Read Genesis 2:4b-25.

Introduction⤒🔗

At the conclusion of World War I, hundreds of shell-shocked French soldiers could not remember who they were. They were suffering from amnesia; and consequently, had lost their identity. The military records were so faulty that they were of no value in helping these poor men regain their lost identity. How could these victims of amnesia recall their names and be reunited with their families?

The importance of our personal identity cannot be exaggerated; but immeasurably more important is our spiritual identity.

Countless millions of people today are crying out, “Please, please, can somebody tell me who I am?” God our Creator supplies the answer in His Word, the Bible. Let us listen to what He says about our identity.

You Are A Unique Creation of God←⤒🔗

⁷The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Gen. 2:7

We come from humble origins: the LORD God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. But we have the distinction and honor of having been personally created by God. In contrast to the way He made every other living creature (cp. Gen. 1:24-25 printed below) ...

²⁴And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so. ²⁵And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Gen. 1:24-25

...God created man in His own image and gave him dominion over the creatures (Gen. 1:26-28), and God personally fashioned Adam with His own hands and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen. 2:7):

²⁶And God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. ²⁷So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ²⁸And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. Gen. 1:26-28

⁷The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Gen. 2:7

Not only have we been personally created by God, we are His unique creation: made in God’s own image, made according to His likeness. We have been so made in order that 1) we may have a unique relationship with God, one of worship and fellowship; and, 2) so that we may be a unique reflection of God, exhibiting His moral attributes and godly dominion.

With regard to the origin of man, there is no evidence of evolution from ape-like ancestors. As the evolutionary scientist, Lord Zuckerman, testified,

If we exclude the possibility of creation, then obviously man must have evolved from an ape­like creature; but if he did, there is absolutely no evidence for it within the fossil record. Beyond the Ivory Tower, 1970; quoted by Dr. Duane Gish, Creation Video Series

You Have Been Created to Engage in Meaningful Work for God←⤒🔗

From the time of his creation, man was assigned the task of engaging in constructive work: Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden and given the charge to “cultivate it and care for it” (Gen. 2:15).

Work is not a part of the curse; on the contrary, work is a part of man’s calling—part of what it means to be created in the image of God. God undertook and accomplished His great work of creation: "on the seventh day, God finished his work that he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had made" (Gen. 2:2). Now God continues His work of sustaining His creation by His works of providence: Jesus said to the Jews, “My Father works even until now, and I work” (Jn. 5:17). Since we are created in the image of God, we also are called to work.

God’s work is constructive, calling into existence the raw materials of creation and then proceeding to fashion an orderly universe; likewise, man’s work was to be constructive, cultivating and caring for the garden. The consequence of the curse is not that it introduced work as a punishment, but rather that it deprived work of true joy and significance. Work now took on an element of drudgery; rather than willingly submitting to Adam’s labor, the creation now resists man’s dominion:

17And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, the one of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it; therefore, cursed is the ground on account of you; by toil shall you eat the produce of it all the days of your life. ¹⁸Both thorns and thistles shall it produce for you; but you shall eat the plants of the field. ¹⁹By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground; for out of it were you taken; for you are dust, and unto dust shall you return. Gen. 3:17-19

—the earth's resistance to man's efforts to cultivate it is a fit penalty for man’s resistance to God’s rightful dominion over him

Furthermore, work lost its ultimate significance. Contrast Solomon’s survey of his work as he testifies of it in Ecclesiastes 2:11...

¹¹Then I looked on all the works that my hands had produced, and on the labor that I had labored to do; and, behold, all was meaningless and a striving after the wind, and there was no profit under the sun. Eccl. 2:11

...with God’s survey of His work, as revealed in Genesis 1:31-2:3 and Psalm 104:31b,

^1:31And God saw everything that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. ^2:1And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all that they contained. ²And on the seventh day, God finished his work that he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had made. ³And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because in it he rested from all his work that God had created and made. Gen. 1:31-2:3

^31b...may the LORD rejoice in his works. Psl. 104:31b

Why does Solomon lament? Because the fruit of his work in this world is not durable. He will eventually be separated from his works:

¹⁸And I hated all my labor in which I had labored under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who shall come after me. Eccl. 2:18

¹⁵As he came forth naked from his mother’s womb, so shall he depart as he came, and he shall take nothing as the fruit of his labor, which he may carry away in his hand. ¹⁶And this also is a grievous evil: just as a man came into the world, so shall he leave; and what profit does he have that he should labor for the wind? Eccl. 5:15-16

Ultimately, all the works that belong to this world will pass away, as the Apostle John testifies:

¹⁶...all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vain glory of life­ is not of the Father, but is of the world. ¹⁷And the world is passing away, and the desires that belong to it; but he who does the will of God remains forever. 1 Jn. 2:16-17

By way of illustration: In the making of ice sculptures there is much labor, meticulous effort, creative enterprise, only to have it all melt away in the heat of the sun—so are all the works that belong to this world, the works done for man’s sake and for man’s glory. Contrast all this with Ecclesiastes 3:14a; “I know that whatever God does shall last forever; nothing can be added to it, nor can anything be taken from it.”

