John says, "My view is that whenever the image of God is endowed, all living humans get it. Remember that it is not something physical or neurological. It is functional. So when it is given, all people now have a new function as a species. I have no guesses about how long people might have been in the image of God before the fall. The fall moves them from innocence to accountability. They could be in a state of innocence and still have been given the image of God. They are spiritually equivalent to young children rather than to animals."

I've never heard of such a New Age Theology; sorry for the confusion. The definition of [i]homo divinus[/i] that I was referring to were scenarios like what you outlined there: humans evolve to a point where God breathes his image into (some or all of) them and gives some or all of) them his image along with a commission.

I need to sit down and spend some time thinking about those bible verses. I just have to ask the following question before I do so, because the concerns expressed in the above question make it very hard for me to accept such a reading of Genesis.

At the moment when God breathes his image into people, does he breathe his image into all the [i] homo sapiens [/i] who are there, or only some of them? If it is all of them, does that mean that a particular [i] homo sapien [/i] could spend part of it's life as an animal and the rest of it's life as a bearer of God's image? If only some of them at a time, say an original couple, does that mean that, they would be created in the image of God, while their parents are morally and spiritually the equivalent of the animals?

I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what the image of God is, except that it is something that is given by God, that humans have but animals do not, and that it has something to do humanity's mandate to rule and subdue the earth.

Thanks for your response, Jole. The holidays are a busy time, so it's fine that you've been away.

I think there are different interpretations of [i]homo divinus[/i], one being a squishy kind of New Age theology that I would not agree with at all, but from what I read of your definition, I agree with what you said. The Scriptures allow for and are consistent with a reading in which God selects out from among a group of homo sapiens a couple who have reached a certain point where they are homo sapiens sapiens, developmentally human, morally and spiritually capable, and God breathes his image into them and subsequently gives them a spiritual function in the world. To me it's Scripturally plausible and quite possible while treating theology and biology with respect. It makes a lot of sense to me. To answer your question, I do believe it does a better job of explaining Genesis, Romans, and current scientific understandings than other interpretations of Genesis 1-3. How?

Here's what John writes about Romans 5.12-14: Romans 5:12-14. "Here the text affirms that sin entered the world through one man and that death came through sin. It does not claim that humans were created immortal, only that humans are now subject to death because of sin. I have demonstrated above that being made from dust indicates that we were made mortal. The chance for release from our natural mortality was provided by an antidote, the tree of life. Sin brought expulsion from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life. Therefore, sin doomed us to death, that is, with no antidote we would have no alternative but to succumb to our natural mortality.

"This text does not comment on how or when sin came to all and all sinned. While it articulates an idea of original sin, it does not work out the details. The archetypal nature of Adam is evident in two ways here: first, he is seen as a pattern of Christ; second, Adam represents all people in Paul’s treatment (through him all sinned). Adam and Christ are related as archetypal representatives. The text does appear to claim an historical event, but nothing here necessitates that Adam was the first human being or that we all must be related biologically or genetically to Adam. Likewise there is no suggestion of sin being passed through biological relationship (in contrast to the common view of seminal transmission). No claims are made about material origins. This important section of Scripture then, affirms the reality of sin and death entering human experience in an event and thereby implies a historical Adam. At the same time we should note that no scientific claim is made about biological/genetic relationship or material discontinuity."

1 Corinthians 15:22. "Death came through a man and the solution to death comes through a man, that is, both Adam and Jesus were human. Since we all die 'in Adam' the way that we are all made alive 'in Christ,' we can presume that our circumstances in either case are not determined by biological descent but through the representation of the archetypes, Adam and Christ. Again we should note that in these verses, there is neither a claim to genetic relationship to Adam, nor any statement about material human origins."

1 Corinthians 15:45. "Here Adam is called the 'first' man, but in the context of the contrast with Christ as the 'last' Adam, it cannot be seen as a claim that Adam was the first biological specimen. Since Christ was not the last biological specimen, we must instead conclude that this text is talking about the first archetype and the last archetype. We might say that Adam was an initial archetype replaced by the ultimate archetype in Christ. It is insufficient to bring in biology simply because Christ was biologically descended from Adam. This is confirmed in the remainder of the passage, as it contrasts the natural and the spiritual. The archetypal element of dust is specifically explained as making the archetypal man earthly in comparison to the heavenly nature of Christ. It describes human nature. The biblical point is to contrast and compare Adam to Jesus and our relationship to both. Paul makes no claims about genetic relationships of all people to Adam or about material origins—only that we share the 'dust' nature of the archetype.

2 Corinthians 11:3. "This verse implies that there was a historical Eve, but it refers to her archetypally as an analogy about how easily people may be deceived. No claims are made about genetic relationships or human origins."

