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
Part
Fourteen: Tracing the Advent of Man, III
The Two-Population Model
Pre-Adamism
In regard to Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, Denisovans, and other races science has uncovered that strongly resemble Adamic man, Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer writes:
It seems best to regard these races as all prior to Adam’s time, and not involved in the Adamic covenant…They may have been exterminated by God for unknown reasons prior to the creation of the original parent of the present human race. Adam, then, was the first man created in the spiritual image of God, according to Gen. 1:26-27, and there is no evidence from science to disprove it.[1]
This has been the view long held by evangelical Gap Theory proponents such as G.H. Pember, Derek Prince, and J. Vernon McGee, among others. It is also perhaps the simplest resolution to the problem of human origins in light of scripture. If other races of man once existed but were already off the scene prior to the creation of Adam, then, as Archer states, Adam was the first member of the present race of humans. There is no scientific evidence against this idea and it presents no theological issues. The Bible doesn’t indicate this, but then there are many things the Bible doesn’t discuss, so that is hardly a deal-breaker.
The only issues of potential theological significance here are the questions of whether pre-Adamites would have been fully human or made in the image of God. Some have supposed that they must have been “soulless” creatures, no different from animals. A few passages of scripture help to alleviate this concern:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. – Genesis 2:7
There are several things to notice here.
First, note that Adam’s physical body is called “man” even before it is given life: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust…” God then imparted the “breath of life” to Adam and Adam became “a living soul” (or “a living being”). He was not given a soul; he was given breath and became a soul. The term “breath” in the phrase “the breath of life” is translated from the Hebrew word neshamah, which, along with the related term, ruwach, is sometimes also translated as “spirit” or “wind” in the Bible. The term “soul” is translated from the Hebrew word nephesh. Adam’s lifeless body was given neshamah and became nephesh as a result.
Interestingly enough, Genesis also uses these same terms in reference to animals:
And God created great whales and every living creature [nephesh] that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly. – Genesis 1:21
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam…and whatever Adam called every living creature [nephesh], that was the name of it. – Genesis 2:19
All flesh that moved on the Earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the Earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath [neshamah] of the spirit of life, died. – Genesis 7:21-22
Thus, going by the Genesis terminology, a “soul” is simply a living being—a term applied to both humans and animals. Both were formed from the dust and both were given life by the same neshamah. A “soul” is something you are, not some mystical quality you possess. Thus, there is no reason to believe that pre-Adamic humans must have been “soulless” and, therefore, not fully human. The argument is textually groundless.
As to the question of whether pre-Adamites would have been made in the image of God, let’s look at Genesis 1:26-27, where the image is first mentioned:
Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis is not entirely clear what it means to be made ‘in the image” of God, and the matter has been hotly disputed in theological circles. Given the way the text reads, in that man is to have dominion over the earth and its creatures, it would seem that man, as a class of being, is a divinely-appointed ruler meant to represent God on the earth. In the words of Dr. Michael Heiser, “God intends us to be him on this planet.”[2] Taken this way, the “image” of God is, once again, not a mystical quality but rather a positional matter—an office, if you will.
By this line of reasoning, anyone who is fully human qualifies as a divine imager. The image can be tarnished in us by sin, but even so we do not cease to bear it. Of course, among humankind only Christ has borne the image of God perfectly, so much so in fact that at the Last Supper he was able to say in reply to Philip, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”
In short, the question of whether pre-Adamites would have been divine “imagers” boils down to whether God gave them both the capacity and the mandate to rule over his creation. Perhaps they had the capacity, but not the mandate. Perhaps the mandate was not given until the creation of Adam, or perhaps it was different from Adam’s. Without a definite witness from scripture on the matter, there is really no way of knowing.
Co-Adamism
If there were other races of man, suppose they weren’t extinct by the time Adam came on the scene? Suppose there were effectively two populations of humanity existing at the same time? This idea is called co-Adamism, and while it raises more complex issues than does pre-Adamism, there are plausible solutions to those issues, and possibly even a bit of scriptural attestation.
Genesis 1 and 2
It has long been recognized that a sort of tension exists between Genesis 1 and 2, particularly where the creation of man is concerned. For the most part, it has usually been argued that the creation of man—both male and female—in Genesis 1:27-30 is a sort of snapshot view that is expanded upon in Genesis 2:7-25. For most of my life, that was my view as well. Yet, there are problems with it, and those problems open up the possibility of another interpretation.
