Temple Inauguration View, the Genesis creation account depicts God organizing his temple—the control room of creation—and taking up residence in it on Day Seven, not to cease from activity but rather to oversee operations. Walton argues that the biblical “theology of rest” demonstrates that “God’s rest is equated with his rule.”[3] As evidence of this, he submits Psalm 134:7-9 and 13-14:
Let us go into His dwelling place;
Let us worship at His footstool.
Arise, O Lord, to your resting place,
You and the ark of Your strength…
For the Lord has chosen Zion;
He has desired it for His habitation.
“This is My resting place forever;
Here I will dwell, for I have desired it.”
As a consequence of this view, Walton feels that Genesis is not trying to provide an explanation for material origins at all, and thus contains no real science content and no basis upon which Christians might object to scientific theories of origins. It is therefore Walton’s opinion that, as believers, “We may safely look to science to consider what it suggests for such mechanisms.”[4]
As an example of Genesis 1 dealing with function rather than material origins, Walton offers the events of creation Day One. When the account begins, we do not actually see God creating the heavens and the earth. They are already present but in a state of disorder. The rest of the creation account then focuses on bringing order from disorder, infusing function into the creation. He points out that God does not actually create light or darkness on Day One, but merely assigns them functions by designating their roles in the cycle of day and night.[5]
Walton’s views have gained a lot of traction of late, and it’s easy to understand why. If Genesis isn’t really saying anything about science, then non-Christians have no basis upon which to criticize it and Christians are able to make what they will of the claims of scientists without the tension of potential theological conflict hanging over their heads. This would greatly simplify matters if it were true, and I certainly agree with Walton when he argues that we must not force the text to conform to modern understandings but should try to reconstruct the views of the ancient Hebrews who first received it. It is certainly true that Genesis does bring out functional details in the creation account. In fact, I would say that Genesis 1 answers more ‘why’ than ‘how’ questions. It tells us more about why God made things than how he did it.
Nevertheless, this is no reason to argue that Genesis says nothing substantive about origins. I believe Walton overreaches in making this claim because he is arguing as if origin and function are mutually exclusive, but this is not the case at all. Indeed, function is directly related to origin. Things are made in order to serve certain purposes. If a man tells you he made a birdhouse for his daughter, you are getting both origin and function in the story. He is telling you how the little house in the tree in his backyard came to be and what purpose it serves. He made the house for a particular reason. He probably won’t go into all of the details as to how he made it, but just because you’re not getting all of the details as to a thing’s origin in a given story does not mean that origin is not in view.
This is also true with regard to function. Think about creation Day Four for a moment. The biblical text tells us that the greater and lesser lights were created for the purpose of keeping time and giving light on the earth, but we know today that the sun and the moon benefit the earth in more ways than just these few things. It would be a mistake to say that Genesis 1 is exclusively about material origins with no regard to function simply because the functions of the sun and the moon are not completely laid out in the text. In the same way, it is a mistake to argue that the text says nothing about material origins simply because it does not provide a complete description of those origins. Indeed, Walton would seem to have a real problem where creation Day Five is concerned, for the text never tells us why God created birds, fish, or land animals. It simply says that he did so.
Furthermore, we get no sense from the Genesis text itself that God intends to inhabit a cosmic dwelling as if it were a temple complex. Walton works backward into the text from passages like Psalm 132, and also factors in ancient temple conceptions, to argue that Day Seven is about God dwelling in his completed “sacred space,” but this is an assumption based on only one application of “rest” in scripture. As I demonstrated in chapter five, Exodus 31:17 says God told Israel he was “refreshed” from his rest following the six creation days. This demonstrates that he was employing a metaphor in order to teach Sabbath observance for man’s benefit, as the text clearly refers to taking physical rest from labor, yet we know that God himself does not require rest.
So, yes, “rest” in scripture can reference ordered rule, as Walton maintains, but that is not its only application. God gave the Genesis account to Israel in part to serve as the basis of a weekly work/rest cycle—thus I would argue that physical rest is in fact what is in view in Genesis. God was encouraging his people to physically rest from labor, and to let their servants and animals rest as well. This is God’s own explanation of the purpose of the Sabbath, and is echoed by Jesus when he tells us that the Sabbath was “made for man.”
Lastly, consider that we have strong indications that the Genesis creation account does in fact speak of material origins, given that it describes a process of creation that corresponds with what we have learned through science about the formation of the earth and the appearance of life.
