Without definite article 5 as personal name (4:25; 5:1a, 3, 4, 5; 4:1*) 4 as humanity (generic / en masse; 1:26;

2:5; 5:1b, 2; 1:27*) With definite article

20 archetypal individual (2:7 – 3:24) 3 with preposition (2:20; 3:17, 21)

34 occurrences in Genesis 1-5

Literary introduction: This is the account (toledoth) of the heavens and the earth (2:4)

None recapitulative

If sequel, people in Gen 1 not necessarily Adam & Eve

2nd account does not need to fit into day 6

Ref Relation Connection

5:1 parallel/sequel Cain → Seth

6:9 sequel Pre-flood condition → Noah

10:1 sequel Noah and sons → Table of nations

11:10 recursive Table of nations → Shem’s descendants

11:27 sequel Shem’s descendants → Terah/Abraham

25:12 sequel Abraham → Ishmael

25:19 recursive Ishmael → Isaac/Jacob

36:1 sequel Isaac/Jacob → Esau’s family

36:9 sequel Esau’s family → Esau’s line

37:2 recursive Esau’s line → Jacob’s family

proposal: archetypal functions Everything in Gen 2 regarding human

origins is first and foremost archetypal

Not just prototypes

The “forming” accounts are most relevant to Adam and Eve as archetypes rather than as individuals

Identified as archetypal if it refers to everyone, not just individuals

Events planned long ago (Isa 37:26)

Heart formed (= thoughts, Ps. 33:15)

Days ordained by God (Ps. 139:16)

The LORD,

who stretches out the heavens,

who lays the foundation of the earth,

and who forms the human spirit

within a person . . .

Not chemistry or craftsmanship

Dust = mortality (Gen. 3:19)

Immortal people would not need a tree of life

Every human is formed from dust

First man of dust and all from dust (1 Cor. 15:47-48)

“For he knows how we are formed,he remembers that we are dust”

(Psalm 103:14, NIV)

Being formed from dust does not describe material formation

Being formed from dust would not preclude being born of woman

Not material origin but identity

Intended to communicate what all humans are, not what Adam uniquely is

“For he knows how we are formed,he remembers that we are dust”

(Psalm 103:14, NIV)

“Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”

Architectural term: one side of a pair

Aramaic, LXX, Vulgate all ambiguous

3rd – 4th c. Rabbi Samuel ben Nahmani

Tardemah: Deep Sleep

Visionary state: Unresponsive to human realm and correspondingly responsive to communication from the divine realm

Abraham in Genesis 15 (Eliphaz, Daniel)

LXX: ekstasis; Vulgate: sopor (as early as Tertullian)

That is why

a man leaves his father and mother

and is united to his wife,

and they become one flesh

Serve and Keep (Gen. 2:15)

“Helpmeet” – Eve to help Adam in sacred task

As priests they are representatives of all humans

Priestly representation differs from archetypal representation

Priests as Israel is a kingdom of priests: mediating knowledge of God and access to God’s presence

If the details of the “forming” apply to the archetypes, we have no information about the forming of the individuals

Archetypal identity does not negate the existence of the individual—Adam and Eve are individuals, but more importantly are archetypes.

Appropriate question is not “Is this really what happened?” but “Is this what people really are?” (focus on identity, not event)

Humankind was created with mortal bodies

Humankind was provisioned by God (garden)

Humankind was given the role of serving in sacred space (implies relationship with God)

Humankind was divided into male and female and so would seek out new family relationship

message of genesis archetypes

If Genesis 2 has an archetypal focus, there is no biblical account of material human origins

Does not mean that common descent is true, only that it would not contradict the biblical record

Special, direct creative work of God is found minimally at functional level

Endowing with image of God Creation of spiritual being Designating as priests

Romans 5:12-14 Sin entered through one man Death for people through sin Sin not charged when there is no law Does not clarify how or when all sinned Nothing necessitates Adam was first or that we

are all genetically derived from him No claim about material origins of humans

1 Corinthians 15:22

Death and its solution came through a man

In Adam all die; in Christ all made alive

Neither suggests genetic relationship

No claims about human origins

Christ achieved what Adam failed to achieve

At the right time in his purposes God conferred

his image on all people. This identity and function given by God made

humanity distinct from its genetic predecessors.

Adam and Eve were real people in a real past, our representatives through whose actions we all became accountable for sin and therefore subject to it.

We are consequently doomed to death without the remedy of the death of Christ, provided for our salvation.

Putting Together the Theological Issues

God’s creation of humans involved a long process conceived, designed and executed such that it resulted in phylogenetic continuity between species via change over time from a common ancestor.

We are more than what we are made of: ontogeny ≠ ontology

“God did it” and “it evolved” are not mutually exclusive

No need to accept any particular evolutionary model since the mechanisms posited by the current models remain uncertain and controversial even among scientists.

Such a position is compatible with faithful interpretation of the biblical text and can be consistently maintained within the framework of orthodox theology.

Putting Together the Scientific Issues

Importance of recognizing biblical claims

Acceptance of those who choose differently

Acceptance of science does not require rejection of Bible or faith