Saturday, February 25, 2017

Questions in Genesis: On Theistic Evolution and the Genesis Accounts

Questions in Genesis:
On Theistic Evolution and the Genesis Accounts

            There is no room in the Genesis creation narratives for the coming into being of the earth and all the creatures in it through an evolutionistic process devoid of God.  “In the beginning God,” simply precludes the notion that Genesis could present the world coming into being apart from the activity of God.  Yet, the text certainly could be read in a manner that supports a theistic evolutionary model.  The wording used in the creation account of Genesis 1 could be read from a theistic evolutionist perspective without engaging in exegesis anymore fanciful than that of the Young Earth position. 

            This reading works with the plants, the animals, and humans.  In Genesis 1:11, God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth."  After God says this, we read in verse 12 that the “earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”  In this account God speaks and the earth then brings forth the plants.  The activity of God is seen in his saying that these plants and trees should come into being and then seeing that the finished product was good.  The means by which this plant life came into being from the text is a work of the earth.  Therefore, one could read this as god speaking the divine plan for plant life and then evolution producing the result at which point God looks at this product and declares it to be good.

            This method of creation is repeated in 1:24-25, “And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds - livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.  And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”  Again, God called for an inanimate object (the earth) to produce animate creatures.  This is how God created the land animals.  The creation of the sea creatures and flying birds appears to be different.  Although the waters are told to swarm with living creatures, the birds lack such a starting point and are simply made.  Yet, such could be taken as an outlier and that the reader should assume that God used similar methods. 

THE PROBLEM OF HUMANITY

            The Genesis 1 creation account lacks any specificity regarding the origin of humanity.  However, the creation account in Genesis 2 could give some difficulty to the evolutionist position on the origin of humanity.  The creation of humanity is given in some detail that, at face value, appears to preclude the idea that humanity came from another creature.  Genesis 2:7 states, “then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”  This statement presents the origin of humanity as dirt. 


            It could be possible to interpret this “dirt” that God formed humanity out of to involve the creatures that God commands the earth to bring forth.  But that would require reading one creation account into the other creation account.  This may well be a valid practice, but requires one to hold to a unity of these accounts that supercedes the minor difference between these accounts.  This reading would also run afoul of a strong Patristic consensus that viewed the creation of humanity as a unique event in creation that explains the very nature of what is means to be human and sets the theological foundation from salvation is viewed.  I am not saying that it is impossible to account for the text of Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers while explaining how humanity evolved from creatures.  I am saying that it is exceptionally problematic.  All this to say that I can see how a theistic evolutionary reading of the Genesis accounts could easily correspond with text and tradition until one arrives at humanity.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Questions in Genesis: Death Part: 3 Patristic Consensus, Eschatology, and the Goal of Creation


Death Part 3: Patristic Consensus, Eschatology, and the Goal of Creation

            As far as I can tell, there is no patristic consensus on the subject of death prior to Adam’s sin.[1]  The lack of consensus does not mean that the Fathers did not make substantial arguments for or against the existence of death before the fall.  Basil the Great presented the idea that animals were originally created mortal and belonged to a different realm than humans.  Therefore, death among animals was divinely intended in creation prior to Adam’s sin.

            Irenaeus took the position that animals were originally created to all be vegetarians and that the new heavens and the new earth will simply be a return to this original creation.[2]  Irenaeus’ argument is supported by the eschatological passages, particularly in Isaiah, which present a world in which prey and predator live peacefully and consume plants (Isaiah 11:26 and 65:25).  Augustine hinted that the clearly carnivorous creature would have been content to eat fruit fed them by mankind if mankind had not sinned.  It should be noted that both Augustine and Irenaeus make mention of other Christian interpreters who understood these passages to have allegorical meanings as the intended meanings.  They did not refute the allegorical interpretations while asserting that simultaneously the literal reading of the text should be understood as factual.

            With important Fathers[3] in disagreement on this point, I view this as a point that we can fairly disagree about.  Therefore, despite my deepest respect for Irenaeus and Augustine, I think that Basil’s understanding on this topic is a better view.  Basil’s position makes more sense because of the points I made in the first two posts on this topic and because I find the eschatological position behind Irenaeus’ position to be lacking.  Implicitly behind Irenaeus’ view of animal death and predation before the fall is that the eschatological expectation is a return to the pre-fall Edenic state.  I am convinced that the eschatological expectation is a state greater than Eden.  I find the view of St. Symeon the New Theologian quite helpful on the eschatological goal of creation.
           
