It seems as though Genesis 2, much like Genesis 1, may just not be meant to be perceived as a scientific text. That's the impression I'm getting, what with Adam being made of clay and Eve of a rib bone and all. And maybe that would even extend to Adam and Eve being genetic ancestors to all people.
If you're referring to that hermeneutical approach called concordism, the attempt to comprehend or articulate biblical facts in terms of modern science, then I would whole-heartedly agree that the Bible is "not meant to be perceived as a scientific text." There are a number of problems with concordist approaches to the Bible, [1] not least of which is the basic question, "Which modern science?" Today? A hundred years ago? As John Walton observed: [2]
We are well aware that science is dynamic rather than static. By its very nature, science is in a constant state of flux. ... What is accepted as true today may not be accepted as true tomorrow, because what science provides is the best explanation of the data at the time. ... Science moves forward as ideas are tested and new ones replace old ones. So, if God aligned revelation with one particular science, it would have been unintelligible to people who lived prior to the time of that science and it would be obsolete to those who live after that time. We gain nothing by bringing God's revelation into accordance with today's science.
I have come to value and defend a distinction between "natural history" understood scientifically and "redemptive history" understood theologically. As a consequence of my theological tradition, I am of the view that what Scripture reveals is redemptive history (the
historia salutis). Both natural history and redemptive history are true and fully consistent with one another—because they are not the same thing (and because they have the same one Author). Natural history is disclosed through general revelation (i.e., nature), the meaning and purpose of which is unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation (i.e. Scripture). Relevantly, what Genesis 1 (and following) communicates is the dawn of redemptive history, not natural history. The events of Genesis took place 6,000 years ago, more or less, in a world that was already billions of years old and populated by millions of people. As far as I can tell, the only problem with this view is Genesis 2:5—and it's not a terribly difficult problem, especially in light of all the problems it solves.
A lot of people point to God forming Adam from the dust of the earth as proof that he was the first human, as if God formed Adam but everyone else was born. What so many people fail to realize, including Christians, is that Genesis 2:7 does not reveal something unique about Adam but rather something true of all humans. Walton is helpful here, too: [3]
When the text reports Adam being formed from dust, it is not expressing something by which we can identify how Adam is different from all the rest of us. Rather, it conveys how we can identify that he is the same as all of us. Being formed from dust is a statement about our essence and identity, not our substance.
If we are all made of dust, a statement of our creaturely mortality, then that particular fact about Adam doesn't prove he was the first human. It's true of all humans, including Adam who was human.
Speaking of which, "Adam" was almost certainly not his name. Like Jesus, he was an archetype (i.e., covenant representative and federal head) and he was assigned an archetypal name in Hebrew—a language that did not exist 6,000 years ago. In this origins story he had the name Human and his wife was named Life. These were archetypal names indicating their significance in redemptive history, but were probably not their historical names. As in
Pilgrim's Progress where characters had names like Faithful and Hopeful, Adam and Eve "by virtue of their assigned names are larger than the historical characters to whom they refer. They represent something beyond themselves. ... More is going on than giving some biographical information about two people in history." [4]
I'm just not really a fan of the whole the-doctrine-depends-on-it-therefore-we-must-try-to-force-it-to-be-scientific.
I don't think there is any need to force it to be scientific. But if Adam was a real person in history, as I believe he was, then we do need to situate him historically—just not in any way that contradricts well-established scientific facts. Since God is the one Author of both Scripture and nature, they cannot be in contradiction. If they are, then we have interpreted something incorrectly. "We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong," John Frame wrote. "It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong—though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong." [5]
---
[1] Denis R. Alexander, "
The Various Meanings of Concordism,"
BioLogos, March 23, 2017. (Last accessed 2022-08-08.)
[2] John H. Walton,
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), p. 15.
[3] John H. Walton,
The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 76.
[4] Ibid., 58-59.
[5] John M. Frame,
The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002), 303.