Genesis 1:2-3 and Job 38:9 tell us that the early earth was dark because it was wrapped in a thick cloud and only diffuse light reached the surface at that time. This corresponds with what scientists have theorized about how the earth formed as part of what they call the solar nebula. Genesis 1:9-10 tell us that there was initially no dry land, that the earth was covered with water. A recent study suggests that this was indeed the case, that “early earth could have been a ‘water world,’ with submerged continents.”[6] This passage also tells us that the waters of the earth were gathered to one place, meaning that there would have been one large planetary ocean and one super-continent. Current scientific theories indicate that our planet has actually experienced several such cycles, with the most well-known example being the super-continent called Pangaea. The Genesis text also tells us that birds and land animals preceded humans, which is universally acknowledged. Indeed, some have been surprised by just how recent humans actually are in the scheme of things; yet, the Bible stated this long ago.
As Dr. Hugh Ross observes: “No author writing more than 3,400 years ago could have accurately described these events and their sequence, plus the initial conditions, without divine inspiration.”[7] Are we to simply dismiss these congruencies with modern scientific theories and discoveries, or is Genesis trying to tell us something beyond mere functional creation? Remember the apostle Peter’s statement in I Peter 1:10-12 that the prophets of old did not entirely understand what they were writing about. Again, scripture affirms that Moses himself was a prophet (see Deuteronomy 18:15-18).
Walton and the Archetypal Adam
In regard to Adam and Eve specifically, Walton argues in his book The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate, that the account of Adam’s creation may indicate that he is an “archetype” of humanity rather than a mere “prototype.” By ‘archetype,’ Walton means that Adam embodies those things that are true of all humans.[8] By ‘prototype,’ he means, “simply the first in a series.”[9] Thus, while Walton makes it clear that the Bible treats Adam as “a historical person,”[10] and that he himself views both Adam and Eve as “real people in a real past,”[11] he sees scripture as being “more interested in [Adam and Eve] as archetypal figures who represent all of humanity,”[12] including in its description of their formation.
For example, appealing to passages such as Ecclesiastes 3:20, I Corinthians 15:47-48, and Job 10:9, where humans apart from Adam are said to be “from the dust” and “molded” by God, Walton states:
If we are all formed from the dust, yet at the same time we are born of a mother through a normal birth process, we can see that being formed from dust, while true of each of us, is not a statement about each of our material origins…That means that even though Adam is formed from dust, he could still have been born of a woman. Formed from dust is not a statement of material origins for any of us, and there is no reason to think that it is a statement of Adam’s material origins. For Adam, as for all of us, that we are formed from dust makes a statement about our identity as mortals. Since it pertains to all of us, it is archetypal.[13]
Walton takes an interesting track here, but I believe his reasoning fails on a few important counts.
Genesis itself clearly presents the creation of Adam from the dust as an origin story. In the Genesis account, God literally makes Adam and brings him to life. He brings Adam into being. What else can this be but origin? Adam is the headwaters from which all of the biblical genealogies spring, with Luke calling him “the son of God” in a listing where everyone else has a human father (Luke 3:38). Walton argues that Adam’s creation from the dust “makes a statement” about him being mortal, yet Genesis 3 makes it clear that, even though he was created from dust, had Adam eaten from the Tree of Life, he could have lived indefinitely. Thus, the fact that he was made from dust did not necessarily have anything to do with Adam’s mortality. He could have lived forever even as a creature made of dust—God himself tells us this in the text (Genesis 3:22).
Furthermore, if Adam’s creation from the dust simply serves to “make a statement about our identity as mortals,” then we have a very odd construction in Genesis 3:19, where God decrees death upon Adam, saying “For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” If Walton is correct, God is effectively saying here: “For you are mortal, and to mortality you shall return.” This makes little sense in Walton’s interpretive framework, but it makes very good sense if Adam really was created from the dust, for God is telling him that he will return to the place from which he came. This speaks forcefully of origin.
The text also seems to speak of Eve’s actual origin as well, for Genesis is clear that she was actually taken from Adam’s body, a fact confirmed where the apostle Paul tells us that “the woman had her origin in the man” (I Corinthians 11:12) and that “Adam was created first, and then Eve” (I Timothy 2:13). Eve cannot be taken as archetypal here given that no woman in history apart from her ever came directly from a man’s body. What was true of her has never been true of any other woman. This, too, speaks forcefully to origin.
Walton states that other references in scripture to humans besides Adam being “dust” must mean that we’re dealing with archetype rather than origin in Genesis 2 because the people being referenced had indisputable human parentage, but I do not see this as a matter of either archetype or origin. I strongly believe it to be both.
