If one reads Genesis 1 as pictorial and Genesis 2:7 as follows: The LORD God formed humanoid apes through an revolutionary process over millions of years from the dust of the ground. At a given moment, He breathed the breath of life into the humanoid’s nostrils, and it became a living person: the first Homo Sapiens, Adam, with self-consciousness, creativity, rationality and above all the ability to relate to God and decide whether or not to obey him. Then Romans 5:12 – “When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.” – can be understood from that point of view as the turning point of history.
A corollary: until then, the fact that all living things had limited lifespans wasn’t a problem. Even hominoids didn’t see death as something to dread; it was just part of the evolutionary cycle of life.
1 Like
That is one possible interpretation. There are also others, as is evident for anyone reading this Forum.
What I find positive (strengths) in that interpretation is that it is open to what the study of the creation reveals, and it is a way to somehow preserve the traditional role of the key human (Adam) in the garden of Eden story. It might also save the theological interpretations about the ‘original sin’*, although I personally think that this concept has been extended to much where it does not belong.
The preservation of the traditional role of the single pair (A & E) may be a challenge for wider interpretation because it assumes that there is a single turning point in the history when everything in the world turned from innocence to sin and (spiritual?) death. That might be a traditional viewpoint* but it is not needed, if we interpret that much in the creation and Garden of Eden stories are symbolical /pictorial /allegorical /mythologized teaching.
The ‘mud dude’ (Adam) in the story may be interpreted as a symbolic representative of humanity (adam), rather than as a single person (Adam) that we can blame for everything bad. In the more symbolic interpretation, the focus and responsibility is switched to us all: death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. Christ died for us because we sinned, not because one of our ancestors sinned.
That interpretation would bring better harmony with such OT teachings as Ezekiel 18 - we are condemned because of our own sins, not because of what our ancestors did.
Edit:
- with traditional I mean since church father Augustine of Hippo.
I read some interesting notes about what made Augustine to present the interpretation that the ‘original sin’ burdened humans to the point that it made even newborns guilty. The notes claimed that in this case, liturgy/practice seemed to come before theology/theory.
Old texts hint that the habit of baptizing even newborn children became common in North Africa before the other regions, possibly during or soon after the time of Tertullianus (Tertullianus wrote against baptizing infants). Augustine came from North Africa and the baptism of infants was probably common during his time. When Augustine combined the teachings about baptism (baptism saves) with the liturgical/practical habit of the churches to baptize infants, that lead to a conclusion that there must be something that makes the infants so guilty that they need baptism to save them. Churches baptize infants, which means that the infants must be guilty - liturgical/practical habit lead to a theological conclusion and claim.
As we know, ‘original sin’ of Adam was the answer given by Augustine to the question and after that, the teaching of the RCC and its daughters.
Eastern church (orthodox) never accepted the authority of what Augustine claimed and what we know suggests that it took much longer before the habit of baptizing infants became dominant in the churches of the eastern parts of Rome - if the infants were not guilty, there was no hurry to baptize them before they got some understanding and could confess their faith.
2 Likes
Just to clarify what you wrote in relation to the title:
do you think that humans became moral creatures when God breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of the humanoid that became the first Homo sapiens (Adam)?
That would mean that any human-like creatures before Adam were not moral creatures (Neanderthals, Denisovans, ‘almost’ sapiens humans).
Thanks for the helpful remarks, Kai. I confess to be a total layman in this field. But I see morality in relation to God. Any creature that doesn’t know God can’t make moral decisions. Hence my idea that only once God breathed his spirit into us did we become moral beings.
That is a rather strong claim because it seems to suggest that even humans that do not know God cannot make moral decisions - which is likely false.
Maybe thinking that conscience originates from God could be an alternative idea that allows more flexibility?
Morality is about the distinction between right or wrong, or between good and bad behaviour. Some social animals seem to have behavioural rules that tell what is proper (good) or unacceptable (bad) behaviour. Such systems are at least close to morality.
