We’re exploring an alternate universe that’s identical to this one except that the first 3 chapters of Genesis have been snipped off the front of the Bible. So far the differences between universes haven’t been very dramatic. Now we move on to specific citations of the Biblical creation narrative, starting with Jesus’s words as recorded in the Gospels.

As far as I can tell, only once does Jesus refer specifically to Genesis 1-3.
Matthew and Mark both describe and encounter in which the Pharisees ask Jesus if it’s lawful for a man to divorce his wife:

And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY [Dt. 24:1,3]." But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE [Gen. 1:27]. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH [Gen. 2:24]; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Mark 10:3-9)

In the first part of the citation, from Genesis 1, Jesus seems to be making a case for gender equality: men shouldn’t be able to act unilaterally in divorcing their wives inasmuch as men and women are equal in God’s creation. If we consider Jesus’s assertion apart from the creation narrative, would we have any trouble with it from a Darwinian perspective? No: ordinarily two species on the same branch of the evolutionary tree diverge from one another gradually, by small increments, rather than because a singe individual, whether male or female, being born markedly different from its parents. Conspecifics can be identified by their ability to reproduce with one another, which of course requires both male and female.

It’s notable that Jesus didn’t cite the Adam and Eve version of the creation, where man precedes woman. Jesus does, however, refer to the aftermath of the creation of Eve, where the Genesis 2 narrator observes that "for this cause" a man shall leave his parents and join himself to his wife. In the original context "for this cause" refers to the idea that man is missing something from himself (i.e., his rib), and that he cannot be complete, or "one flesh" without being (re)joined to woman. Here, however, Jesus conflates the two narratives describing the creation of man, with "for this cause" referring back to the egalitarian version of Genesis 1: because God created humanity as a two-gendered species, the two must come together. This is a biological imperative for any species that reproduces sexually — and Genesis 1 is explicit about the "be fruitful and multiply" capabilities of human males and females.

So, whereas Jesus’s argument depends on the Pharisees’ knowledge of the creation narrative, it doesn’t really depend on the historicity of that narrative.

Again, however, I can’t help but diverge a bit from the trajectory of this post. The thrust of Jesus’s argument isn’t precisely clear to me. Maybe the disciples (as usual) didn’t get it either:

And in the house the disciples began questioning him about this again. And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." (Mark 10:11-12)

Jesus is saying that the Law accepted divorce as a concession to human frailty. Interestingly, the Pharisees and Jesus refer to the Law as something Moses said, rather than as a commandment from God. The passages Jesus cites from Genesis are descriptive rather than imperative; still, he gives them precedence over the Law. I wonder if he’s saying that, apart from hard-heartedness and the Law, humans are naturally monogamous? Or is he acknowledging that the Law of Moses is a culture-specific ethical code that has no universal applicability?

Just to cover all the bases (yet another baseball idiom), twice more Paul cites "the two will become one flesh" from Gen. 2:24. In both I Cor. 6:16 and Eph. 5:31 the immediate context is sexual immorality, but Paul uses the phrase in reference to the believer’s being joined with Christ. The NT idea of mystical union with Christ doesn’t really hinge on this analogy from the creation, so unless someone else has something to say about these two Pauline passages we’ll move on.

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor. 15:21-22)

Here Paul refers to the Fall narrative of Genesis 2-3 and God’s warning to Adam:

but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die. (Gen. 2:17)

From an evolutionary perspective the idea that death entered the world through human disobedience makes no sense. Death plays an important role in evolutionary theory: organisms carrying a gene that offers adaptive advantages survive and reproduce; organisms that lack the adaptive gene die off. The human genome evolved over countless generations of mutations and life-and-death cycles. One could say that, if it wasn’t for the presence of death in the world, the first man would never have come into being.

In the True Myth post we tried to interpret God’s warning to Adam and its fulfillment. Adam ate, but he didn’t die in that day. He and Eve were expelled from the Garden, but according to Gen. 5:3-5 he lived hundreds of years after that. Adam probably wasn’t created immortal, since in Gen. 2:7 God made him from the dust of the ground. Through disobedience Adam was expelled from Yahweh’s Garden and returned to the world at large. He was barred access to the Tree of Life, through which his immortality and that of his progeny would have been assured. In the day he ate the forbidden fruit Adam’s death became inevitable, along with the death of all subsequent human generations. That, at least, was our best literal understanding of the Genesis text.