When Job says in Job 10:9 that God has made him “as clay” and asks whether God intends to turn him into dust “again,” he is not saying that God actually made him from dust in the same way as Adam. He is employing metaphor that draws on his descent from Adam, as if the creation of Adam was, in effect, Job’s own creation because Job came from Adam and shares Adam’s nature. He speaks almost as if he had been created along with Adam. Lest the reader think this far-fetched, consider where the writer of Hebrew tells us that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek many years before he was actually born because “he was still in the loins of his father [Abraham] when Melchizedek met him” (Hebrews 7:9-10). Paul appeals to the same sort of thinking as well in I Corinthians 15:22 when he says:
For as in Adam all die, so as in Christ all will be made alive…So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not the first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. – I Corinthians 15:22, 45-49
Job was able to say that he was of “clay” and “dust” because, as a son of Adam who was created from these things, he had the same nature and bore the same “image.” This is both prototype and archetype, for if Adam did not precede Job and provide him with his nature, the comparison fails. The biblical writers do portray Adam as the first of his race. Further, they portray him in such a way that he does not just share a common nature with other humans but is actually the source of that nature.
The “Mytho-History” View
Others, such as William Lane Craig and Michael Heiser, take a different approach to the creation debate than John Walton, arguing that Genesis is of a mixed nature, reflecting elements that are very similar to ancient Near Eastern mythologies but, at the same time, dealing with historical persons and real events. As William Lane Craig sees it, the Genesis text could thus be considered “myth” in the sense that folklorists define that term: not as fiction, but rather, as “a sacred, traditional narrative which establishes the foundations and identity of the culture which embraces it in primordial events of the distant past.”[14]
“That is to say, it is intended to describe historical persons and events that actually took place, but these events are cloaked with the language of mythology and metaphor, and, therefore, should not be pressed for literal accuracy.”[15] [16]
As to why he holds this view of Genesis, Craig points to several textual indicators, a couple of which I will take the time to examine here.
Conflicting and Anthropomorphic Descriptions of God
The first of Craig’s evidences for mytho-history content in the Genesis creation account concerns what he feels are contrasting pictures of God in Genesis 1-3. In Craig’s view, God’s “bodily presence” in humanoid form is implied during events such as the surgery performed on Adam in the garden in Genesis 2, and the dialogue that takes place between God, Adam, and Eve after the Fall in Genesis 3. Craig feels that this humanoid imagery conflicts with the image of God presented in Genesis 1:
Given the exalted, transcendent nature of God described in the creation story [meaning Genesis 1], the Pentateuchal author could not possibly have intended these anthropomorphic descriptions to be taken literally. They are in the figurative language of myth.[17]
In response, I’ll start by saying that I’m not quite certain why Dr. Craig feels that Genesis chapter one describes God differently than chapters two and three. In point of fact, none of these chapters describe God at all. In Genesis 1, God is basically a voice who is depicted as speaking and acting in various ways, but God’s person not described. In Genesis 2 and 3, God speaks and acts as well, but again, he is not described. While I cannot be certain, I feel that Craig may mean that God appears to be outside of creation in chapter one, whereas, in chapters two and three, he enters creation in order to do certain things; but this still does not speak to his form.
Given that we’re told that Christ was the agency through whom the Father created all things, it seems logical that we should accept the physical things he does in Genesis chapters two and three, including the forming of man, as theophanies: that is, pre-incarnate appearances of Christ in human form. An example of a theophany is when the Lord appeared to Abraham with two angels before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18). Another example is the “commander of the Lord’s armies,” who appeared to Joshua prior to the battle for Jericho (Joshua 5:13-15). Craig rejects this approach on two grounds, however:
First, quoting Genesis 18:2, Craig points out that the text says that Abraham “lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him,” whereas no such language is used in Genesis 2 and 3. We’re not told that Adam and Eve actually saw the Lord as Abraham did.[18] Second, he notes that “God is described anthropomorphically even when he is not appearing to Adam,” including before Adam comes to life and when he is unconscious during the time in which Eve is created.[19]
In regard to the first point, the logic Craig employs is rather like asking: Why get dressed for work before you actually get there? It makes complete sense for Christ to have assumed physical form before creating Adam. No, obviously Adam did not see him before he came to life, but he would have seen him immediately upon coming to life. If the Lord were hovering over Adam, literally breathing life into him, he would be the very first thing Adam would see when he opened his eyes. The same is true of Eve.
In thinking on this, I’m reminded of John 20:22, where Jesus, speaking to his disciples in the upper room after his resurrection, breathed on all of them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” The word for “spirit” there is pnuema, which, just like its Hebrew counterpart neshamah, in Genesis 2:8, can be translated as “spirit,” “breath,” and even “wind.” Just as Christ breathed on his disciples, face to face, I believe he breathed life into Adam, face to face. This seems very consistent.
As to the second point—that Adam and Eve are not mentioned as actually seeing the Lord—this is an argument from silence. The text does not outright state that the Lord was visible to them, but it does seem to imply it. Even Craig himself admits that the conversations in Genesis 3 read “like a dialogue between persons who are physically present to one another.”[20] After creating Eve in what Craig admits appears to be a physical act, Genesis 2:22 says that he “brought her to the man.” He didn’t send Eve to Adam; he brought her to him. This implies a physical presence. Consider also that when Adam heard the Lord walking in the garden, he hid himself. One does not bother to hide from a transcendent being who has no particular physical location. The fact that Adam hid himself strongly implies—almost requires, in fact—that he was used to interacting with the Lord in the form of an embodied being who could both see and be seen.