From the beginning, man was assigned the calling of working for God. Adam was brought to the Garden of Eden, which was the unique sanctuary of God in the midst of the creation. Eden is identified as “the garden of God” (Ezek. 28:13) and “the garden of the LORD” (Isa. 51:3). Adam was called to tend God’s garden and guard it from unholy assault. Furthermore, Adam was to exercise a dominion over the whole creation in service to God and at God’s command:

²⁸And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. Gen. 1:28

The fact that the Christian is called to do all his work for the LORD is the thing that redeems our work from the curse. In 1 Corinthians 15:58, we are exhorted to be “steadfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord; knowing that your labor for the Lord is not in vain.” Because of the resurrection, we can present our labors to an ever-living Lord and we ourselves shall share in His resurrection, with our works following after us. One aspect of the good news of the gospel is that “you can take it with you!” Note Revelation 14:13,

¹³And I heard the voice from heaven saying, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. Indeed, declares the Spirit, they are blessed because they shall rest from their labors and their works follow after them. Rev. 14:13

By way of illustration: Just as your U.S. dollars are exchanged into the currency of the country to which you travel, so any and every work done for Christ is “exchanged” into the realm of the kingdom of God where it has lasting value and enjoyment unto the glory of God.

All our work becomes holy unto the LORD when it is dedicated to Him and done for Him:

³¹Therefore, whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Cor. 10:31

²³Whatever you do, work with all your heart, as doing it for the Lord and not for men; ²⁴knowing that from the Lord you will receive the compensation that is the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Col. 3:23-24

You Have Been Created with Moral Accountability to God←⤒🔗

In Genesis 2:16-17, God issues His great commandment to refrain from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This was not the first and only commandment the LORD issued to man. The commission given in Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it,” was a commandment. Likewise, the call to serve God by tending and guarding His holy garden (Gen. 2:15) was also a commandment.

But the commandment issued in Genesis 2:16-17 is unique. It is specifically identified as a direct commandment, so that it could in no way be mistaken as a suggestion or desire expressed by God: “the LORD God commanded the man.” The commandment of Genesis 2:16-17 stipulates the consequence for disobedience and non-compliance: if you disobey, “you shall surely die.”

This particular commandment was specifically designed to be a test: Will man acknowledge God’s Lordship? And will man yield his allegiance to his God? Note that the commandment is set in the context of God’s graciousness and faithfulness: the LORD God has provided every other tree of the garden for man to use and enjoy.

By means of this unique tree, and God’s commandment concerning it, Adam was called to exercise his God-given moral capacity: as a moral being he was now called upon and challenged to make a true moral choice. He was being confronted with the moral categories of good and evil, and called to make a moral choice. Because he disobeyed, Adam came to know evil and to recognize good as a contrast to evil. If he had obeyed, Adam would have known good and would have recognized evil as a contrast to good, he would have become like God. Finally, Adam would now experience the consequence of his moral choice. Once again, if he had obeyed, he would have entered into the life of God. But because he disobeyed, he was excluded from the life of God.

For the Christian, all that was lost in Adam is regained in Christ our Savior. Second Corinthians 5:17 declares, “if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature [or, a new creation].” Note Ephesians 4:24, which speaks about the new man, who has been “created to be like God in righteousness and true holiness.” The eternal state in the kingdom of God is free from the curse because there is obedience:

³...there shall no longer be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb shall be there, and his servants shall serve him; ⁴and they shall see his face; and his name shall be on their foreheads. Rev. 22:3-4

You Have Been Created for Personal Relationship with God and Others←⤒🔗

After forming man from the dust of the ground, the LORD brought the man into the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:9-10 describes the garden as a luxurious paradise. As noted previously, the Garden of Eden was the earthly sanctuary of God, the Holy of holies on the earth.

Adam was created by God not only to be God’s servant, but also to become a part of the household­ the family—of God; and this whole purpose of God is an act of his sovereign grace. Adam is not an emanation of God, he is made of the dust of the ground, but he is made for a relationship with God. Adam’s original home is not the garden; he is graciously brought to live in the garden so that he might dwell with God. Even before sin, it was by grace that man was brought into intimate relationship with God; and after sin, it is by grace that that intimate relationship with God is re­established.

God’s original purpose for Adam is finally and fully achieved by our redemption in the Lord Jesus Christ. Our very bodies shall be raised from the dust, being reconstructed into the likeness of Christ’s glorious body. Christ will bring us into His Father’s house where we will share with Him in the very glory and blessing of God:

²⁰...our citizenship is in heaven, and we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ. ²¹By the power that enables him to bring everything into submission to himself, he will transform the body belonging to the present state of our humiliation, so that it may be conformed to his glorified body. Phil. 3:20-21

We have not only been made for a personal relationship with God, but also for relationship with others: “the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’” (Gen. 2:18a). The first and highest inter-personal relationship on the human level ordained by God is marriage.

At the very outset, Scripture makes clear that God has ordained for man and woman to live in a sacred relationship to one another: For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall be bound to his wife; and they shall be one flesh (Gen. 2:24). At the first marriage God Himself served as the father of the bride: He brought the woman to the man (Gen. 2:22b), as well as officiating over the “wedding ceremony.”

