The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of Elohim went to the daughters of Adam and had children by them. They were the gibbor of old, enosh of renown. (translation altered)
In this passage, then, there are the sons of Elohim, the daughters of Adam, and their hybrid offspring. There are three additional terms of uncertain reference in the passage: Nephilim, gibbor (NIV: “heroes”), and enosh (“men”). The Nephilim are usually thought to reference the mixed offspring. We see Nephilim again arise, after the flood, in Numbers 13:33. The grammar is ambiguous in the final part of the verse; it is unclear to whom the “men of old” and the “men of renown” are referring.
The mystery of the Nephilim is part of the Genesis tradition, encouraging speculation for thousands of years. The passage is commonly understood to be describing interbreeding between two groups. The four most common views are that this passage refers to interbreeding between (1) fallen angels with Adam’s lineage, (2) fallen angels possessing human men interbreeding with human women, (3) the godly lineage of Seth interbreeding with Cain’s fallen lineage, or (4) some other godly lineage of men interbreeding with a fallen lineage of men.21 Dated before 100 BC and taking the first view, the Book of Enoch speculates that the Nephilim of Genesis 6:1-4 are angels that bred with Adam’s descendants.22 These angels interbred with Adam’s line, producing hybrid offspring.23
The meaning of Nephilim cannot be understood with confidence. I, nonetheless, will join the Genesis tradition by speculating alongside ancient readers. Perhaps the daughters of adam (from Gen 2) began to intermix with those created earlier, the sons of Elohim (from Gen 1). The author, then, would be discussing ancient interbreeding between Adam’s lineage and another long-lost lineage.24 This interpretation is speculative. It is, also, less fantastic, raising fewer theological questions, than many ancient readings of Genesis.
TEXTUAL OBJECTIONS NOT DEFINITIVE
There are several texts in Scripture put forward to demonstrate that there are no people outside the Garden. None of these texts are definitive demonstrations against people outside the Garden.
Some understand Genesis to describe several “firsts,” and each of these is evidence that there were no other people in the world. Adam was the first man, Eve was the first woman, they were the first farmers, Cain built the first city, and his descendants were the first metal workers. None of these events, however, are actually described as “firsts.” The claims of being first is not directly substantiated by any words in the text of Scripture itself. They are merely inferred. If we must make these inferences, they are accommodated within the periscope of Scripture, which only speaks of textual humans. In this periscope, Adam and Eve, for example, are the first biological humans, and Cain’s city is the first city.
Some object that the genealogies of Jesus demonstrate there were no people outside the Garden. These genealogies might be used to argue that Adam and Eve were a real people in a real past. They do not, however, tell us that Adam and Eve’s lineage never interbred with others. They, obviously, record only part of Jesus’ ancestry, and cannot possibly list all of his ancestors. It is obvious, for example, that most of the women and children are unstated in these genealogies. Scripture does not identify most of the women, nor tell us where they came from, nor where most of the children went.
Some object that Jesus states “at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’” in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6, which demonstrates, they argue, that the creation of Adam and Eve occurs at the beginning. To which beginning is Jesus referring? The beginning of which story? This cannot be a reference to the absolute beginning of all things in Genesis 1:1. At the beginning of all the people outside the Garden, they are made “male and female.” At the beginning of textual humans, Adam and Eve are made male and female too. Through either periscope, that of the people outside the Garden or that of Adam and Eve, God made them male and female.
Some object that Genesis 2:5 and 2:22 tells us there was “no one to work the ground” and that Adam did not find anyone suitable to be his wife. Does this tell us there were no biological humans anywhere across the globe? Genesis 2 is narrated through the periscope of a defined area where the Garden is planted by God (Gen 2:8-15); it is not speaking about the whole globe, just this area. With this in mind, perhaps the text teaches that there are no people near the adamah of the Garden, without saying anything about antipodeans in Australia.25 In parallel with this line of reasoning, perhaps the text means there was no one suitable to join God in the Garden, even though there were biological humans around. The same reasoning applies to the difficulty in finding a mate for Adam. There might have been women across the globe, but perhaps no suitable woman for Adam in the Garden. An archetypal or typological layer to the Genesis 2 narrative, also, would explain why the narrative is told in a manner that suggests their solitary uniqueness. In a typological echo of the deeper past, Adam and Eve’s story might resonate with the history of the people outside the Garden too. In this way, Genesis 2 could be typologically teaching the uniqueness of biological humans in all creation, even as it describes a single historical couple within a larger population.
Some point to Acts 17:26, where Paul teaches that “from one” God made all the “nations” (not biological humans). Though sometimes rendered “one blood” or “one man,” it is just “one” in Greek. The argument goes, “from one” means that we all arise from a single couple, without any interbreeding with others, even though a couple is not “one” person. If sole progenitorship is connected to descent, however, it is indistinguishable from the doctrine of monogenesis. Using the same phrase, all of Israel comes from “one” man, Abraham (Heb 11:12), but the same passage notes his lineage interbreeds with others (Heb 11:31).26 The same could be true of how “one” Adam gives rise to all of humanity to “the ends of the earth.”