Suppose we acknowledge that man is naturally a mortal being like any other evolved earthly species. Only through divine intervention can man attain immortality. According to Paul, Christ delivers immortality to man not by preventing his death but by resurrecting him from the dead. From the perspective of modern science such an eventually is a natural impossibility. But Paul presents the resurrection as a supernatural event, with immortality bestowed upon man as a miraculous supplement to nature.

The idea of supplemental immortality is consistent with the rest of 1 Cor. 15. Paul says that human flesh is different from the flesh of other kinds of beasts (v. 39), but at the same time all earthly bodies should be distinguished from heavenly bodies (v. 40). The human earthly body is like a seed from which the imperishable spiritual body "sprouts" in the resurrection (v. 42-44). Christ’s resurrection sets the precedent:

So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Cor. 45)

Here Paul cites Genesis 2:7, where God breathed life into Adam. We noted in the True Myth thread that "living soul" isn’t a term restricted to human life. When God assigns Adam the task of naming all the creature, the writer refers to the creatures as "living souls" (Gen. 2:19). Paul is emphasizing not man’s uniqueness as the only creature with both a body and a soul, but rather his mortal, fleshly similarity to all other beasts.

However, the spiritual is not 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 as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. (1 Cor. 15:46-49)

Paul makes no reference to the Fall or to God’s curse of death; rather, he says that man’s current mortal situation is "natural," the way he was created, like any other earthy creature. To this earthy mortal nature a spiritual immortal "supernature" will be added as a supplement, enveloping the dead body in new life:

For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY." (1 Cor. 15:53-54)

Paul continues his reverie, following his citation from Isaiah with one from Hosea:

"O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. (1 Cor. 15:55-56)

Paul pointedly doesn’t say what we might have expected him to say; namely, that the sting of sin is death, which would imply that human mortality is a consequence of Adam’s sin. Instead he says that the sting of death is sin, gesturing toward a broader theory of sin and salvation that he elaborates elsewhere and that goes beyond the scope of our current investigations. It’s worth noting, however, that in this context of human mortality Paul asserts that the power of sin doesn’t devolve from a depraved human nature inherited from Adam; instead it comes from the (God-given) law.

Those of us with a sci-tech bent can’t help but wonder how the resurrection might "work." After death the human body returns to the dust from which it was made (Gen. 3:19), so resurrection can’t be a "simple" matter of reanimating lifeless but intact flesh. There would need to be a complete reassembly of the body. And what about the individual human self, which in our experience is inseparable from our biology? Certainly reassembling the individual’s unique DNA string would also recreate that person’s unique neurochemistry. However, if the resurrection was achieved through a high-precision DNA sequencer and advanced cloning technology, the specific historical life of the person — the experiences, the memories, the relationships, what he or she became through living a real human life — would be gone. Somehow the traces of the life itself, the specific neural pathways that had been etched in the brain over the course of a uniquely lived life, would have to be stored in some non-biological form until the resurrection. Science fiction has generated thought experiments along these lines, and perhaps over time scientists might be able to reproduce such a perfect neural replica of an individual mind that this sort of "personality resurrection" could eventually become feasible. Maybe God already has access to this highly advanced neural network simulation technology.

Still, there remains the supernatural supplement, the immortal spiritual body in which the resurrected body is enveloped. Without more information regarding the characteristics of this spiritual body it’s difficult to speculate much further (LOL).

It’s not necessary to assert that Adam was the very first human being on earth for Paul’s extended comparison between Adam and Jesus in Romans 5 to make sense. As I mentioned with respect to the genealogy in Luke 3, Adam could be the first "son of God" in the sense that he was the first man to whom Yahweh made himself known.

However, if there were other men, even other nations, to whom Yahweh did not make himself known, then what happens to the idea of original sin, whereby through Adam’s sin all human beings somehow inherit a corruption of their nature, whereby they are born with either a tendency to sin or an intrinsically sinful nature? If Adam’s sinfulness passes through to only one nation or group of nations, doesn’t that constitute a kind of racism on the part of Yahweh?