Lastly on this point, consider that Genesis 3:21 tells us that God made “garments of skin” to clothe Adam and Eve after they fell. God is described here as making the garments himself. The clear implication of the text is that God made these things and gave them to the human couple. Again, this is very much consistent with him being physically present in some form.
Fantastic Fruit
A second evidence Craig offers for the mytho-history approach to Genesis and the creation of man has to do with certain “fantastic” elements in the text, by which he means things that “are palpably false if taken literally,” and would not have been thought of as literal by the author himself.[21] Some alleged examples Craig provides include the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil:
These are plausibly symbolic…Keep in mind here that we are not dealing with miraculous fruit, as if God would on the occasion of eating impose immortality or supernatural knowledge of good and evil on the eater for these were against his will. The fruit is said to have their effect even contrary to God’s will.[22]
In response, I first point out that the Pentateuchal author is said to be Moses. We’re talking here about a man who saw miracles no one had seen before or has seen since, and whose face shown so brightly for a time after coming out from the presence of God that he had to wear a veil. A man like this would probably not have had much problem with the idea that God could endow fruit with a capacity to rejuvenate the body and extend life. In fact, this would probably have seemed like a rather trivial thing compared to other events he had witnessed and participated in.
And is it really so fantastic after all: the notion that a type of fruit might have restorative effects on the human body? Some types of plant material do, undeniably, nourish the human body, and thus provide it with life in a sense, whereas others have toxic effects and can bring about death. We have learned to make life-saving medicines from plants along with lethal poisons. It does not seem particularly far-fetched at all to me that a fruit could possess compounds in sufficient combination and concentration to trigger, support, and/or accelerate the body’s natural healing capability, and to even facilitate perfect DNA replication and cell division. The combination of these things could keep a person alive indefinitely.
As Craig says, the fruit was not “miraculous.” It did not convey immortality in a one-shot deal. Rather, I believe it had restorative, rejuvenating effects, and probably had to be eaten periodically in order to maintain one’s life continually. This fits well with the notion that all of God’s creations are dependent upon him not only for initial existence but for continual existence as well (Acts 17:28, Hebrews 1:3).
As for the fact that the fruit would have kept Adam alive in contradiction to the will of God, this is simply a matter of the fruit having inherent, stable properties. Scripture tells us that God has fixed the laws of heaven and earth (Job 38:33, Jeremiah 31:36). Created things have specific properties and function in specific ways according to their individual makeup and the overall workings of natural law. Having established these things, it does not appear that God interferes with their function except on extraordinary occasions. The miracles of the Old Testament were mostly done in order to aid and preserve the line and nation of the Messiah, while the miracles of the New Testament were done in order to confirm that he had at last come. It behooved God to closely monitor these events and guide them to fruition, as the redemption of the human race depended upon them.
It was God’s will that Adam and Eve be able to partake of the Tree of Life while they were in obedience to him, but it was not his will that they should do so while in rebellion. Still, he did not alter the properties of the fruit, kill the tree, or remove the tree to some other location when Adam and Eve sinned. His creation was still good. His standards stood, regardless of man’s rebellion. Blessing was still available, but man’s rebellion had placed him outside of it.
As I detailed in chapter five, there is a powerful message here about blessing and cursing, life and death, inheritance and exile, and reward and punishment in the keeping or breaking of God’s laws. It was not God’s will that man eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but he did not make the tree’s fruit inedible. It was not God’s will that Samson cut his hair, but he did not give Samson uncuttable hair. It is not God’s will that one man should murder another by throwing him off of a building, but God does not counteract the law of gravity if this happens.
God does not order his creation in response to us; he hedges us in with fixed ordinances and lets us obey and get along or disobey and pound on our heads on the walls to our own hurt, as we please.
Overall, I find the fruit of garden one of the least fantastic things in scripture.
Imaginary Creatures?
Moving on, Craig points to the cherubim that God placed “as guards” at the eastern entrance to the Garden of Eden, and argues in accordance with Jewish Bible scholar Nahum Sarna that there is evidence to indicate that cherubim were not thought to be real creatures, otherwise they would have violated the second commandment prohibiting “graven images.”