As I described in detail in chapter six, scripture clearly differentiates between the Garden of Eden and the land (“earth”—Hebrew: erets) outside of the garden. The garden was an ideal, protected place where the ground readily yielded to man’s efforts to cultivate it, and did so in great variety, whereas the land outside of the garden did not yield its produce so easily or with such variety. When man is created in Genesis 1, he is tasked with “subduing” the earth: that is, the land outside of the garden, as well as its creatures (including sea creatures). The Hebrew used to relay this admonition indicates forceful subjugation. In other words, man was told to forcefully bring the earth and its creatures under his dominion and to rule over them. In Genesis 2, however, Adam is placed in the garden (an isolated area of the globe) and commanded to care for it and cultivate it. The tone is softer. Nothing is said of animals or other creatures of the earth, and Eve is not present until Adam has been at this task for some time.
Question: Why would God tell Adam to rule over the land and its creatures and then take him from the land and place him elsewhere with a new, apparently more limited assignment? Further, why is the command to rule over the land given to both male and female, whereas the task of tending the garden is primarily Adam’s, with Eve brought in later as a suitable helper?
The traditional “snapshot” view could be defended on grounds that the creation of man in Genesis 1 is told in very general terms, with God’s ultimate intent in mind, whereas Genesis 2 conveys how God set man on the path to fulfilling the Genesis 1 mandate, starting in one small area. The problem with that defense is that Genesis 1 mentions only the land in the mandate given to humanity, and the mandate appears to be immediate, with God pronouncing everything good thereafter, whereas Genesis 2 sees Adam taken from the land and given a much more limited area of influence. Later, in Genesis 3, Adam is exiled to the land outside of the garden. This is a punishment, strongly indicating that Adam was not supposed to be on the land. How then could he have been expected to exercise dominion over it? Indeed, God’s words indicate that Adam would be in conflict with the land, and would not dominate it at all.
In light of these things, it is plausible to speculate that Genesis 1 and 2 tell the story of two separately created populations of humanity. Scripture doesn’t offer us much to go on here, but apart from Gap Theory assumptions, most efforts to pinpoint two co-existing populations of humanity have focused on ambiguities found in Genesis chapters 4 and 6.
I will look at these issues beginning with the aftermath of Cain’s murder of Abel, as described in Genesis 4:13-17:
Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear! Behold, you have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” So the Lord said to him, “Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him. Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city and called the name of the city Enoch after his son.
As of the events of Genesis 4, the only people who appear in the biblical text are Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. The text does not get around to mentioning daughters and other sons being born to Adam until Genesis 5, so when we read the story of how Cain fled after killing Abel, we naturally wonder who Cain was afraid of, who his wife was, and how he built a city with just himself, his wife, and his son.
Cain’s Wife
Genesis 4:25 tells the story of the birth of Seth, of whom his mother remarks: “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.” In Genesis 5:3, we’re told that the birth of Seth took place when Adam was 130 years old, and that Seth was “a son according in his [Adam’s] own likeness, according to his image.” Seth appears to have been the next male offspring born to Adam, as he takes Abel’s place, becoming Adam’s heir. We know from Genesis 5 that Adam and Eve had daughters, but we’re not told when they were born. It’s entirely possible that at least one of them was born between the births of Cain and Seth, making her old enough to be Cain’s wife by the time Cain killed Abel. This was before the biblical prohibition against incest and, theoretically, during a time when the genetic issues that would plague the offspring of a sibling union today were non-existent.
Thus, Cain’s wife may well have been his sister. The pseudopigraphical book of Jubilees says this explicitly, naming her Awan, and saying that she was born after Abel and became Cain’s wife.[3]
This is a plausible conclusion from the text, and it’s the traditional answer the church has given on the matter, but it is not actually stated in the biblical text and consequently lacks absolute authority. If there were other humans outside of the garden region, it’s possible that Cain could have married a woman from among them. Yet, although I do believe such people existed, I don’t believe Cain married one of them. I have only supposition to offer here, but it seems strongly evidential to me.
The genealogies of Genesis are not just given out as extraneous information; they serve a purpose. As I have said previously, they trace the Abrahamic line—which ultimately becomes the Messianic line—all the way back to Adam: the original image-bearer. Moses is very careful in the way he notes this. In Genesis 4:1-2 and 25, Moses tells us that Adam had relations with Eve, producing Cain, Abel, and Seth. It seems odd that he should note this. The Hebrews knew well enough where babies came from, so why specify this in the text, especially if there was no one else around having children? Why does he make it clear that Seth was born in Adam’s image? The only reason that makes sense to me here is that Moses wanted his readers to know that Seth was the product of Adam and Eve rather than of some other combination.