The marital relationship is intended to be more than only an earthly/human institution; it also serves a transcendent/spiritual purpose. It serves as a living model of the LORD God’s dominion over mankind and mankind’s submission to the LORD our God—a sort of ongoing “morality play” in which the husband is called to play the role of Christ, depicting His divine Lordship over mankind, and the wife is called to play the role of mankind, depicting our submission to the LORD our God:

³I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.1 Cor. 11:3

Marriage also serves as a living promise of redeemed man’s future relationship with the LORD his God:

³¹For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. ³²This is a profound mystery, now I am speaking about Christ and the church. Eph. 5:31-32

Conclusion←⤒🔗

In answer to the question, “Who am I?” the Word of God reveals that you are a unique creation of God; you have been created to engage in meaningful work for God; you have been created with moral accountability to God; and, you have been created for personal relationship with God and others.

The Word of God further reveals that the identity and purpose God desires for you can only be achieved through the redeeming/recreating work of God in Jesus Christ.

Note: The first Appendix that follow this study deal with man’s relationship to the Neanderthals and a comparison of human and chimpanzee genes; the second Appendix considers the question, Is Genesis 2:4-7 a Second Creation Account?

Discussion Questions←⤒🔗

1. Some scholars have identified Genesis 2:4-7 as a “second creation account.” But what, in fact, is it, and what is its purpose? Consider Appendix C: A Brief Commentary on Genesis 2:4-7;

⁴In the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven ⁵no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. ⁶Then there went up rain clouds from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground. ⁷And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Gen. 2:4-7

2. Upon being created, what task was Adam given by God? See Gen. 2:15 What does this tell us about the role constructive work occupies in defining a man’s identity? How is this a reflection of God’s own nature and character? See Jn. 5:17 Whose garden was Adam called to cultivate (note, also, Ezek. 28:13a)? In light of this fact, how should the Christian view his job? See Col. 3:22-4:1.

⁴In the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven ⁵no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. ⁶Then there went up rain clouds from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground. ⁷And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Gen. 2:4-7

¹⁵And the LORD God took the man, and put him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to care for it. Gen. 2:15

¹⁷My Father works even until now, and I work. Jn. 5:17

Speaking to the fallen angel, the LORD declares,

^13aYou were in Eden, the garden of God...Ezek. 28:13a

²²Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. ²³ And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, ²⁴ knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. ²⁵ But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality. ^4:1Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. Col. 3:22-4:1

3. Man was originally called to engage in constructive work, but what caused his work to be turned into toil? See Gen. 3:17-19 In addition to becoming a labor of toil, what else happened to man’s work in this present world? See Eccl. 2:18; 5:15-16 What redeems the Christian’s work from the curse and makes it meaningful? See 1 Cor. 15:58 Do you perform your work from this perspective?

¹⁷And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, the one of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it; therefore, cursed is the ground on account of you; by toil shall you eat the produce of it all the days of your life. ¹⁸Both thorns and thistles shall it produce for you; but you shall eat the plants of the field. ¹⁹By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground; for out of it were you taken; for you are dust, and unto dust shall you return. Gen. 3:17-19

¹⁸And I hated all my labor in which I had labored under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who shall come after me. Eccl. 2:18

¹⁵As he came forth naked from his mother’s womb, so shall he depart as he came, and he shall take nothing as the fruit of his labor, which he may carry away in his hand. ¹⁶And this also is a grievous evil: just as a man came into the world, so shall he leave; and what profit does he have that he should labor for the wind? Eccl. 5:15-16

⁵⁸Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. 1 Cor. 15:58

4. What commandment did the LORD God issue to Adam in Genesis 2:16-17? Was this the only commandment God gave to him? What was unique about this commandment? What was God’s purpose in giving Adam this particular commandment? Do you live your life with a consciousness of your moral accountability to your God and Creator? What would have resulted if Adam had obeyed? What has God done to remedy the consequence of Adam’s disobedience? How does one become a beneficiary of God’s redeeming work? See 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 4:24

¹⁶And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, From every tree of the garden you may freely eat; ¹⁷but you shall not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. Gen. 2:16-17

¹⁷...if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Cor. 5:17

²⁴...put on the new man that was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. Eph. 4:24

5. What relationship did the LORD God institute for the man and woman at the very beginning? See Gen. 2:23-24 What bearing does this have on the issue of same sex “marriage”? Consult Christopher West’s comments on the complimentary relationship between a man and a woman found in the previous study. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

²³Then the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. ²⁴For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall be bound to his wife; and they shall be one flesh. (Gen. 2:23-24)

Appendices to the Study on Genesis 2:4b-25←⤒🔗

Appendix A: “Man and the Neanderthals”←↰⤒🔗

For anthropologists and laymen alike, controversy and intrigue surrounds the Neanderthals’ status and fate. Since this creature’s discovery in 1856, people have wondered, Did Neanderthals evolve into modern humans? Did they bury their dead and engage in religious expression?...¹

Though anatomically similar in many ways, Neanderthals and humans exhibit significant morphological differences...