They don’t violate the prohibition against images because they are “purely products of the human imagination” and so “do not represent any existing reality in heaven and earth.” Thus images of them could be made in ancient Israel without breaking the second commandment prohibiting images of things in heaven, for the cherubim were not real.[23]
It seems like a great and unnecessary leap to argue that the cherubim could not be real because the second commandment forbade the making of “any likeness of what is in heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). Let’s look at the context of this commandment and see what else God had to say about the matter:
You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or in the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God. – Exodus 20:4-5
Notice a few things here: First, the commandment tells the people, “You shall not make for yourself.” God himself commanded that likenesses of two cherubim be made and set on either side of the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-20), and that other depictions of them be incorporated into the curtains and veil of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:1, 31). The Hebrews did not make these things for themselves; they made them in response to the command of God.
Further, note why God did not want his people to make idols (or ‘graven images’) in the first place: “You shall not worship them or serve them.” Thus, the second commandment has to do with more than simply making images of things; it has to do with the worship of those things. The cherubim in the tabernacle and on the Ark of the Covenant were not made to be worshiped, but rather, as adornments of the house of God, in which he alone was to be worshipped. Thus, they could be perfectly real and still not violate the second commandment.
Further, as we have already seen, Exodus 25:9 and 40; Numbers 8:4; and Hebrews 8:4-5 tell us that Moses was instructed to make the tabernacle and its furnishings in conformity with a pattern he had been shown of things in heaven. Given that he was instructed to make images of cherubim as well, this would seem to suggest that cherubim were as real as the other things he was told to make likenesses of. Cherubim were seen as guardian spirits. It thus makes perfect sense for them to be depicted in the tabernacle as guarding access to the presence of God, just as human rulers had throne guardians.
It is true, as Dr. Craig notes, that the cherubim were fantastic in their appearance, being described as having both human and beast-like characteristics, but this description is taken from the prophetic vision of Ezekiel and is almost certainly symbolic. We are not told much about what the cherubim that adorned the tabernacle looked like, only that they had wings. Still, even if these beings are portrayed in symbolic fashion, this does not mean that they are imaginary. Christ is symbolically portrayed in scripture as both a lion and a lamb, yet he himself is quite real and does not actually resemble an animal.
A Talking Snake?
One last point I will address on the justifications Dr. Craig uses to appeal to the mytho-history approach is the matter of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, which he says is “a great character in the story,” but could not actually be a real animal, “For the Pentateuchal author knew that snakes neither talked nor are intelligent agents…”[24]
Some Bible translations do make it appear as though the serpent was a literal animal. For instance, the ESV renders Genesis 3:1, this way: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.” The key word here is “other.” Most translations, however, imply that the serpent was not an animal at all. For instance, the NASB translates Genesis 3:1 as follows: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God made.” The omission of “other” makes a big difference here. The KJV also indicates this, stating: “the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field.” Young’s Literal Translation renders the verse this way: “And the serpent hath been subtile above every beast of the field which Jehovah God hath made.”
Having looked at the original Hebrew, I cannot find any justification for inserting the word “other” into this verse, as the ESV and a few other translations do. I believe Genesis 3:1 is simply saying that, up until the point they encountered the serpent (Hebrew – nachash), Adam and Eve had not encountered other living creatures that were as intelligent as they were. The nachash was in a league of its own when compared with the beasts of the field.
Nachash is indeed the Hebrew word for snake or serpent, thus many young-earth teachers insist that it should be taken literally, although many also believe that this creature was actually Satan—who either took the form of a serpent or else possessed one. All of these views are problematic, and Dr. Craig’s view seems attractive in comparison. Yet, I believe that the best solution has been proposed by Dr. Michael Heiser, who points out that verb and adjective forms of nachash, and the related word nechosheth, have to do with divination and a shining, bronze-like aspect.[25]
Thus, the serpent of the garden was a shining being who served as a supernatural oracle, and it probably did appear as a serpent-like creature. Heiser notes that serpent-like beings were well-known in the lore of ancient Near Eastern cultures, including the seraph or seraf, “an image commonly used in reference to a divine throne guardian.”[26] Interestingly, the apostle John appears to describe four seraphim in Revelation 4, but he calls them “living creatures,” and states that three of the four resembled animals (a lion, a calf, and an eagle). Is it possible that there are other kinds of seraphim as well, and that at least one (now a fallen creature) resembled a serpent?
Again, I see no reason to resort to the conclusion that we’re dealing with myth in the account of the serpent in Genesis 3. To my way of thinking, the best explanation is that we’re dealing with a supernatural being that had a serpent-like appearance.
The “Expanse"
Oddly enough, Dr. Craig does not address (in so far as I have seen, that is) what I think is actually the strongest argument in favor of mytho-history content in the Genesis creation account: namely, the creation of the expanse on Day Two.
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so. God called the expanse heaven, And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. – Genesis 1:6-8
The way this part of the account appears to read, God divides the great planet-wide ocean, lifting part of the waters up above “heaven”—that is to say, the sky—and leaving part below, where he later gathers them together in one place and dry land appears. The text goes on to tell us that the waters below the expanse were gathered into seas, so there is no question what is meant by “the waters below.” But what are “the waters above”?