We can almost work our way out of this conundrum First, we should observe that nothing in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve suggests that Adam’s sin somehow infected all of his descendants. They were banned from the Garden and its Tree of Life, which would have granted them immortality, but in the Genesis creation narratives mortality is the natural human condition. In 1 Cor. 15 Paul goes so far as to say that the natural, mortal human body has a kind of "glory" to it.

Nothing in God’s curses on Adam and Eve suggest that he’ll cause them or their progeny to be more prone to sin than would naturally be the case. In the very next chapter Yahweh poses this question to Cain: "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up?" or perhaps "will you not be accepted?" (Gen. 4:7) By this question isn’t Yahweh saying that it’s possible for Cain, son of Adam, to do well? To the best of my knowledge, nowhere else in the OT is there any suggestion that Adam’s sin was passed on to his descendants. Jewish theology has no concept of original sin. I’m not sure to what extent the early Christians believed in original sin. Augustine formulated the doctrine of original sin that came to dominate Christian thought from the Middle Ages on. The Protestant reformers also subscribed to Augustine’s formulation. What about in the New Testament? Again as far as I can tell, this passage in Romans 5 is the only NT text to suggest the idea that Adam’s original sin caused the sinfulness of his descendants. So if we can talk ourselves into an alternative reading here, we might be able to get rid of the doctrine altogether.

So how would we interpret Romans 5:12-21 as if Adam was not the first genetically human on earth but rather the first man to whom God made his presence known? All the references to the many dying through Adam’s sin we’ve already accounted for. But what about this: the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation (v. 16) — the implication is that through Adam’s transgression all his descendants too were condemned. If we interpret this as meaning they were condemned to death we’re still okay. This interpretation fits with the continuation of Paul’s thought in the next verse: For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one…(v. 17). In other words, the one transgression led to the descendants being condemned to mortality.

But now we get to the one verse that’s hard to avoid:

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many were made righteous (v. 19).

That sure sounds like original sin to me. If anybody has an interpretation of verse 19 that doesn’t turn into original sin, I hope you’ll run it by us even if you haven’t worked all the bugs out yet. Otherwise, to be continued…

This thought experiment seems less like an exhilerating ride down a slippery slope and more like a lonely trudge up a hill. We slog on toward the bottom (or the top):

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:19-23)

We could disregard the Genesis creation narratives and this passage would still make sense. However, Paul indirectly alludes to Genesis 3, so it must be considered. First, the "corruption" of the creation — is it an unnatural condition resulting from God’s cursing the ground in Gen. 3:17-19, causing thorns and thistles to grow, making it difficult for Adam to scratch out a living? From a Darwinian perspective it’s preposterous to suppose that no weeds grew on the earth until after man first sinned.

In what other way might the creation be subject to the "slavery of corruption", other than through some sort of deterioration of nature itself? Does the text support the interpretation that man rather than God caused the corruption? I think so. Leading up to this passage Paul addresses the twofold fragility of the human condition: the immorality of the flesh and the morality of the body. The flesh, as we discussed in Romans 5, isn’t a biological transformation of human nature passed down biologically through successive generations, but rather an misalignment between human nature and law from which the desire to violate law emerges. The flesh dies with Christ on the cross, through which those who are justified also die to the Law. The natural physical body, on the other hand, is buried like a seed that sprouts forth in the glorified spiritual body of the resurrection.