What other combination? A likely answer has to do with Genesis 6 and the infamous “Sons of God/daughters of men” passage:
Now it came about when men began to multiple on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. – Genesis 6:1-5
There are several views of this passage today, but the majority view of the ancient Hebrews and early Christians was that it refers to an unholy union of fallen angels and mortal women that produced a hybrid race: the Nephilim, probably the same as the “giants” that are periodically mentioned in the Old Testament (see Numbers 13:33, for instance).
These individuals are always spoken of negatively in scripture, not only being impressive in size and strength but also as fierce and threatening. Josephus comments on them as follows in his Antiquities of the Jews:
For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.[4]
This issue of the Nephilim likely explains why who-begat-whom is so important in the lineage of Abraham (and, ultimately, of Christ), or at least why it was important to the ancient Hebrews. Given this view, it’s certainly understandable how Moses would have wanted his people to know that their roots were free from the defiling influence of the Nephilim, being purely Adamic, purely human. The Israelites were sensitive to bloodline issues, having been forbidden from intermarrying with the inhabitants of the surrounding nations (see Deuteronomy 7:1-7).[5] They thought of themselves as “the holy race” (Ezra 9:2), set apart by God and distinct from all the peoples of the earth (Romans 9:3-5, Galatians 2:11-15, Ephesians 2:12).
Abraham himself set an example in this area by sending his servant to take a wife for his son Isaac from among his own relations instead of from the inhabitants of Canaan. The subsequent prohibition to Israel regarding intermarriage, and their conception of themselves as a distinct and holy race, is probably why the story of Isaac and Rebekah is told in such detail in Genesis 24.
In a similar way, given that only Adam’s line enjoyed a direct relationship with God, it’s doubtful that Adamites would have readily intermarried with other humans. Like the Hebrews of later times, it’s more likely they would have looked down on those of other races and kept themselves separate. This attitude would have relaxed somewhat over time (just as it did with the Hebrews), but in the beginning they would have been reluctant to intermarry with others, especially given that the women of their line were apparently quite lovely (Genesis 6:2).[6]
For these reasons, if there were other humans present on the earth apart from Adam’s line, I doubt Cain would have intermarried with them. His wife was almost certainly his sister. I cannot prove that from the text, but I find it to be the most plausible explanation.
Still, there may be more to this mystery of the Nephilim. I find it strange that the union of Adam and Eve is emphasized even before the events of Genesis 6, before Adam’s line became a sizeable population and the sons of God took notice of human women. The Nephilim are almost always supposed to be the product of angelic-human relations, but some have also pointed out that there is another way to understand this text. Read the following excerpt from the passage again:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.
One can read this as the Nephilim being the product of the sons of God and the daughters of men, but one can also read this as the Nephilim already being present “on the earth in those days, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men.” This alternate reading places the Nephilim on the scene before the events of Genesis 6 and would explain why the text is careful to note that Adam and Eve produced Cain, Abel, and Seth. However, it could also be that there was confusion in Moses’ time as to when the corruption of the Nephilim began, so he made it clear for the readers of Genesis that it did not begin until Adamic man had reached a sizeable population.
If the Nephilim were already on the earth before the events of Genesis 6, however, who were they?
The word Nephilim is translated from the Hebrew nephiyl, which Strong’s defines as meaning “a feller, a bully or a tyrant.”[7] Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary notes that it may refer to “falling on, attacking.”[8] It is derived from the root word naphal, which means “to fall” and can be used in numerous ways, including as a metaphor. This is the word that is used in Genesis 2:21 where we’re told that God caused a deep sleep to “fall upon” Adam. It’s the word used where sleep and darkness “fall upon” Abraham in Genesis 15:12, and where Abraham “falls” on his face before God in Genesis 17:3. In other passages, it is sometimes used in reference to someone falling down dead or being struck with disease. As I’ve already noted, the Nephilim were known for being violent, which fits with the idea of attacking, felling, or falling upon someone, as these Hebrew words suggest.