The answer is not at all clear from the text. Some have suggested that it must be a reference to clouds and the water cycle, but I note that the text does not say anything about the waters above the expanse changing form, becoming clouds, etc.; rather, it says that the waters covering the earth were divided by the insertion of an expanse between them. An ancient Hebrew reading this literally, and knowing what “the waters below the expanse” meant, would likely have pictured a similar body of water above the sky. Further, he would probably have concluded that the waters above were still uniformly dispersed over the whole earth, given that they were never gathered into one place, as were the waters below. Again, the text seems to imply that they were simply lifted up above the earth by the insertion of the expanse.
In fact, this is exactly what it is said in the pseudopigraphal book of Jubilees, written around two hundred years before Christ:
And on the second day He created the firmament in the midst of the waters, and the waters were divided on that day – half of them went up above and half of them went down below the firmament (that was) in the midst over the face of the whole earth. – Jubilees 2:4
Now, obviously, this does not conform to what modern science has revealed about the earth and its environs. There is no ocean surrounding the earth. So, what do we make of all of this? Young-earth teachers have tried to explain the text by means of the Canopy Theory, in which it is argued that “the waters above” consisted of a dense layer of water that later fell to the earth during the flood. This is entirely supposition, however. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that any such canopy ever existed, and the Bible never says that “the waters above” have ever come down to the earth. Indeed, Psalm 148:4 tells us that those waters are still there, or at least were in King David’s day.[27]
Further, the existence of such a canopy seems extremely implausible unless it were very thin, as it would otherwise have been difficult to view the moon and stars, which Genesis tells us were given for lights and to mark signs and seasons. Anyone who has ever tried stargazing on a humid night, or looking through an aquarium at objects on the other side, can probably appreciate the problems this would create. Even the sun itself seems distorted from just a few feet below the surface of a swimming pool.
As we already saw in Exodus 20:4, the Hebrews thought in terms of a three-fold division of creation, namely: “the heaven above,” “the earth beneath,” and “the waters under the earth.” This is also echoed in the New Testament, where the apostle Paul tells us that, “at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Philippians 2:10).[28] It was also commonly believed among the ancients that heaven was a solid dome above the earth, and this thinking also seems to appear in scripture. In Job 22:14, Job’s friend Elaphaz remarks concerning God: “Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see; and He walks on the vault of heaven.” The Hebrew word translated “vault” here is chuwg, literally meaning “circle.”
The same word is used in Proverbs 8:27-28, where the wisdom of God, says: “When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, When He made firm the skies above.” The Hebrew word translated “firm” is ‘amats, which is often translated as “strong,” and usually refers to a person’s character or attitude being inflexible in some way, whether for good or evil.[29] In this instance, however, where it is being used in reference to the physical creation, it must either mean that the skies are permanently fixed by God in their place or else that they are literally firm, solid in nature. The latter is what Job 37:18 seems to be driving at when Elihu asks Job: “Can you with Him, spread out the skies, strong as a molten mirror?” The word translated “molten” is yatsaq, which Strong’s defines as meaning: “to pour out…to melt or cast as metal; by extension, to place firmly, to stiffen or grow hard.”[30] This idea of casting metal makes perfect sense with the imagery here given that ancient mirrors were made of polished metal.
In light of these things, consider Amos 9:6:
The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, the Lord is His Name.
As well as these passages from Psalm 29:
The voice of the Lord is over the waters,
The God of glory thunders,
The Lord over many waters…
The Lord sits enthroned over the flood;
The Lord sits enthroned as king forever. – Psalm 29:3, 10 (ESV)[31]
Again, when scripture refers to God solidly, strongly, or firmly establishing the heavens, it could simply be saying that he established them in such a way as they are stable, permanent. Or it really could be saying that the “vault” or “circle” of heaven is actually solid. Either view seems plausible. Yet, in light of Genesis 1:6-8 and Psalm 29:3, 10 and 148:4, the idea of a solid dome may edge out the competition.
Think about it for a moment: If you believed in the idea of an ocean suspended above your head, you would also need to believe in something holding it back from coming down upon you. The idea that God had established heaven as a solid dome above the earth would then make perfect sense, as it would be holding back “the waters above.” I believe this is very likely what David meant when he wrote, “The Lord sits enthroned above the flood”—i.e., “the waters above.” This is also possibly what Amos meant when he wrote that God “calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth.” Amos could have meant that God draws up water from the earth’s oceans and rains them down on the land, but he could just as easily have been referring to “the waters above.” This may also be what Moses is indicating in Genesis 7:11, when he refers to “the windows of heaven” being opened at the start of the flood.