For a time, anthropologists who saw an evolutionary connection between Neanderthals and modern humans didn’t consider the differences particularly meaningful. These scientists claimed that (to a large extent) the anatomical distinctives could be explained by the Neanderthals’ lifestyle and environmental influences. In other words, the researchers didn’t think the Neanderthals’ unique characteristics were inherent; rather, they presumed these features resulted from non-genetic factors.

The Neanderthals lived in a cold climate, and many of their facial and bodily attributes allowed them to thrive in harsh conditions. Modern human populations that have historically occupied frigid environments (such as the Inuits) display similar facial and body features. According to Bergmann’s rule and Allen’s rule, people found in cold environments naturally possess smaller, more barrel-shaped bodies and shorter limbs than do human populations with historical connections to warm climates. Stockier bodies with shorter arms and legs (according to these rules) help retain body heat. In warm climates, long limbs and elongated trunks make heat dissipation more efficient. Therefore, some paleoanthropologists have claimed that Neanderthals’ unique anatomy may simply reflect cold adaptation, not fundamental genetic differences...

Many paleoanthropologists acknowledge that climate effects may account for some anatomical differences between humans and Neanderthals. However, some of these same scientists maintain that Neanderthals’ unique features represent a profound distinction. Not only must Neanderthal be considered a separate species, but it must also be viewed as an evolutionary side branch, a dead end. In other words, these scientists claim that Neanderthals have no evolutionary connection to humanity.

This view gained significant support in 1992 when Yoel Rak discovered the skeleton of a Neanderthal infant in a limestone cave in Israel. The 50,000-year-old specimen manifested the same unique anatomical features as an adult Neanderthal. This similarity convinced Rak (along with the majority of paleoanthropologists) that Neanderthals are inherently distinct from human beings. The infant’s morphology establishes that the anatomical differences stem largely from genetics, not exclusively from environmental and lifestyle effects...²

In 1997, researchers from the Max Planck Institute and Pennsylvania State University reported the first genetic comparison of modern humans and Neanderthals. During this groundbreaking study, (which has been described as “science at its very best”), two independent teams isolated, amplified and sequenced mitochondrial-DNA (mtDNA) fragments from the right humerus of the first-discovered Neanderthal specimen...

From the DNA fragments, each team pieced together the sequence for what is known as mtDNA’s hypervariable I (HVI) region... The scientists then compared the Neanderthal HVI sequence to the corresponding sequence from 2,051 human and 59 chimpanzee samples... The research revealed a 27-base-pair difference, on average, for Neanderthal-to-human comparisons.

Shortly after the 1997 report was published, the team from the Max Planck Institute extended their human-to-Neanderthal genetic comparison by including a second segment of mitochondrial DNA, called the hypervariable II (HVII) region. This DNA sequence consists of about 340 base pairs. As with the first study, the HVII mtDNA fragments were isolated and amplified from the right humerus bone of the first Neanderthal specimen discovered. When examined alongside the corresponding HVII region from 663 modern humans, this segment differed, on average, by 35 base pairs. For this study, human-to-human comparisons yielded an average difference of 10 base pairs..

Comparisons of Neanderthal DNA with human population groups yielded, on average, a 36-, 34- and 34-base-pair difference between Neanderthal HVII and the samples from Europeans, Asians, and Africans, respectively.

The extent and nature of the genetic differences make a powerful case that Neanderthals and humans are distinct species...

Despite the power of the Planck team’s case, several paleoanthropologists expressed unease. For them, the conclusions of these two initial studies seemed too far-reaching. The work involved only a single Neanderthal specimen. These scientists also expressed concern about possible contamination...

Many of these legitimate concerns were laid to rest when teams from the University of Stockholm and the University of Glasgow each independently isolated, amplified, and sequenced the HVI and HVII mtDNA regions from the remains of a second Neanderthal fossil. This infant specimen, dated at 29,000 years old, was recovered from a cave in the northern Caucasus, the easternmost part of the Neanderthals’ range. Both teams obtained identical results. As with the first Neanderthal genetic study, these analyses noted a 22-base-pair difference between the northern Caucasus specimen’s mtDNA and a modern human mtDNA reference sequence for the HVI region. They also found close agreement between their Neanderthal DNA sequence and the one obtained by the team from the Max Planck Institute (a mere 3.48 percent difference).

Since these two studies, the Planck team has isolated, amplified, and sequenced mtDNA from seven additional Neanderthal specimens... The mtDNA sequences from these seven additional specimens closely agree with the sequences that were determined from the earlier studies...

The uneasiness that researchers felt about the results of the original study in 1997 has largely dissipated now that researchers have mtDNA sequences from nine separate Neanderthal specimens. Several independent laboratories, each essentially obtaining the same result on specimens representing different time points in the Neanderthals’ existence, make it difficult to dismiss the Neanderthal genetic data as an artifact of contamination or error The cumulative weight of genetic evidence appears to decisively sever the link between Neanderthals and humans... The conclusion seems obvious—Neanderthals could not have given rise to modern European populations or to any other human population group.³

As compelling as the evidence seems, a minority of paleoanthropologists remain unconvinced. They consider the genetic data insufficient to rule out a connection between Neanderthals and humans. Some researchers point out that the genetic studies rely exclusively on mtDNA comparisons. They ask whether the results would be the same in a comparison of nuclear DNA.