            St. Symeon the New Theologian understood that humanity was created for the purpose of becoming spiritual beings.  He even commented that had Adam and Eve not sinned, that there would have been no death (understood as physical death) and mankind would have been immortal.  There would then have been a great multitude of people who would have become transformed into spiritual beings and through their virtues would have also transformed the world.[4]  However, the sin of Adam brought both physical and spiritual death to humanity.  Yet, despite the sin of Adam, Symeon understood that the example of Enoch and Elijah demonstrate that God would spare righteous men the pain of death if they chose to follow Him.  This reveals that death (both spiritual and physical) is a choice that every human makes in their own life.

            Symeon viewed the eschatological goal of humanity to be the same as God’s original goal- the transformation of the human into a spiritual being in communion with the Creator.  The new creation of the entire world is more than simply a return to the original state of creation, but the consummation of the goal that God had in mind for the original creation.
           
            With this eschatological goal in mind, there is no pressing need to posit that the vegetarianism of predators in the eschaton (if such passages are meant to be interpreted literally) requires that such was the case in Eden.  Rather, it could point us to the goal of peace and order God ordained that his creation should become.  This goal is of course even better than that which was originally created.  Besides, I am quite convinced that the New Heavens and the New Earth will have many other things which will be quite distinctly different from those encountered in this present age and earth!




[1] I have not made a thorough study of this topic. If you want a thorough study of this topic, feel free to write the dissertation on this issue.  I promise that I will read it when you send me the pdf.
[2] Adversus Haereses 5.33.
[3] This is especially the case when there are very estimable Fathers such as Irenaeus and Basil in disagreement on a minor point.
[4] Saint Symeon the New Theologian, First Ethical Discourse.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Questions in Genesis: On Death Before The Fall, Part 2

On Death Before the Fall, Part 2

            I prefer the answer that this design of predation and the cessation of life was part of the original plan as it makes more sense of how the Bible speaks about death and how we see the world actually functioning.  Indeed, if death did not exist before the fall, it would seem rather inappropriate for God to warn Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he would die.  This statement by God assumes that Adam knew what death was and that it was something he knew that should be avoided.  Further, the idea that the “death” Adam and Eve experienced was a physical event not only ran into the problems previously mentioned in Genesis, but these same problems are compounded by St. Paul in his letter to the church in Rome.  Below is a rather long quote so that the context of his statements can be slightly more evident.
           
 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned- 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.  14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.  15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.  16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.  17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.  18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” (Romans 5:12-18, English Standard Version)

            For our purposes, the contrast in verses 17 and 18 are terribly important.  The trespass of Adam brought death, but the free gift through Jesus brings life.  What is the life that Jesus brings to all humanity?  It is certainly not a physical immortality.  Or else, the followers of Jesus would be clearly evident by the fact that they just do not die as every other human being.  Therefore, the life which Jesus brings is not a matter of physical life (at least at this time).  If this life which Jesus brings to solve the problem of death started by Adam, it would appear that St. Paul certainly understood the death of Adam speaks primarily to the spiritual state of humanity before God. 

            From a larger biblical perspective there is also a clear connection made between spiritual death and physical death.  Once Adam and Eve were expunged from the Garden, God separated them from the Tree of life lest they eat of it and live forever (Genesis 3:22-24).  And so the genealogies in Genesis repeat the theme of death as nearly everyone in the list died.  So also St. Paul picks up on the same theme by noting that death reigned from Adam to Moses.  Yet, we also see in this statement that St. Paul is not speaking of physical death alone, or else he could have extended death until Jesus not stopping at Moses.  By stopping at Moses we have a clear hint that spiritual death is what Paul means when he speaks of death here.


            This lengthy excursus into Romans does help to clarify the idea that the death which appeared in the sin of Adam is primarily a spiritual death.    Since this death is primarily a spiritual death, then it frees one from the difficulty of postulating how creatures who appear to be highly efficient killers came to be highly efficient killers instead of vegetarians trying to adapt to a world in which meat/carrion is now a food source.  Indeed, it allows one to wonder at the creative work of God who designed the (now) largest mammals to swim through the water and filter living creatures out of the water.  