For example, if a monkey steals something and tries to hide it because it knows that stealing is against the social rules and may lead to punishment, is the monkey breaking against the moral rules of the monkey society? Could the monkeys in that kind of a society be called ‘moral monkeys’, in comparison to ‘moral man’?
Such behaviour (stealing and trying to hide the stealing from others) happens among some animals, like monkeys. In some animals, there are also acts of infidelity where the betraying partner knows that it is betraying and tries to hide the betrayal from its partner - a sign that it knows that it is doing what is considered unacceptable or ‘bad’. Something that happens also among humans.
2 Likes
Perhaps I phrased that badly. Perhaps it’s not ‘knowing God’ I meant but possessing that spiritual element that God breathed into us to make us human beings and enable us to relate to God. I believe neither monkeys nor Neanderthals possess(ed) that ability. So, even if their behaviour suggested guilt, it wasn’t sinful, i.e. offending God.
2 Likes
It’s worth noting that this can be read as explanatory, i.e. “we know that death spread to everyone, since everyone sins”. Thus the state of spiritual death in which we are born is the root of sin.
Which is a silly conclusion given that baptism is said to be the equivalent of circumcision: circumcision didn’t address guilt, it addressed membership in God’s people.
Orthodox historians will tell you that the churches have always baptized infants and that it has nothing to do with any guilt – that is an aberration thanks to Augustine.
But it Adam was born a hominid, he is not going to just become a homosapien mid-life when the breath of life was breathed into him. The evolutionary process is much longer over multiple generations of individuals. In this way, Adam cannot be one person but a whole species.
- 1 Cor 15:45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Adam did not become spiritually alive when the breath of life was breathed into him, but naturally alive. The Last Adam then is Christ who describes Himself as having many members. Many individuals, the whole human species becomes spiritually alive or born again through Christ who has come to save all.
If we are all together, the whole human species, offered to become part of the last Adam, then why wouldn’t the first Adam also be an entire species? And if an entire species, why not the first species that ever existed?
Adam is describe as being made of “dust”. I feel that God inspired Moses to think of the smallest thing he could to describe Adam’s initial creation, and that was a spec of dust. What God had in mind was a microbe, the first single celled life.
Subsequently Eve is made from Adam’s side, representing cell division, and brought to Adam and they become one flesh being, representing multi-cellularity. They tend the Garden producing their own food, representing simple plant life like algae, and then together eat forbidden food, not their own, and perhaps it is fallen to the ground and eaten as if by a fungus as it rots… this and then hiding under leaves like a naked mushroom represents fungal life.
Upon leaving the Garden they are given animal skins as a covering, representing the first animal life, the first nephesh chay a living soul. Eve is the mother of all living souls and the evolutionary process continues through her offspring, shown in the timing of their births and meaning of their names representing different species defining the progression of mankind up to its human form in Abraham. more in this topic here:
So to answer the origin of moral man, it its the first man to believe and accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. This was Peter.
- Matt 16:15-18a He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church,
And with Christ’s death on the cross, He goes back for Abraham (all humans) and everyone in his “bosom” who had the faith of Abraham. This brings us to the next point:
Good point. Ishmael who had his hands on everyone represents bipedalism in hominids and DNA suggests interbreeding with homo erectus, neanderthal and perhaps others integrating them in with modern humans rather than just going extinct.
- Gen 16:12 He shall be a wild man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”
Ishmael who was almost lost with the fleeing of Hagar, was brought back into Abraham’s house and was included in the circumcision.
- Gen 17:23 So Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very same day, as God had said to him.
So I believe “membership in God’s people” may extend at least as far back as australopithecus. Even further back than that may be indicated by being “bought with his money” so membership is on a case by case basis beyond that. I am sure that if someone would like their dog with them in heaven, God will oblige.