In light of this, if the Nephilim were present before the sons of God/daughters of men incident, the term may have originally applied to anyone who was not of the line of Adam, but eventually came to be identified most with the offspring of the Genesis 6 union. I consider this the most likely explanation. Remember that the original community of humans (assuming my speculation is correct) was created to forcefully subjugate the land and its creatures. This would suggest that they may have been more physically powerful than those of Adam’s line. Interestingly, scientists who have studied Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other such groups, have concluded that they were more physically robust than Adamic man.
Cain’s Sign and City
Going back to Cain’s flight to the land of Nod, two more questions present themselves from the text: Who was Cain afraid might find and kill him, and how did he build a city with just himself, his wife, and his son?
It’s entirely possible that Cain thought future sons of Adam might decide to find him and take vengeance for the death of Abel. This seems likely because of the way Cain phrases his protest to God: “I will be a vagrant and wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” Cain was now an outcast, a man without a community. The Hebrews of Moses’ day who read this may have immediately thought of a man fleeing from an avenger of blood (see Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 19). Such a man was only safe in particular cities that were set apart for that purpose in the land of Israel, and here Cain was a man with no city, destined to live open and exposed in the wilderness. There seemed to be nothing to stop his own brethren from eventually finding and killing him. God himself had already told him, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.” Crying for what? Vengeance, it would seem.
Further, Cain protested to God: “From your face I will be hidden,” indicating that he felt he was somehow more under God’s direct supervision and protection in the region of Eden than he would be outside of it. This is also consistent with how the Hebrews viewed their country as Yahweh’s inheritance, with the surrounding lands belonging to other gods, as it were.[9] Cain saw Eden as “God’s country” and felt exposed to other forces outside of it.
This line of reasoning makes perfect sense apart from one thing: Even though Seth had not yet been born (and in Hebrew tradition was not born for quite some time after this incident), Cain seems to think the threat is immediate, as it comes to mind quickly and God “appoints a sign” for him then and there so that no one who finds him will kill him. Consider this in light of my previous discussion of the Nephilim, and how the word may indicate someone who “falls upon” a person or thing in the sense of attacking them. If there were indeed other people around at the time, and they were fierce and physically powerful, Cain would have had every right to be worried that they might fall on him. This is at least plausible.
As for Cain building a city, this could simply be a reference from the perspective of one looking back on Cain’s life accomplishments rather than something he went out and did immediately. Given the long lifespans enjoyed by those of Adam’s line, Cain would have lived to see many generations of his descendants, and it could be that others descended from Adam and Eve might have eventually wandered off and joined Cain’s group. It’s also possible that other, non-Adamic humans might have been around and joined in with Cain, but there is no reason to suppose so from the text. Still, one cannot entirely rule it out.
Adam and Eve as the First Humans
When the possibility of humans outside of the garden is raised, and textual evidences such as those I’ve discussed here are brought forward, it is usually objected that the New Testament clearly says that Adam was the first human being. There are a few passages that are used to support this contention, but I do not believe they carry the weight that is usually ascribed to them.
“And He [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation.” – Acts 17:26
In some Bible versions, you will find the word “man” in the phrase “from one man” in italics. This is because the word is not present in all manuscripts. The Textus-Receptus has the word haima, meaning “blood,” in this phrase, and thus renders it: “from one blood,” as the KJV, NKJV, and Young’s Literal Translation render it. Others, such as the NLT, NIV, ESV, and NASB follow the Nestle-Aland Greek Text, which is based on the oldest Greek manuscripts available, and simply reads: “From one He made every nation,” leaving it up to the translators to figure out what the “one” should refer to, with most opting for “one man,” meaning Adam.
In his book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, Dr. Joshua Swamidass cites some surprising scientific research showing that, even supposing that humanity was originally divided into two populations (one in the garden and one outside of it), the two groups could have mingled to the point that, by 1 AD, every living person could have traced his or her genealogy to Adam and Eve.[10] Thus, Paul’s statement in Acts 17:26 could be completely accurate even if Adam were not the sole progenitor of the human race. In support of this, Swamidass points out that Hebrews 11 says that the entire nation of Israel arose from “one man,” Abraham, yet goes on to tell us that Rahab the harlot (who was a Canaanite) married into Israel from another line: “The same could be true of how ‘one’ Adam gives rise to all of humanity to ‘the ends of the earth.’”[11]
Swamidass’ interpretation makes a great deal of sense, not only given the scientific data, but also given the apostle Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:4 that Christ was born in “the fullness of time.” If, by 1 AD, every human being could trace his or her lineage back to Adam, then Christ, who was of Adam’s line, was fully qualified to be the savior of all humanity. This may help explain why God did not send the Savior centuries earlier than he did: the divergent lines of humanity were not mixed thoroughly enough prior to that time.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. – Romans 5:12-14
The same scientific evidence indicating that there were humans present on the earth long before Adam (assuming Adam lived 6-14,000 years ago) also indicates that these people both lived and died. How then can it be that death entered into the human race through Adam if it existed before his creation?
