I have not read the entire volume of GAE, so I don’t know if Matthew 3:9 is discussed. But today I’ve been thinking about the implications of this interesting text:
Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.’ That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones. — Matt. 3:9 (NLT)
If God can de novo create (from stones) Homo sapiens with genomes consistent with Abrahamic ancestry, then it is easy to assume that God could likewise de novo create Adam and Eve to have genomes reproductively compatible with the contemporary evolved hominids with whom their children would intermarry.
Perhaps this observation is old hat within the GAE discussion community and I’ve just not noticed---- but I’m particularly curious as to how our Bible-affirming PS participants may assess this analogy.
POSTSCRIPT: The Discourse software Search feature was not all that helpful in finding any previous discussions of Matthew 3:9 on PS. I tried both “Matthew 3:9” and “Matthew_3:9” as well as “Matt. 3:9”.
The analogy with GAE works if Matthew is thinking of physical descendants. But if he’s thinking more along the lines of spiritual descendants (cf. John 8; Romans 4; Galatians 3), the analogy might better fit the evolutionary creationist models that see A+E as adopted or elected representatives. At least this is my initial thought.
My question is, I guess - is this even an objection to GAE that anyone has brought up? Christians in general don’t seem to have a problem that God created us from dust.
The other thing is, maybe the passage could possibly be used against GAE. The emphasis on the passage has always seemed to me to be that one shouldn’t count on genealogical ancestry, but it’s spiritual nature that’s important.
I agree. And this was among my thoughts as I considered the hard-core “literalists” of my YEC background in the Northern Bible Belt in the 1960’s and 1970’s. They insisted that Matthew was indeed thinking literally of physical descendants. (So I’m wondering if that same mindset is common among YECs today.)
I should also mention with Matthew 3:9 what we all know about the Semitic tendency to state things in hyperbolic—even bombastic ways—to make a comparative point. In this context it is humorous how Jesus takes their pride down more than a few notches by basically saying: Don’t flatter yourself. God could take something as common and mundane as these rocks along the road and elevate them to Children-of-Abraham status. Get over it.
And for clarity for those who may be new to Peaceful Science, I should explain that I’m NOT trying to advocate Matthew 3:9 as a “proof text” for the de novo creation of Adam and Eve in some sort of scientific concordism hypothesis. I’m simply suggesting that Matthew 3:9 could be helpful for those pondering the question of whether the evolution of humans and the special creation from dust of Adam and Eve are mutually exclusive.
I don’t consider the Book of Genesis in conflict with modern science. So I like to do what I can to assuage others of that tension—especially when many in that situation may share my YEC and “creation science” background.
@Michelle, the “Christian Immunologist” in your profile title has such a nice ring to it. I’ve never seen those two terms linked in that way before—along with Baptist, wife, and mother. (And when I was growing up in the 1950’s and 1960’s, one didn’t hear of many Baptist scientists of any sort.)