Bible Question: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? Or did God create other people around the world also? |
Bible Answer: The meaning of Adam and Eve. A consensus seems to be expressed about the literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. As a Christian who believes the Bible is God's inspired word, I would like to present another interpretation. There are, in fact, many Bible-believing Christians who interpret these chapters differently. I find that the opening chapters of Genesis contain a mythic language that suggests we are not to interpret these texts within the "scientific/rationalistic" mode. The language moves away from mythic writing, and into much more concrete history, with the story of Abram and Sarai. It is easy to get hung up on questions of "who married who" etc, and get distracted from the real meaning of the passage. The God-given story of Adam and Eve tells us essential things about what it means to be human. That's why Adam's name isn't a proper name, but a generic term meaning "man." It tells us, for instance, that all humans are of one family, from all races cultures. It tells us that men and women are made in God's image. It tells us about how God intended intimacy between humanity and God, but we chose rebellion instead. It tells us about the relationship between men and women, and the communal character of being human. The expulsion from the garden speaks to our sense of loss and alienation in the world -- and also about the discipline of work and toil. There are so many profound themes wrapped into these short chapters. We don't need to know what literally or scientically happened, to embrace this Word as foundationally true. Focusing on difficulties in literal interpretation prevents us from getting to the substantive meat that can feed our souls. I would suggest that there is a danger in using a literal lense on these passages of scripture. If we claim mythic passages as literal, we lose credibility when we claim other difficult passages are literal. The language of the resurrection accounts, for instance, talk about witnesses and proofs, specific places and times. It is clear that the gospel writers and early Christians believed the resurrection to be a historic, literal occurance. If we sully our credibility with Genesis, it makes it harder to make the case for the resurrection. I do not intend to be divisive or difficult. Instead, I hope that we can allow for some diversity in the reading. In fact, I don't want to discuss the "literal vs. mythic" issue -- but rather, to shift the emphasis to "what does this text say to us, anyway?" Peace. |