Some point to Romans 5:12-14, where Paul teaches that death comes to all humankind through Adam’s sin. The people outside the Garden would be subject to death long before Adam’s sin. Scripture, however, is bound to Adam, Eve, and their descendants, not speaking about others. Through this periscope, there is no death, physical or spiritual, in the humankind of Scripture until the Fall, just as Scripture teaches.
None of these texts, therefore, are definitive evidence against people outside the Garden. Scripture does not tell us for sure. In our “backward-looking” view of the narrative, even before science, we do not know for sure. The traditional account includes this mystery within it, and foreclosing this mystery presses other concerns on the text.
THE AUTHORIAL INTENT TO UNIVERSALIZE
Synthesizing these textual objections together, some object that Genesis 1–11 is most likely intended to universalize the narrative of Scripture to all humankind.27 This explains why, for example, Genesis does not start with the story of Abraham’s calling, but with the story of Adam. Undermining this objection, however, there are at least five ways that the Genesis narrative is, in fact, universalized, even if there are people outside the Garden.
1. If we use the textual definition of human, Adam and Eve actually are the ancestors of every human in all history by definition. Both temporally and geographically, Genesis 1–11 does universalize the story in this periscope.
2. With universal descent in mind, Genesis 1 still geographically universalizes the narrative among biological humans in AD 1 by way of descent from Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve are farther back in time, their descendants might also be geographically universalized by the time of Abraham or Moses too.
3. When Genesis is first written down, moreover, Adam and Eve were already in the past. Within the narrative, descent from Adam and Eve would still universalize the story to all the people in the Middle East by Genesis 11.
4. Scripture is largely silent about the people outside the Garden, but not necessarily totally silent. Some readings of Genesis 1 universalize the account by including the people with Adam and Eve in the Garden in Genes
is 1:26-27, anachronistically and inclusively calling them adam.
5. Perhaps Adam and Eve are created for the purpose of altering the destiny of everyone outside the Garden. Then, independent of descent from them, the story is universalized to include the people outside the Garden too.
The Genesis narrative, even with people outside the Garden, still does universalize the story of Scripture in as many as these five ways. For this objection to be valid, therefore, the authors must intend universality that is not noted here. This seems to be a very difficult case to make.
There may be other factors motivating objections, beyond the authorial intent of Scripture.
■ This objection may be pressing a modern scientific definition of human into the narrative where it cannot rightly be found. How could the authors intend to universalize the Genesis account to people in antiquity that they did not know existed?
■ This objection, also, might be motivated by a structuralist desire to maintain sharp metaphysical definitions of human. A sharp and bright line between human and nonhuman is desirable and certainly observable in the present. We should not, however, expect such stable clarity in the origin story that explains how it became this way.
■ This objection, also, might be motivated by an effort to maintain an essentialist definition of human, based on qualities intrinsic to us as individuals. In contrast, the textual human does not affirm a biological distinction between Adam and Eve’s lineage and the people outside the Garden. Instead, it makes a distinction based on a relationship, whether or not Scripture refers to an individual. A relational distinction that does not entail a difference in substance, nonetheless, is a valid distinction.
These are not textual objections, per se, nor are they related to authorial intent. They are, rather, motivations and explanations of why some might still object to people outside the Garden, even if their existence is not in conflict with Scripture nor outside authorial intent. Perhaps these reasons are valid. Either way, they are not linked to the larger and more significant question of authorial intent.
THE MYSTERY OUTSIDE THE GARDEN
This definition reconciles two conflicted understandings of Adam and Eve. Readers for centuries have inferred people outside the Garden. However, universal descent from Adam and Eve is implicated in Paul’s teaching and the monogenesis tradition of the Church. The conflict is resolved with a temporal distinction. Adam and Eve start out in a larger population but become ancestors of everyone.
Returning to the ancient mystery, who were the people outside the Garden? Scripture and traditional theology do not tell us much. There are a few weak inferences that might be made from Scripture alone, before considering science:
■ They might be in the image of God, or not, and this inference may be strengthened by particular readings of Genesis 1 and 2.
■ They might be subject to physical death, because the tree of life is not outside the Garden (Gen 3).
■ They were reproductively compatible with Adam and Eve’s lineage (Cain’s wife), though interbreeding may have been forbidden at times (Nephilim).
■ They might also have had a sense of right and wrong (Rom 2:15).
These weak inferences into the mystery come exclusively from Scripture. Adding in evolutionary science, we know the people outside the Garden were fully human in important ways. They are a new category of fully human people, long since extinct. For this reason, Scripture has no need to tell us about them; they are not textual humans. Historical theology has not contemplated them deeply, though speculation abounds. The invitation, now, is to learn of their story from science, and work out in theology who they could have been.