The reader may believe me when I say that I would much rather adopt the clouds/water cycle view of Genesis 1:6-8, as that would help link the biblical text to what we know about the nature of the world, thus lending more credibility to Christian theism. I’ll be up front about that. But canopy and water cycle theories simply do not fit the text. Nor do they conform to the other passages of scripture I’ve offered on this topic.
It seems that the Hebrews believed that there literally was an ocean of water suspended above them and held back by a hard surface God had cast like one who pours out molten metal to make something solid. Nor do these references appear to be metaphors, for how would the ancients have known any better? It might be argued that the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the text in such a way as to use metaphors, but to what would these metaphors correspond? There are no “waters above,” at least not any longer.
We are thus left with three choices: 1) The text is in error, 2) The waters above did exist at one time but no longer do, for whatever reason, and 3) God used the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews in conveying the creation story.
The first possibility results from a false-dilemma fallacy, assuming there are no viable, alternative explanations. The second possibility seems to be undermined by the apparent belief of King David and others in scripture that the waters above persisted even long after the flood. This leaves the third possibility as the most plausible: God used the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews in order to communicate the method he followed in creation.
Some will object vehemently to this idea on the grounds that, “If the text is in error about the nature of the world, then God has made an error because Genesis is his Word.”
In response, I offer the comments of Dr. Michael Heiser:
Someone’s framework for reality may be flawed by imprecision due to lack of understanding, but their truth claim can still be quite correct…The Bible’s worldview might be pre-scientific in some respects—God didn’t bother to change that—but its truth claims are still correct.[32]
In evidence of this, Heiser offers a number of examples, including Proverbs 23:16: “Yea, my reins shall rejoice when thy lips speak right things” (KJV). Heiser offers a number of examples of this, including Proverbs 23:16: “Yea, my reins shall rejoice when thy lips speak right things” (KJV). Heiser points out here that the word translated as reins literally means kidneys, which, of course, have no cognitive ability and do not give rise to emotions, either positive or negative.[33] The Hebrews associated thought and emotional feeling with the lower extremities of the body rather than with the brain.[34] They were not scientifically correct in doing so, but this was their understanding and cultural frame of reference, and scripture reflects it.
For another example of this, I direct the reader’s attention back to Joshua 10, where Joshua commands the sun and moon to “stand still,” and the author of the text confirms that this result was observed. As I pointed out previously, we have every reason to believe from the way the passage is written that Joshua held to a geocentric conception of the earth and the heavens, just as Luther and Calvin did many centuries later. Now, did God somehow make a mistake in recording this event just because Joshua’s conceptual scheme was scientifically incorrect? Is the purpose of the text to teach us cosmology, or to record what Joshua said and what those with him observed, however that miracle actually took place?
In chapter five, I outlined why I believe that the days of Genesis are divine work days, appealing to concepts and imagery the people who first received the text would have understood. This is perfectly consistent with the way God communicates with man: on man’s level, in terms that make sense to man and conform to his conceptual scheme. If I am correct about how the Bible communicates the events of creation Day Two, then the use of technically inaccurate Hebrew cosmology falls within this pattern as well, and does not pose a problem for either inerrancy or authority. This is how the Hebrews viewed their world, and God’s intent was to establish his identity as the creator of all things, not to provide his people with a science lesson they wouldn’t have understood anyway.
There are other possible examples of mytho-history in the Bible as well. Perhaps the most notable of these is the creature called Leviathan.[35] A plausible case can be made that this creature is a depiction of something rather than an actual animal, particularly since God is said to have killed it when he created the world (Psalm 74:13-14) but will have to deal with it again at the time of the end (Isaiah 27:1). This seems contradictory unless Leviathan is a symbol, most likely for God’s supernatural enemies.
Evaluating the Text
Going solely by the biblical text, I do not see any justification for viewing Adam and Eve as the products of evolution. By all indications, they were specially, directly created by God. This is almost certainly how the ancient Hebrews understood the text, especially given the displays of divine power they had personally witnessed. Further, it is consistent with the miracles performed by Jesus Christ during his ministry—Christ being the “Word” through whom the Father created all things.
Yes, God breathing life into Adam’s nose seems like an obvious metaphor, but I thought that when I was still a card-carrying young-earth creationist. Nothing about that reference made me think that the entire account must be metaphorical just because one element of it was: the point is that God started Adam breathing, and that is clear enough. More is needed if we are to believe that the text is not serious when it tells us that God directly made Adam from the dust and later created Eve from material taken from his side. I do not see any evidence that these things mean anything other than what they straightforwardly say.