There are different interpretations about the church history and those interpreting usually try to advance the beliefs they value. I could argue that the claims of your ‘orthodox’ historians do not hold and could give some details to support my claim but I do not think this Forum is the correct arena for lengthy discussions about that. Yet, something here to show why I made my claim:
One reason why I wrote that the habit seemed to become dominant later in the east than the west is that at least some part of the children of Christian families, even those that were children of bishops, were not baptized until adult age. For example, Gregory of Nazianzus (born c. 329) was baptized by his father, a bishop, when he was c. 33 years old, and Gregory wrote that the baptism should be postponed at least until the age of three years, unless the child is in mortal danger (oration 40, XXVIII). Basil of Caesarea (born c.330) was baptized at the age of c. 27 years.
‘Orthodox’ historians try to picture such late baptisms as a deviation from an early pattern of infant baptisms but that claim is not based on hard facts. It is true that there was a period when people postponed baptisms until they were close to death but that cannot be applied to cases like those of Gregory and Basil.
Anyhow, a matter of interpretation.
1 Like
Just a passing thought. When baptsm was introduced, or reinterpreted how old were the recipients? How could they be baptised as infants?
Pragmatically and logicaly the baptism of infants is an extension of baptismal theology not a replacement.
Richard
I am not an expert of the topic although I have read many writings about the topic. Any of my comments are reflections of what I have read, not my own original interpretations. That said, reading a diverse set of writings for and against the competing views may help to see what claims are credible and what are not. Some claims are interesting but not fully credible.
There is no consensus about what the early descriptions of baptisms of households (oikos) covered, did that include the smallest children or not. There are viewpoints that may be interpreted as support or counterevidence for both the main interpretations. That case is still open.
What is quite reliable information is that there is very little, mostly none at all, written about the baptism of infants in the different parts of the Roman empire during the first two centuries (outside of what is told in the Bible). The writings related to baptism describe practices and teachings that are relevant for baptisms of believers that could confess their faith. Some take the lack of descriptions about infant baptisms as a sign that such baptisms either did not happen or were rare.
Among the first few writings about the infant baptism were writings that argued against such practices or at least, recommended postponing the baptism until the child could speak and answer to questions. These writings tell that there were at least some baptisms of infants but also that there were those who argued against such practices.
Gregory of Nazianzus wrote that baptisms should be postponed until the child could talk, unless the child is in mortal danger. He was probably not alone in this opinion. A somewhat credible argument is that baptisms of infants became more common through the baptisms of sick children - the parents wanted that the child was baptized before it died. When many sick children were baptized, it is logical that some other parents wanted that their child would also be baptized - better safe than sorry.
The ways how baptism was described in the old writings are diverse. It is likely that the way how baptism was understood also varied and got different emphasis in different local churches. If the emphasis was on sentences like ‘baptism saves’, it is natural that parents wanted that their children would also get this ‘saving baptism’. I can understand such feelings, as a parent of two children who were baptized after they became believers and could confess their faith.
If the interpretations about baptism were not strongly against baptizing infants, the wishes of the parents would pave the way towards increasing numbers of infants being baptized.
After infant baptism became the norm rather than exception, the clergy of the churches would take care that most of the infants were baptized.
Augustine just gave a stronger theological back to this practice.
Discussions about baptism may be generally interesting, if we think of it as an example of how the teachings in the biblical scriptures have been interpreted and defended through the centuries. Matters like creation are not very different than baptism in the sense that they have also been debated through centuries. What is different is that baptism is much more influential to how the local churches should be understood. Although some put much emphasis on a particular way to interpret the creation story, that matter is less influential for the churches.
The ‘Origin of moral man’ is in even non-enlightened self interested co-operation instinct coded at the genetic level, not just as shown in ‘higher’ animals of all phyla, but plants and even the first cells themselves, in symbiosis. Nature is moral. There is nothing whatsoever unnatural about morality.
I agree that there are behavioural rules among animals that we might call ‘morality’.