There are some important things to remember here:
First, if there were humans outside of the garden (prior and/or co-existent with Adam), they do not appear to have had the same favored status that Adam did, given the favored location into which God placed Adam Furthermore, although man is given directives by God in Genesis 1, he is not warned of potential consequences for a breach of faith, as Adam is warned of in Genesis 2. Adam deliberately disobeyed God after having been warned that his transgression would result in death. Thus, Adam directly violated a trust that forfeited his place of favor, whereas any humans who might have existed outside of the garden did not have such favor to lose in the first place—at least as far as we know.
Second, Adam did not have to die. He had access to the Tree of Life and might have lived indefinitely had he not sinned. Death was a punishment upon Adam, not a natural state of being. It is now the natural order of things with all of his descendants. If other humans existed outside of the garden, they might have been brought in to the place of favor in time, just as Gentiles were ultimately grafted into “the household of faith,” but Adam’s failure overthrew this hope, at least in the short term.
Third, if there were people outside of the Garden of Eden, the Bible is not their story. Scripture is concerned with the race of Adam and his ultimate heir, who is Christ. As mentioned previously, Christ came at a particular time. In fact, per the research cited by Joshua Swamidass, he was born at the exact time that all of mankind could claim descent from Adam.
Therefore, just as all humanity was descended from Adam by the time of Christ, so all owed their subjection to death to Adam’s fall. Again, this is perfectly possible even if Adam is not the sole progenitor of the human race. To understand all of this more fully, however, it’s time to look at Adam in a bit of a different light. Specifically, we need to understand how he relates to Christ.
The Type of Him Who was to Come
As I described in chapter two, the early church fathers viewed Genesis—indeed, the whole Old Testament—through a Christological lens. They saw Christ reflected in the details of the creation account and drew spiritual lessons from what most today read as simple narration; and while I may not agree with all of their conclusions, I do believe they had the right idea.
In Romans 5:14, the apostle Paul refers to Adam as “a type of Him who was to come.” Here are some ways in which Christ and Adam are alike:
- Both Adam and Christ came into the world through supernatural acts of God, with the result that both are called a son of God, having no human father.
- Both Adam and Christ are “firstborns” of their respective lines.
- Adam was the overseer of the garden God planted in Eden; Christ is the heir of the vineyard planted by the Father (see Isaiah 5 and Matthew 21).
- Adam was condemned to death after tasting the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Christ tasted death for all mankind on the cross, which is sometimes called a “tree” in the New Testament.
- Adam was exiled from the garden to die; Christ was put to death “outside the gate.”
- In Adam, all humans die; in Christ, all may live.
- Adam asserted his will in the Garden of Eden; Christ set aside his will in the Garden of Gethsemane.
- Adam’s bride was taken from his own body by an act of separation; Christ’s bride is joined to him and becomes his body.
- Adam’s side was pierced while he was asleep; Christ’s side was pierced while he was dead, which the Bible often equates with sleep.
- Adam was placed in a special location, set apart from the rest of the world; Christ was placed in God’s chosen land and among his covenant people, who were also distinct from the rest of the world.
If there was indeed a population of humans living outside of the Garden of Eden when Adam was created, we might well wonder why God chose to specially create Adam. Why not just pick someone from among the existing population of humans, just as he chose Enoch, Noah, Abraham, David, Christ’s apostles, and others we might mention, out from larger populations in scripture? If we consider Adam as a type of Christ, a plausible picture emerges.
This leads us to the last passage used to argue that Adam was the first human being: I Corinthians 15:42-49:
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It [the body of man] is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 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 first, but the natural; then the natural. 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 as 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.