According to the challenges, while the mtDNA of modern humans and Neanderthals differ, the much more important chromosomal DNA found in the cell’s nucleus may be highly similar and reflect a deep evolutionary connection between the two species...

If the Neanderthals’ mitochondrial-DNA sequence was lost, the genetic continuity between them and modern humans would have been disrupted over time. In the distant past, the continuity would be readily evident. The apparent connection would then diminish until it disappears. Comparisons between Neanderthals and currently existing human populations thus might reflect the end of this decay process. In order to test this idea, paleoanthropologists must compare Neanderthal mtDNA sequences with ancient remains of humans that date as close as possible to the time when Neanderthals existed.

A scientific team from Spain and Italy recently performed this type of comparison. They isolated, amplified, and sequenced mtDNA from two human remains recovered in Italy and dating to 25,000 and 23,000 years in age. These people lived within the Neanderthals’ range... The researchers discovered that the mtDNA sequences of these ancient humans were characteristically identical to those of contemporary humans and yet were distinct from Neanderthal mtDNA.

The two ancient human mitochondrial-DNA sequences differed from four previously published Neanderthal sequences by 22 to 28 base pairs. In other words, as soon as human beings appeared in Europe, sharp genetic differences existed between them and Neanderthals. The DNA from Neanderthals does not appear to be human DNA that became extinct...⁴

Though the textbook view considers Neanderthals to be a part of humanity’s lineage, the preponderance of scientific evidence strongly positions them off to the side... Strauss and Cave argued in 1956 that the public perception of the Neanderthals is incorrect. Instead of being rehabilitated as modern humans, the Neanderthals have been rendered extinct hominids with no bearing on humanity’s origin. ⁵

The biblical record of origins states that only one creature was made in God’s image. That distinction belongs solely to human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens). As a consequence, the Reasons to Believe model predicts that Neanderthal behavior and culture will be qualitatively different from mankind’s. Only people should display behavior and a culture that reflect God’s image. While biological characteristics are significant in drawing a distinction between humans and hominids, these features are not the most important criteria—behavior is.

Archeological evidence from Neanderthal sites has yielded important insight into their behavior and culture. Claims that Neanderthals used sophisticated tools, possessed language, and engaged in artistic and musical expression abound... ...what does the archeological record say?...

...compared to the tools used by the earliest human beings, Neanderthal implements were relatively unsophisticated. According to paleoanthropologist Richard Klein, “The archeological record suggests that they [Neanderthals] were behaviorally far less innovative [than modern humans].”...⁶

When it comes to cognitive ability, no issue is more contentious among paleoanthropologists than the Neanderthals’ ability to communicate. The anatomical evidence, while not entirely conclusive, increasingly indicates that Neanderthals lacked the capacity for speech and language. The structure of the Neanderthal skull base was not conducive for speech...

As Roger Lewin notes in his textbook on human evolution, “The notion that Neanderthals had poorly developed language abilities has become the majority position among anthropologists...”⁷

Neanderthals lacked not only speech, but also symbolic thought. Artistic and musical expression reflects this capacity. Richard Klein states, “Unlike Upper Paleolithic Cro-Magnons [modern humans], Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals left little compelling evidence for art or jewelry.”

Despite a lack of evidence, some highly publicized claims have been made for Neanderthal artistic expression. One of the most widely known is the so-called Neanderthal flute recovered from a cave in Slovenia in 1995. The paleoanthropologists who made this find interpreted an 11-centemeter bone fragment from a cave bear’s femur (leg bone) as a flute. This bone shaft had four evenly spaced circular openings on one side. Subsequent analysis, less publicized, revealed that these openings were more likely perforations to the bone caused by carnivores.

Highly touted claims of Neanderthals’ ritual behavior and even religious expression have also appeared in the media. [What is] their chief basis? Graves. Neanderthal remains have been uncovered in close association with tools and other artifacts or in an exaggerated fetal position that seems to have been deliberately arranged at the time of burial.

One of the most widely known Neanderthal burial sites was excavated in Iraq between 1957 and 1961. Researchers there found pollen beneath the Neanderthal specimen. This discovery was taken to indicate that flowers had been placed around the corpse during a ritual burial.

Other paleoanthropologists hesitate to conclude that Neanderthal burials were ritualistic. Natural causes could account for many of the features of Neanderthal “graves.” A cave roof’s collapse on live occupants (or abandoned bodies) could have buried them. Some scientists have suggested that wind may have blown the pollen in the Neanderthal grave onto the remains, or a rodent may have carried the pollen to the burial site.

Paleoanthropologists struggle to interpret hominid behavior from a sparse archeological record. Conclusions drawn from limited data are speculative and far ranging, often beyond what the evidence can sustain (as in the case with the pollen). Based on the data, it is not outlandish to conclude that Neanderthals buried their dead, at least occasionally, but to interpret these “burials” as deliberate, established rituals appears unwarranted and unsubstantiated. Neanderthal burials likely reflect the fact that these hominids possessed some limited emotional capacity, but this fact does not necessarily imply that they were spiritual beings...