Otherwise, I would not say that nature is moral. Nature could be called amoral in the sense that it does not judge or demand morality or ‘good’ behaviour, except in the sense mentioned above (animals often have social behavioural rules). If something increases fitness, that kind of behaviour can become more common, even if humans would judge that it is not good.
For example, eating the prey alive can be a beneficial strategy although humans do not like the idea that a living individual is slowly consumed until death.
Another example is infanticide: infanticide can be a beneficial strategy and is common among some animals although humans do not like the idea of killing and eating kids, neither those of the neighbour or your own. The kids of the neighbour are not always consumed, the point is just to get rid of them and the reason may sometimes be as simple as getting better opportunities for mating with the female that lost her kids.
1 Like
I think that’s a cultural thing. Oysters?
If morality, like sin is linked to sentience then Nature is usually looed at as amoral, or without morality either way. There has always been a tendency to claim that other creatures have little or no sentience but it is hard to pin down. There are examples of animals both in or outsde captivity showing remarkable tenderness and concern to creatures outside their normal family or social grouping.
The origin of sentience? Outside Scripture? Could it just be the natural result of larger and more complex brain functions? Or the next stage from social behaviour? I guess, if you are going to exclude the influence of God then you are going to plump for something along those lines, so that cretures slightly further down the evolutionary line will have nominal, or developing morality and sentience as that is the expected trend of evolution.(whether such a trend is both logical and philosophically probable is another rmatter)
Richard
My understanding on the origin of moral man is based of fossil evidence of humans preceding Adam and Genesis 1 and 2 and the reconciliation of the three. Genesis 1 describes thg origin of man over millions of years.(The understmading of yom does not need to be reviewed here.) The Homo sapien evolved and knew no sin but did know evil. Sin is committed only when the sinner commits an evil act against God’s law. This Adam and Eve did when they disobeyed God in the garden. Sin had literaally entered the world then. God even deccared that man had be come like one of us knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:22) also note Romans 5: 13 wheer it says ….but sin is not charged to anyones account where there is no law. So Adam introduced sin into the world and Jesus coming from heaven paid the price. 1 Cor: 15:47
Adam was a speciial creation in time by God created for the purpose of bringinging sin into the world, In the idyllic garden he and Eve were without sin until the gave into evil against God’s command. Adam had to commit the sin from a point of not having signed in order make the pactice of his evil pure evil not coming from a evil source which would have been expected.
Hope this makes sense. I see it as aligning science and the scriptures.
Animals do empathy. Not ‘empathy’. So they certainly do mere morality. Nature demands judgement and morality of us and many other higher animals. Devouring live prey and infanticide are not unknown in humans. Neither is cannibalism (the great taboo of surviving civilization) and every lack of empathy that even other animals don’t. Cruelty beyond belief. When the chips are down, there is no limit to human depravity. Intentionality amplifies our good and our evil more than in any other species. The average isn’t much different.
Again, in many higher creatures, nature is moral; fair, respectful, loyal. And beyond. Kind, affectionate, loving, encouraging, generous, playful, brave, sacrificial. Altruistic. There is nothing unnatural about any of it.
What is repentance, I thought I’m forgiven all my sins, so why can’t I just go on sinning?
Unfortunately, I cannot share that belief. Nature is not fair, loyal, kind, loving, generous or altruistic. In some animals, we may observe behaviours that look close to the characteristics you mentioned but some animals are not the nature and the reasons for the behaviours may be selfish.
Is nature fair? It is easy to show mathematically that sharing the resources evenly to all can lead the population to extinction. Some take more than the others and the weak do not get a fair share.
Is nature kind or loving? If you travel to cold wilderness or to an ocean with a small boat, you will note that nature does not know mercy, kindness or love, except in giving your body as food for the invertebrates.
Is nature altruistic? Seemingly altruistic behaviours in nature are fundamentally selfish - truly altruistic individuals have a low fitness and their genes are mostly wiped from the future population. Cooperation lasts as long as it benefits the individual, when the benefits end, cooperation turns to openly selfish strategies.
2 Likes