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Questions in Genesis: Death before the Fall

On Death before the Fall

            One of the theological reasons Young Earth Creationists hold to a young earth is because of death.  The logic of this position goes as follows: before Adam and Eve sinned, there was no death; therefore, any position that holds to ages and death occurring prior to the sin of Adam fails to understand the consequence of sin as presented in the biblical text.  This is an erroneous position for several reasons the foremost of which is that there is an implicit understanding that when God created the world and called it very good what God meant was that the world was created perfect.  The world could not have been created perfect, or else perfect means capable of breaking itself.  However very good implies that things were made the way that they were supposed to turn out and that things are operating as they should.  This is not perfection.  This is very good.

            The assertion that there could not be death and suffering before Adam and Eve ate from the tree is awkward on several different levels.  First, it operates as though the death God spoke of was physical death.  This either a) makes God a liar because on the day they ate of it they did not physically die or b) means that “day” refers to all the years that Adam and Eve lived after they ate of the fruit.  Neither one of these are good options for a Young Earth Creationist perspective.  Second, it makes God seem absurd since He threaten Adam with a punishment that Adam could not understand.  However, if Adam had seen other creatures die, the threat of death would be a real and comprehensible threat.

            Allow me to suggest that “death” is not speaking of a physical but a spiritual reality; a reality of being separated from God.  This happened when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Physical death appears to be the consequence of being separated from the tree of life, which is why we are told that a cherubim with a flaming sword guards the entrance to keep Adam and Eve from eating of the Tree of Life.  This then should cause one to question “Why, if Adam and Eve were made perfect and there was no death, was there a tree of life in the middle of the garden?”  Perhaps it would be better to understand that Adam and Eve were not created immortal but that immortality was conditional on their continued access to the Tree of Life which is also then seen to be conditional on keeping God’s commands not to eat from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 

            This then gets to the heart of a very important matter.  Since the death which Adam was warned about is a spiritual state, then it is right to affirm that there was no death anywhere in creation prior to Adam and Eve’s disobedience?  What of plants?  What of microbes?  What of viruses?  What of insects?  Imagine a world in which plants never died and bacteria never died.  You are now in a world that is very different from the world we are in now.  This then profoundly undermines the Intelligent Design argument for observing the order and function in the created order as proof of a divine/intelligent creator.  Because the world was not created in the way we can observe it.  Pause for a moment and consider how much of life requires at its most fundamental level the death of other creatures.

Example 1:
            Baleen Whales are perhaps one of the most destructive creatures on our planet.  In their lifetimes they kill untold millions/billions of living sea creatures which we collectively lump into the term “krill.”  Indeed, even a young earth creationist will argue that they were perfectly created to eat krill.  Yet, krill are living creatures.  And so, for the baleen whales, who from a human perspective are peaceful creatures, their life requires billions of living creatures to die.

Example 2:
            Imagine a world where the creatures upon which nearly all other creatures prey would breed without predation.  Grasshoppers would eat every plant upon the face of the earth given enough time.  That is unless the mice and rats got there first.  (And one can only shudder at the thought of immortal mosquitoes…)  If this were the case, then it is a very good thing that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and brought predation into the world or the plant life would not have sustained such continuous and exponentially growing predation.  This would certainly have destroyed life as we know it on the planet.

            From this order of life requiring the cessation of life in other entities, we can arrive at the conclusion that either: A) God created a world in which entities would cease to exist for the sake of other creatures to live and this by design, B) God recreated the natural order after the sin of Adam and Eve (and there is no textual support for this assertion beyond the function of thorns and thistles), or C) With the introduction of death, creature evolved in profound ways (from not requiring the cessation of life in another life form to exist to fully requiring the cessation of other life forms to exist at all) into the relationships we now see.

            From a creationist perspective, the concept that creatures would evolve in such ways so as to adapt new physiological features to consume new types of food that they were not created to consume is irreconcilable.  Likewise, from a biblical perspective, the idea that God reworked creatures to now consume other creatures is without any biblical support whatsoever (let alone fossil records).


             This leads us to an even bigger problem.  If animals did not die before the fall, then we cannot argue for intelligent design from our observation of the world around us.  If God did not order the world so that animals would die, then one cannot look at the world where the death of creatures is seen to be fundamental to the continuance of life and affirm that God designed it.  Rather, we would see death in creation and recoil in how utterly wrong these creature are in their very function and design that they live off of the death of other creatures.