1 Timothy 2:13-14. "Paul mines Genesis for an illustration to address the situation in Ephesus. He accurately reflects the textual data that Adam was formed first and Eve was the target of the deception. No claims are made about how humanity was formed, about genetic relationships, or the mechanisms or timing of material origins. Like all of the previous New Testament passages, Adam and Eve are used as archetypes to make a point about all of humanity, here to provide an illustration of how a deceived woman can lead a man into error."

John concludes: "In summary, the New Testament can be seen to indicate that there was a historical point in time when sin and death became human realities. It is further clear that Adam and Eve were the principal parties in this real event in a real past. Even though the use made of Adam and Eve is archetypal, they are treated as real, individual persons. Having noted that, however, I have tried to demonstrate that no claims are made in the New Testament that all humans are biologically descended from Adam and Eve and therefore genetically derived from them. I would acknowledge that most Jews in the first century would have believed that all people were descended from Adam; but they also believed the earth was flat. I do not see any authoritative assertion of Scripture that all people are descended from Adam and his material origins has no meaningful weight in Paul’s arguments."

"In turn, if Genesis does not make the claim that Adam and Eve are the first and only people and does not give an account of material human origins, then there is no biblical claim concerning the genetic role of Adam and Eve or of material human origins. If the Bible makes no such claims, then the Bible will not stand opposed to any views that science might offer (e.g., evolutionary models or population genetics), as long as God is not eliminated from the picture."

"In this scenario, Adam and Eve are real individual persons living in a real past, but they are neither the first people nor the biological/genetic ancestors of all. Furthermore, in this scenario neither Adam and Eve specifically, nor humankind in general, is brought about in an act of material discontinuity. Nevertheless (accountability for) sin and death come to all humans through them."

Hope that helps. I'm certainly willing to converse more.

Thanks for your response. I've been away these last couple of weeks, so sorry for my slow reply.

Would it be ok, then, to interpret your point as saying that scriptures are consistent with a homo divinus understanding of human origins, whereby evolution runs its course until, at one point, God breathes his image into (a group of) people and chooses a couple of them to be representatives of humans as a whole?

I don't know if this is your personal position, since your argument only permits this option, rather than requiring it. If it is your personal position, do you believe that it does a better job of explaining the events in the early chapters of Genesis and the Bible's picture of human nature and history (so, for instance, encompassing passages like Romans 5) than the idea that Adam and Eve are the first two people from whom everyone is 100% descended? If so, how?

Hi. Thanks for asking. Yeah, John and I are brothers. I taught him everything he knows. ;)

John would say (and does) that Adam & Eve are certainly historical persons, not just metaphors. In the OT Adam becomes part of a genealogy, and in the NT a real event featuring real people is the clearest reading to explain the entrance of sin and death. He also says that Genesis 2 is not about the material formation of humans, but about the assigning of roles and functions. But you know all this already.

About Gn. 3.20, what John says in "Adam and Eve as Archetypes" is, "While it can be readily observed that Eve is given archetypal significance in the only two references to her in the New Testament (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13), we should note that the designation, 'mother of all living,' given to her in Genesis 3:20 is also archetypal. At the same time, it does not demand a biological or genetic role as we can see from the similar statements in Genesis 4:20-21 where Jabal is 'the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock' and Jubal is 'the father of all who play stringed instruments.' Since these refer to archetypal roles not biological relationships, we can see that the terminology of biological relationship can be used in archetypal ways. This does not prove that Eve’s name does not indicate that all human beings came from her; it merely offers other reasonable alternatives from within the near context."

As far as the genealogies, John says they start with Adam because he is the first significant human in a spiritual sense and the one through whom Israel is seen as descended. He's the first human that Israel is aware of (he is the headwaters of the line). Being first in the genealogy doesn't require that he was the first, only that he is the first person of significance for that particular genealogy. A genealogy can start where it wants to start. Some only go back to Abraham, some only back to David. In Luke 3.38, Adam is listed as "son of God", which could be taken as the first spiritually significant person, as I have said. So heading the genealogical lists could indicate he's the first person, but doesn't require that.

Hope that helps. Feel free to ask further.

I've been thinking about whether the bible says that Adam and Eve were the first people. I know that John Walton, for instance, thinks that the bible says that they are historical people but not necessarily the first people. You can see him making this argument in the videos on the website. I am, however, skeptical of this argument on the basis of Gen 3:20 and the genealogies in Genesis and 1 Chronicles that all list Adam as the the first person.

I've looked around the website, and noted that the user jimwalton seems to be very familiar with John Walton's work. Do you know how he deals with this objection?

Thanks.