One of the most fanciful pieces of evidence cited in favor of Neanderthal religious expression came from caves in Switzerland and France that contained large and seemingly orderly collections of bear skeletons. A few paleoanthropologists interpreted the bear skeletons as a type of altar and initially took this evidence to indicate that Neanderthals worshiped as part of a “bear cult.” Closer study, however, indicates that the remains had simply accumulated in the caves when bears died there during hibernation, (perhaps over a period of years), with natural processes causing the apparent sorting of the bones.

When all archeological evidence is critically considered, it appears as though Neanderthals possessed some capacity of emotional expression and a level of intelligence, similar to that of the great apes today. Yet they clearly lived in nonhuman ways. To say that Neanderthals behaved like spiritual beings made in God’s image stretches the evidence beyond reasonable limits...⁸

Compared to Neanderthals’ brains, the human brain has a larger parietal lobe. This brain region plays a vital role in language, math reasoning, sense of self-identity, and religious experience.

Such a profound biological distinction explains the behavioral difference between Neanderthals and people. The Neanderthals’ brain shape and structure provided no capacity for behaving the way human beings behave. Neanderthals lacked the necessary brain structure to think and act in a way that reflects God’s image...⁹

Appendix B: “Comparing the Genes of Humans and Chimps”←↰⤒🔗

While working at the University of California, Berkeley, in the early 1970s, [Mary-Claire King] compared the amino acid sequences, as well as the immunological and physical properties of several proteins, isolated from both humans and chimpanzees. These three measures indicated to King and her doctoral supervisor, Allan Wilson, that only a small genetic difference separated the two species...

According to King’s results, humans and chimpanzees share a closer genetic relatedness than anyone had anticipated. King uncovered a 99-percent agreement in the amino acid sequences of several proteins...

The 99-percent genetic similarity has been enshrined as a cultural icon. For many naturalists, this resemblance represents one of the most compelling arguments for humanity’s evolutionary origin. Presumably, the 99-percent sequence overlap for proteins and DNA proves that humans and chimps arose from a common ancestor sometime in the relatively recent past. According to this view, the small genetic differences arose after the human and chimpanzee lineages split as a consequence of mutational changes within each species’ genetic material...

...doesn’t the compelling genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees mean human evolution must be true? An in-depth answer to this question comes from an examination of the recent comparative studies of human and chimp biochemistry and genetics. These studies uncover some unexpected surprises...¹⁰

In the early 1980s, evolutionary biologists compared the chromosomes of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, using two staining techniques called G-banding and C-banding. These studies revealed an exceptional degree of similarity between human chromosomes and chimp chromosomes. When aligned, the human and corresponding chimpanzee chromosomes appeared virtually identical. They displayed practically the same banding pattern, band locations, band size, and band stain intensity. To evolutionary biologists, this resemblance speaks of human and chimpanzee shared ancestry...

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes display many structural similarities. Evolutionary biologists interpret these shared features as evidence that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.¹¹

The chromosomal evidence for shared ancestry stands, at best, as a qualitative and indirect comparison of genetic material. Such information fails to offer any insight into the anatomical, physiological, and behavioral differences between human beings and chimpanzees. Evolutionary biologists, therefore, want a more direct and meaningful comparison at the molecular level.

Steps toward this goal have been taken through application of DNA-DNA hybridization. Begun in the 1970s at the California Institute of Technology, this technique gained importance in the early 1980s when two biologists from Yale University further developed the methodology and then used it to characterize bird origins. This success encouraged biologists to begin using the technique to determine evolutionary relationships among primates.

DNA-DNA hybridization provides the means to make large-scale, though indirect, quantitative comparisons of DNA sequences...

The DNA double helix is held together by interactions between the nucleotide side groups that extend from each individual chain’s backbone...

When heated above a characteristic temperature (Tm), the two DNA strands of the double helix separate... DNA-DNA hybridization exploits this physical phenomenon. The first step in the process involves heating DNA from two different species to separate each DNA double helix. Once separated, the single DNA strands from each species are mixed and hybrid double helices form. One strand of the hybrid double helix comes from one species; the other strand comes from the other species.

These hybrid DNA molecules form “heteroduplexes.” ...the more similar the DNA sequences are, the more completely and tightly the two strands pair. The heteroduplexes are then carefully heated in a controlled fashion to determine precisely the temperature at which they separate (Tm).

The difference between the separation temperatures of the heteroduplex and DNA double helix for each species reflects their degree of genetic similarity...

DNA-DNA hybridization studies show that, among the primates, chimp DNA has the highest degree of similarity to human DNA... Scientists take these results to signify a deep evolutionary connection between humans and chimpanzees.

While DNA-DNA hybridization studies generally agree with chromosome comparisons, controversy has surrounded them. Both the reliability of the technique and the statistical analysis of DNA-DNA hybridization data have been hotly debated by biologists. Currently, few evolutionists use this technique or consider it informative. DNA-DNA hybridization studies have mostly historical interest...¹²

Most evolutionary biologists see direct comparisons of DNA sequences as the best approach to discern genetic, and hence, evolutionary relationships among organisms. The technology to conduct DNA sequence analysis became available only in the mid-1980s...