The story of Scripture is not their story, but they are part of a mysterious backstory. The mystery grants flexibility. Whatever we posit about the people outside the Garden, it will not be in conflict with Scripture or traditional theology, which is largely silent about them. From here, I don’t see problems, but I do see puzzles and questions.
■ How do we define human? By what definitions are those outside the Garden human, and in what ways are they different than us?
■ Do the people outside the Garden have human worth and dignity? Were they in the image of God? Did they have an eternal destiny? They physically died, but did they spiritually die? Did they have need for a Savior? Did they sin or do wrong? Where they affected by Adam’s sin?
■ What was different about Adam’s sin? What made his wrongdoing so consequential? What is the nature of the Fall and how did it affect all of humankind?
■ What is the theological importance of genealogical descent? Most of our ancestors leave us no DNA, so how could it be important for a doctrine like original sin?
■ How were the people outside the Garden created? By evolutionary processes or some other way? Why would God have created everyone outside the Garden one way, and then create Adam and Eve later in another way?
Resist hasty objections. Some object that the people outside the Garden are not in the image of God. They, therefore, do not have human worth and dignity. “Humans” are breeding with “subhuman” animals. Yuck!
Far too hasty. Nothing forces us down this path. Nothing here entails those distasteful conclusions. The people outside the Garden are fully biologically human. Maybe they are in the image of God too. Maybe they do have worth and dignity, and maybe they are not subhuman. They just might be an extinct category of human, unlike anyone in the world today. Answers to these questions are tightly linked and have to be considered as a whole. For example, if those outside the Garden are not in the image of God, by some definitions, this does not entail that they have no worth and dignity. It would depend on what we mean by the image of God and how we understand the people outside the Garden. Objections that apply to one theological model will not apply to another. For this reason, resist hasty objections.
I am certain these questions can be answered in sensible ways, especially as we recover the deeper traditions of the Church on questions like death outside the Garden and the nature of the Fall. Which set of answers might make most sense? Let us slow down, think well, and listen carefully to one another. Enter the mystery.
CHAPTER TWELVE
THE SPLINTERING OF TRADITIONS
THE CHALLENGE OF EVOLUTION splintered the traditional account by pressing three false dilemmas: Monogenesis or a recent Adam and Eve? Common descent or de novo creation? Mythology or historicity? These dilemmas splintered the traditional account into several mutually exclusive responses, fracturing the ecclesial conversation.
We are entering an ancient conversation. It seemed that science pressed harder and harder on theological claims. Steadily, theological claim after claim was ceded. Some resisted this pressure by saying no to mainstream science, in one way or another. Others adapted their theology, ceding territory where they could. The exchange has been largely one-sided, with theology adapting over and over again to science. The theologian Tom McCall speaks for many when he writes,
Much of this discussion has proceeded along the lines of ‘scientific claims pressing in on traditional theology,’ but it is also important to consider how biblically-grounded claims to revealed truth might ‘press in’ on scientifically informed claims.1
In the last two parts of this book, empathetic and rigorous engagement with theological questions “pressed in” on science. There are questions that arise in theology. Taking these questions seriously, we were able to mark out the certainty, limits, and meaning of scientific findings. Territory once ceded to science is now returned to theology. This creates new space for “real theological reflection, development, and genuine intellectual progress.”2
This new territory is important because it opens an opportunity to recover the traditional account, rebinding many splintered traditions together. In this way, a better ecclesial conversation is possible, where different traditions in the Church need not be pitted against one another. I use “ecclesial” here to mean the Church as a whole, not any specific denominational c
orner.
Traditional is a commonly abused word, often used to narrow options. I was raised by young-earth creationists and thought this interpretation of Genesis was the traditional account. I was surprised to find very different literal interpretations of Genesis in history.3 As I left young-earth creationism, I moved to a more traditional understanding of Genesis, placing the emphasis on Jesus instead of Adam, growing more engaged with conversation in historical theology. In recovering the traditional account, I mean to recover certain details about Adam and Eve, but not as a veneer of young earth creationism. I also mean to recover the deeper traditions of infallibility, tolerance, and mystery. The diversity of traditions in the Church are its strength. The Lausanne Covenant states it rightly:
For God’s revelation in Christ and in Scripture is unchangeable. Through it the Holy Spirit still speaks today. He illumines the minds of God’s people in every culture to perceive its truth freshly through their own eyes and thus discloses to the whole Church ever more of the many-colored wisdom of God.4
The recovery of the traditional account is a recovery of many different traditions together, back into a common conversation, where many-colored wisdom might arise.
1. I mean traditional in a particular way, with an eye to infallibility, tolerance, and mystery.
2. With three dilemmas, evolution fractured a common narrative of origins into mutually exclusive accounts.
The Genealogical Adam and Eve Page 16