In his book, Early Genesis: the Revealed Cosmology, Mark Moore comments on this passage as follows:
The only passage of scripture which says that “Adam was the first man” also gives a context in which he was the first man. He was the first man in the same manner that Christ was the second man. He was the first man in the same context in which Christ was the last. Christ was not the second male human on Earth. Nor was Christ the last male human on Earth. In context, the passage is not saying that Adam was the first male human being ever created, but rather it is saying he was the first man God used in His plan to bring humanity into fellowship and right-standing with Himself. That is, to “make man in Our Own image.”[12]
Scholars have pointed out that the word translated “God” in Genesis 1 is elohim, but in Genesis 2, where Adam is created, it is yahweh elohim, “Lord God,” incorporating his personal name. In Genesis 1, he speaks to man like a disembodied voice but does not appear. By contrast, in Genesis 2, when Adam is created, God is portrayed as being physically present, molding Adam and breathing into him, being intimate and personal with him.
Thus, as already discussed in brief, if an initial population of non-Adamite humans was created in Genesis 1, the text seems to indicate that they knew God in much the same distant, non-personal way that the gentile nations knew him at the time of Christ. Adam, on the other hand, knew him more intimately, and by a covenant name, just as Israel later knew him and enjoyed a special status as his chosen people living in a promised land.
Given the differences between Genesis 1 and 2, and in light of the similarities between Adam and Christ, it is at the very least plausible that Adam was specially created in a world where other humans already existed, and was then placed in a location that was set apart from the rest of the world, where he enjoyed a special intimacy with God, just as Christ was specially born into a world where people already existed, but also in a place that was set apart to God, and where God was personally known. It was Christ’s job to reconcile Jew and gentile to God in himself, just as it may have been Adam’s to unite all of humanity in covenant fellowship with God—bringing the outsiders into covenant—had he kept his place and not broken God’s commandment.
Eve: the Mother of All Living
An objection that is sometimes raised to the two-population scenario has to do with Adam’s statement that his wife, Eve, was the “mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). How could Eve be called the mother of all the living if people outside of Eden were being born to other mothers?
First, it’s important to note that the text has Adam saying this while he and Eve are still in the garden, after God has pronounced his judgments against them, and before they are driven out. At this time, Eve was no one’s mother. Her children are all said to have been born later. So why did Adam say this? It cannot have been meant in an immediate, literal sense.
I think it’s likely that Adam said this because of God’s promise to Eve concerning how her seed would overcome the nechash—the “serpent,” ultimately crushing him. Prior to this, he may have feared that they would both die soon, without offspring. God’s promise here reassured them, letting them know that, in spite of their failure, they would have children who would enjoy God’s favor. This is probably similar to Genesis 17:18, where Abraham says to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!” God had just promised Abraham a son through his wife, Sarah, and went on to tell Abraham that he would establish his covenant with that son, passing over Ishmael, who had been born to Abraham by Sarah’s maid Hagar. In Abraham’s eyes, Ishmael was effectively “dead” to God, a non-entity, one not entitled to a covenant relationship, and this grieved him.
Thus, Adam, in speaking of Eve as the mother of all living even before she had children, was likely speaking of her as the mother of those who would “live” before God in the same way as Isaac, in a restored covenant relationship with him.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the two-population model of human origins is the only old-earth model apart from the Gap Theory that accounts for the scientific data surrounding human origins and still allows for a conservative treatment of the biblical text.[13] There is no need to push Adam and Eve’s creation back nearly a million years in order to accommodate the origin of Neanderthals or any other group that is fully, demonstrably human. Nor do we need to find models that mythologize Genesis or otherwise remove its origins content. The creations of Adam and Eve read like straightforward accounts and are perfectly in line with other biblical miracles.
At the very least, the two-population model is a textually plausible interpretation. Moreover, as I have tried to demonstrate here, I believe it actually helps to more fully unpack the nuances of the Genesis text and enhances the Christological significance of Adam’s role. God initially created a population of humans outside of the garden to be his imagers, exercising dominion over the world, and then later specially created Adam and Eve for the ultimate purpose of bringing about the Messiah through a covenant line.
Even if you find the various textual hints of people outside of the garden unconvincing, however, this does not necessarily mean that there were no such people, or that no such people had ever existed in the past. It simply means that the Bible only concerns itself with the line of Adam, and when it speaks of “man” and “mankind,” it means the line of Adam. As far as the ancients knew, “man” was Adamic man, and just as God did not see fit to teach ancient peoples modern science in the scriptures, he may not have seen fit to provide them with information about races of men that preceded them. Again, the biblical genealogies are concerned with tracing the line of the Abraham, which is the line of Christ, and that line begins with Adam.