In the spring of 2003, Morris Goodman (from Wayne State University) and his research team made headlines around the world with one such study. His team took advantage of recently available DNA sequence data from the human and chimpanzee genome projects.

Goodman and his collaborators examined 97 genes collectively comprises of 90,000 base pairs (genetic letters)—perhaps one of the most extensive human-chimp gene-to-gene comparisons ever made... The research...showed a 98.4 percent sequence similarity for genetic differences that leave the amino acid sequence unchanged (synonymous).

Given this likeness, Goodman maintains that, genetically speaking, chimpanzees and humans belong to the same genus, Homo. However, the scientific community has been reluctant to embrace Goodman’s proposal because genetic comparisons are not the sole criteria for biological classification. Humans and chimpanzees display obvious anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and cultural differences that form a basis for their assignment to separate genera. In spite of the shortcomings with gene-to-gene comparisons, (whether direct or indirect), the high level of genetic similarity suggests to evolutionary biologists that humans and chimpanzees share ancestry...¹³

For the last three decades, the 99-percent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees has stood as an unassailable “fact,” seemingly confirmed time and time again by evolutionary biologists. However, several recent studies strongly indicate that humans and chimpanzees actually display substantial genetic differences. Biologists are uncovering these differences as they transition from performing individual gene-to-gene comparisons to performing studies that involve significant portions of, if not the entire, human and chimpanzee genomes.

Studies that reveal a 99-percent genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees have stacked the deck in a way that guarantees a high degree of likeness. Comparisons made between corresponding regions of the human and chimpanzee genomes, which researchers already suspected to be nearly identical, showed striking similarity. But when researchers made unbiased comparisons of larger regions of these two genomes, differences began to emerge.

One of the first studies to make genome-to-genome comparison between humans and chimpanzees was reported early in 2002 by the International Consortium for the Sequencing of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22. To make this whole-genome comparison, the Chimpanzee Genome Project team cut the chimp genome into fragments, sequenced them, and then compared them to corresponding sequences found in the Human Genome Database. For those chimp DNA fragments that were able to align with sequences in the Human Genome Database, the project team found that the sequences displayed a 98.77-percent agreement. However, the project team found that about 15,000 of the 65,000 DNA fragments did not align with any sequence in the Human Genome Database. They appear to represent unique genetic regions.

A few months later, a team from the Max Planck Institute achieved a similar result when they compared over 10,000 regions (encompassing nearly 3 million nucleotide base pairs). Only two-thirds of the sequences from the chimp genome aligned with the sequences in the human genome. As expected, in those that did align, a 98.76-percent genetic similarity was measured, and yet one-third found no matches...

Although human and chimpanzee genomes display great similarity, that similarity has been magnified to some extent by research methodology. Researchers are starting to uncover significant differences. Results of large-scale comparisons must be considered preliminary, as it is not yet clear what the genetic differences mean in terms of anatomical and behavioral characteristics... Already the newly recognized genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees complicate the picture for biologists who view the high degree of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees as proof of shared ancestry...¹⁴

While advancing research is uncovering what appear to be extensive genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees, it is important to remember that sometimes even single genetic differences can be significant. Separate studies conducted at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), the Max Planck Institute, and the University of Chicago, supply important examples. This work demonstrates that subtle genetic differences translate into marked disparities in human and Chimpanzee brain biochemistries. Researchers think these discrepancies may explain, at least in part, the unique qualities of the human brain.

One noteworthy biochemical difference between humans and the great apes is the absence in people of a particular cell-surface sugar, N-glycolyl-neuraminic acid (GL-neur). This sugar is found in virtually all mammals, including chimpanzees. Sugars in the cell surface play a critical role in a number of physiological processes... The absence of GL-neur explains the immunological distinction between humans and other mammals, including chimpanzees.

Cell-surface sugars also mediate cell-to-cell communication and may play a role in development. While G-neur occurs at high levels in all body tissues in mammals, including the great apes, its levels are relatively low in brain tissue. This fact has led the UCSD scientists to speculate that the absence of GL-neur in humans may explain, in part, differences in human and chimpanzee brain development, structure, and capacity. Experiments are under way to test this idea...¹⁵

Though humans and chimpanzees share a high degree of genetic similarity, several recent studies demonstrate that even subtle genetic differences can manifest themselves dramatically in terms of an organism’s anatomy, physiology and behavior. This finding compels the question... “What do genetic differences and similarities really mean?”

Anthropologist Jonathan Marks addresses the genetic questions in his book, What Does It Mean to be 98% Chimpanzee? Marks maintains that comparisons based on the percentage of similarity (or difference) of DNA sequences are largely meaningless. He points out the fact that humans and daffodils possess a 35-percent genetic similarity. According to Marks, “In the context of a 35% similarity to a daffodil, the 99.44% of the DNA of human to chimp doesn’t seem so remarkable...”

Comparisons of the mouse genome (reported in December, 2002) with the human genome supports Mark’s point. Of the 30,000 genes found in each of the human and mouse genomes, around 99­ percent are the same. Only 300 genes are unique either to mice or to humans. Gene-to-gene DNA comparisons for humans and mice reveal roughly an 80-percent sequence similarity. Are humans 80­ percent similar to mice?