Yes, I most certainly do see revelatory imagery in the creation account, as I have already indicated, and I even see a hint of what could be called mytho-history in the events of creation Day Two. The Genesis creation account appears to be of a mixed nature, and this is perfectly understandable given that God was communicating to his people in terms they understood, drawing from their experiences and their conceptual scheme—what they knew and what they thought they knew. But in spite of its use of veiled language, Genesis is genuinely trying to convey certain things about origins, and where we do not find evident clues or conflicts, we should take it at face value rather than thinking that the author wasn’t trying to convey something factual.
If we find the idea of Adam’s creation from the dust to be far-fetched, what are we to make of the feeding of the 5,000 or Jesus turning water into wine? If we’re going to challenge the events of Genesis 1-3 simply on the grounds that they seem fantastic, we risk opening a theological can of worms, exposing every miracle in scripture to the same criticism.
Incredulity is not necessarily grounds for dismissal. I continue to see Adam and Eve as special creations that came about rather recently. Now as to how this can be reconciled with the apparent antiquity of man on earth, I feel there is another possible solution, one that has both great explanatory power and, potentially, even Christological relevance: namely, the idea that there may have been other races of humanity aside from the Adamic line, either prior to Adam (pre-Adamism) or co-existent with Adam (co-Adamism).
In support of this notion, I offer the following discussion, and beg the reader’s patience, as I know that many Christians will be reluctant to even entertain this idea. I was reluctant to consider it for quite a long time myself, but certain considerations eventually opened me up to the possibility. I now consider this the most plausible resolution to the question of human origins in light of the testimony of scripture
Next in this series: Part, Fifteen: Tracing the Advent of Man, IV
[1] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downer’s Grove, IL., InterVarsity Press, 2009), pp. 162-163.
[2] Ibid., p. 75.
[3] “Origins Today: Genesis through Ancient Eyes with John Walton.” YouTube video, 1:12:53 – 1:19:59, posted by “Seedbed.” May 9, 2014.
https://youtu.be/fR82a-iueWw
[4] Ibid., pp. 163-164.
[5] “Origins Today: Genesis through Ancient Eyes with John Walton.” 31:07 – 51:59.
[6] Iowa State University. “Geologists determine early Earth was a ‘water world’ by studying ocean crust.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 March 2020.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200302122449.htm
[7] Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy, (Colorado Springs, CO., NavPress, 2004), p. 235.
[8] John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downer’s Grove, IL., InterVarsity Press, 2015), p. 74.
[9] Ibid., p. 217.
[10] Ibid., p. 102.
[11] Ibid., p. 89.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Walton, Lost World of Adam and Eve, pp. 76-77. Walton points to Adam’s creation from dust as being an indicator of his mortality, not a literal scientific description of how he came to be.
[14] “The Book of Genesis: With Dr. William Lane Craig,” The Remnant Radio.
[15] Ibid.
[16] An example of this genre of narrative is the Arthur legend. There is scant evidence that King Arthur actually existed, and if he did the stories concerning him have been highly romanticized. Yet, even in a highly romanticized form, they may still reflect actual historical persons and events in ancient Britain. Whether Craig would agree with this comparison, I don’t know, but it seems fair.
[17] Reasonable Faith. “Excursus on Creation of Life and Biodiversity (Part 20): Why Think Genesis 1-11 is Mytho-History?” Reasonable Faith.org. July 10, 2019.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity/excursus-on-creation-of-life-and-biological-diversity-part-20
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Reasonable Faith. “Excursus on Creation of Life and Biodiversity” (Part 20).
[24] Ibid.
[25] Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), p. 88. Footnote 2.
[26] Ibid.
[27] “Praise Him highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens!”
[28] See also Revelation 5:3 and 13.
[29] Strong’s # H553.
[30] Strong’s # H3332.
[31] I depart from the NASB here in favor of the ESV because I believe the translators of the NASB have rendered this passage in accordance with the belief that the “flood” being referenced is Noah’s flood, which is why they translate the verse “The Lord sat as King at the flood.” The Hebrew verb in this verse is yashab, which is in the Qal perfect tense, and can be translated as continuing action rather than an action completed in the past. “The Lord sits” seems a better translation, and is consistent with verse three: “The voice of the Lord IS over the waters.” All other descriptions of the Lord’s actions in this psalm are in the present as well. I see no reason why the “flood” here should be understood as Noah’s Flood.
[32] “Genesis and Creation: Old Testament Cosmology – Michael S. Heiser.” YouTube.video, posted by “HaibaneXIII,” January 3, 2014.
https://youtu.be/bSG2s17VooQ
[33] Ibid. Another example is Hebrews 7:9, where the author says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek while in the loins of his father (actually grandfather) Abraham.
[34] Indeed, Heiser points out that they had no word for ‘brain.’
[35] For one resource on this, see “Why Leviathan isn’t a Dinosaur,” YouTube video, posted by Ben S., January 3, 2018.
https://youtu.be/CMf1OKxT390.