As to why God would have created other races of men in the first place, we can only speculate, but scripture informs this speculation to some degree.
As I demonstrated previously, God is continually testing and refining humanity, and he holds conclaves with his heavenly host in earthly matters. It is possible that man was made in various forms in order to demonstrate something to the angels, and perhaps even as an outworking of their own council. In that case, Adam would seem to represent the finished product, the variation of man that God chose to place his stamp of approval on and to appoint over the works of his hands. This may be why, in Genesis 1:27, God says, “Let us make man in our image.” The way this is worded, it almost seems as if God is speaking about man as if he already exists and is about to undergo a status change.
In fact, it may have been God’s intent in creating man to rule over the earth that precipitated the first angelic rebellion. If angels helped to shape the earth and its creatures, and if they were ruling over it at the time, God’s intent to displace them with man might have been a grievous insult to their pride—perhaps even one that was calculated, at least in part, to reveal their true character.
Scripture is filled with incidents of unlikely persons being raised up while others who seemed like better choices were rejected: “the last shall be first and the first last.” As Cain fumed and slew Abel when his sacrifice was rejected in favor of his brother’s, and as the vine-dressers of Isaiah’s parable seized the vineyard for themselves and killed the true heir, perhaps some among the heavenly host rebelled when God gave man dominion over the earth, intent on seizing it for themselves.
Again, this is speculation on my part, but it seems eminently reasonable. Genesis clearly reveals creation as a process; and although it gives us only a summary of the various stages in that process, perhaps each stage went through many variations until, at last, “God saw that it was good.” The history of life’s proliferation and various extinction level events may hint at this. If so, perhaps the creation of man underwent a similar process until God determined to create Adam as the forerunner of the ideal race of man, and as the form in which the blessed Word himself would eventually be incarnate.
Next in this series: Part Sixteen - Was Jesus a Young-Earth Creationist?
[1] Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (Chicago, Il., Moody Press), 1994, p. 212.
[2] Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm, pp. 42-43.
[3] Jubilees 4:1, 9
[4] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 3-1
[5] Their failure to obey this command got them into a great deal of trouble in their history (for examples, see I Kings 11:7-9 and Ezra 10:10-11).
[6] The word “men” in the phrase “daughters of men” is translated from ha-a-dam: “the man.”
[7] Strong’s # H5303. “Feller” as in “to fell.” For instance, “He felled the tree.”
[8] Ibid.
[9] This makes sense if you understand the concept of “cosmic geography” and how it underlies Old Testament thinking, although it’s surprising to see it manifested this early. See Deuteronomy 32:8-9, I Samuel 26:17-19, II Kings 5:15-19. Also, see chapter 15: “Cosmic Geography,” in Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm, and “Michael Heiser – The Divine Council 101,” YouTube video, posted by Sentinel Apologetics, September 27, 2018:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHu9-ubPZ9w.
[10] Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, (Downer’s Grove, Ill, IVP Academic), 2019, pp. 46-64. In keeping with this thought, it’s also worth noting here that Abraham was not the first of his line, although he was the first Jew in that he was the first to enter into the covenant of circumcision.
[11] Ibid, p. 146. Hebrews 11:31 mentions how Rahab the harlot married into the camp of Israel, although this was normally forbidden.
[12] Mark Moore, Early Genesis: the Revealed Cosmology, 5th ed. (The Ridge Enterprise Group, 2019), p. 172. Used by permission. Moore refers to his interpretation as “the Christ-centered Model” of early Genesis, and takes great pains to draw even deeper comparisons to Christ through Adam and the overall work of creation.
[13] The standard Gap Theory has a prohibitive exegetical problem in that the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1 does not support translating verses 1 and 2 as a sequence of events. Instead, they lay out the initial condition of the earth, which God then modifies as described in the verses that follow. For a simple, concise explanation of this, see “The Gap Theory – Is It Biblical?” YouTube video posted by FringePop321, November 26, 2019.
If Genesis 1 is effectively a re-creation story, the only immediate textual hint appears to be God’s command that the earth be “replenished,” but this is extremely tenuous. The Hebrew word translated “replenish” is male’, which most often simply means “to fill” rather than to “re-fill.” This is the same word that is used in Genesis 6:11, where the text says that “the earth was filled with violence.” Does this mean that there was definitely no prior creation and no prior races of men on the earth? No, it simply means that one cannot prove this from the text. As some like to say, “An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
No comments:
Post a Comment