Analogously, Paul speaks of both the corruption and the futility of the creation. The former is associated with immorality, the latter with mortality. Perhaps the interaction of man with nature is intrinsically corrupting. Plants don’t become weeds until they get in the way of human farmers. The natural plant isn’t corrupted in its nature, but in its relationship with man. And of course man does corrupt nature even without evil intent, as a byproduct of being fruitful and multiplying and subduing the earth. In the eschaton, the corruption of nature that spontaneously results from the distinctly and naturally human way of living will come to an end, and the natural "mortality" of nature will be overcome when the present creation "gives birth" to a new creation. It’s a painful delivery, sort of like the dying of the mortal human body, but Paul says it will be glorious.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

If human nature was corrupted by original sin, then the human ability to discern God’s hand in the creation might be compromised. If the creation too has become corrupted as a result of man’s sin, then nature itself presents a distorted reflection of what God is like. Christianity has historically posited both forms of corruption, based on Paul’s allusions to the Fall of Genesis 3. We’ve just looked at both these purported corruptions: of human nature in Romans 5, and of the creation in Romans 8. By assuming the truth of evolution we forced ourselves to imagine other ways of interpreting Paul’s words that didn’t force the reader to embrace scientifically implausible beliefs. I personally think these alternative explanations make sense scientifically without distorting the literal meaning of the book of Romans or violating the essence of Christian theology.

We can put the two revised interpretations of corruption together in Romans 1. Man’s nature isn’t corrupted: there’s an incompatibility between man and law from which corruption inevitably emerges. Nature itself isn’t corrupted: there’s an incompatibility between man and nature from which corruption inevitably emerges. If we as natural human beings can manage to see beyond the uses to which we put nature in order to regard it for what it is in itself, Paul says that we should be able to learn something about God.

If, in keeping with the trajectory established in this thread, we presume that the heavens and earth came into being roughly the way contemporary science says it did, what can be inferred about "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature"? That He is a God not of conscious design and planned production and dramatically supernatural spectacles but of spontaneous mutation and chance, of incremental evolution and natural selection? That whatever emerges from such processes God regards as "good"? Are we "without excuse" if we don’t see this sort of God revealed through the creation?

The writer of Hebrews says that the Jews wandered forty years before they entered into Israel because of their unbelief (3:19). We’re reminded of Moses, laying down the Law in the wilderness of Sinai, thinking ahead to the time when at last the wanderers will cross the Jordan into the land of promise:

You shall not do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing what is right in his own eyes; for you have not as yet come to the resting place and the inheritance which Yahweh your God is giving you, when you cross the Jordan and live in the land which Yahweh your God is giving you to inherit, and He gives you rest from all your enemies around you so that you live in security. (Deut. 12:8-10).

Hebrews 4 begins with a promise embedded in a warning: don’t fall short like the Sinai wanderers, because a promised entry into God’s rest remains open to you. This promise is like the Sinai promise of old, but it harkens even farther back than that:

For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS" (Hebrews 4:4)

"Somewhere" is, of course, Genesis 2:2. Why go back so far? Because it wasn’t just a rest promised by God: it was the rest of God. God did the work of creation during a delineated temporal interval, at the end of which his work was finished and he rested. In a Darwinian world the creation is never finished: evolutionary processes of mutation and natural selection continue unabated. Would an evolutionary perspective render meaningless the reference to God’s rest in Hebrews 4?

I don’t believe so. The writer isn’t talking so much about the specific seventh day, but rather the idea of God’s rest. God rests in the Creation narratives, but he also rests in David’s time. Twice the writer of Hebrews cites the warning of Psalm 95:

Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts;… "I swore in My wrath, they shall not enter my rest."

This rest of God isn’t in the past, on the seventh day of Creation; it’s in the future. The promise, on the other hand, is for today. There was a "today" in the Creation and a "today" when the Psalmist wrote; now, says the writer of Hebrews, another "today" is opened. And the rest of God didn’t happen only on the seventh day of the Creation, or even when Joshua led the Jews into Israel.

For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. There remains, therefore, a Sabbath rest for the people of God. (Hebrews 4:8-9)

Did this Sabbath rest come to pass sometime shortly after the book of Hebrews was written, or is still to come? Was the "today" a time-limited opportunity, or is it always "today"? These are questions worth pursuing, but within the limited scope of our project we can reliably assert that the author of Hebrews’ idea of the "Sabbath rest" doesn’t depend on the historicity of the Genesis 1 creation narrative.

* * *

To my knowledge, we have now looked at all the New Testament passages that allude specifically to Genesis 1-3. That means we can now "rest" from this extended series of exegetical exercises. Once I recover from the exhilerating (or tedious) ride down the slippery slope, I may be able to make a few final observations.