Given that humans and mice essentially possess the same genes, something more than genes and genetic similarity must define organisms. Biologists are starting to look at differences in gene expression as a way to account for anatomical, physiological, and behavioral differences among organisms. [Gene expression describes which genes are turned on and off in a given tissue or at a given point in time.]...

Researchers are just beginning to gain knowledge of gene expression patterns in humans and the great apes. Yet these initial studies already indicate that anatomical, physiological, and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees, (as well as the other great apes), result much more from differences in gene expression than from DNA sequence disparities. In many instances, it is not the genes present that are important but the way they function...

...the difference between human biology and behavior and chimp biology and behavior likely depends to a large extent on the difference in gene usage, not the types of genes present.¹⁶

Emerging genetic data, when viewed from a creation model perspective, provides some understanding of how God may have created humanity. It appears that when the Creator made humanity’s physical component, He employed similar design features and the same building blocks (genes) as He used to fashion the great apes and other animals. It also appears that God redesigned certain building blocks or revised their function via genetic changes. He introduced new building blocks, (gene duplications followed by genetic changes), cast aside other building blocks, (gene deletions), and used the building blocks in radically different ways, (gene expression and gene regulation), to produce humanity’s unique features...¹⁷

Appendix C: A Brief Commentary on Genesis 2:5-7←↰⤒🔗

⁵Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. ⁶Then there went up rain clouds from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground. ⁷And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. Gen. 2:5-7

Genesis 2:5 is reiterating certain aspects of the creation account initially presented in Genesis 1, but is doing so in a very abbreviated manner.

Genesis 2:5a, “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up,” is reiterating the initial condition of the creation, which in Genesis 1:2a is stated in these terms: “the earth was formless and empty.”

The phrase, “shrub of the field,” refers to the wild vegetation that grows spontaneously after the onset of the rainy season, while “plant Hof the field]” refers to cultivated grains.¹⁸

Genesis 2:5b now presents the two “deficiencies” that need to be addressed: no rain to water the ground and no man to till the ground. Genesis 2:6 will reveal how God met the first “deficiency” (no rain), and Genesis 2:7 will reveal how God met the second “deficiency” (no man). These opening verses of the passage are intended to set the stage for the fuller discussion of the creation of man and his role in God’s creation, the subject that occupies the remainder of chapter two.

Genesis 2:6, “there went up rain clouds from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground,” is describing the creation of the water cycle that the LORD brought into being on the second day of creation (Gen. 1:6-8). We may also take note of Job 36:27-28 (see notes below), which is describing the same event in terms very similar to those found here in Genesis 2:6.

The Hebrew word, אֵד, has often been translated “mist,” (KJV, ASV) or in some cases, “streams” (NIV). Scholars have proposed numerous meanings for אֵד, but “streams” seems to have won the day. However, “streams” cannot possibly be correct for two reasons: 1) the text does not say that the problem was a lack of water in general, a problem that could be solved by water from any one of a variety of sources, for instance, a stream. The text specifically states that the problem was a lack of rain; and, 2) If “streams” is understood to be the correct translation of the Hebrew word אֵד, then the sense of the passage is something like, “no wild vegetation had appeared in the land, for the LORD God had not sent rain; but a stream was arising to water the whole surface of the land.” If a stream was present to water the whole surface of the land, then there was ample water for the appearance of wild vegetation, and the reason clause, (for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth), is completely irrelevant and illogical.¹⁹

The only other recognized occurrence of the Hebrew word, אֵד, is found in Job 36:27, where the NIV translates it as “streams:” “he draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams.” The NIV translates אֵד here as “streams” in keeping with its rendering in Genesis 2:6. A footnote, however, offers an alternative, rendering אֵד as “mist:” *"which distills from the mist as rain.” The alternative in the footnote is certainly closer to the true sense. It correctly recognizes the sense “from” for the Hebrew preposition, ל, but “mist” cannot be the sense of אֵד here, since mist does not “distill as rain,” especially as “abundant rain” (see Job 36:28).

Hebrew scholar, Mitchell Dahood, translates אֵד as “rain cloud,” as the term occurs in Job 36:27, “When he draws up drops from the sea, they distill as rain from his rain cloud ."Note how well such a rendering of אֵד fits the context: “The clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind” (NIV translation of Job 36:28). Note how a hinge is formed by vs. 27b (“rain cloud”) and vs. 28a (“clouds”). This hinge connects the beginning of the cycle (evaporation in vs. 27a) with the end of the cycle (abundant rain on the land in vs. 28b).

Given that אֵד has the sense “rain cloud” in Job 36:27, where it is collocated with rain, it is certainly plausible that אֵד has the same sense in Genesis 2:6, where it is likewise collocated with rain (cf. Genesis 2:5). The plausibility of this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that Dahood was not the first to understand אֵד in the sense of “rain cloud;” the ancient Targums consistently render אֵד with the Aramaic word for “clouds.”

An immediate objection arises, however, if we translate Genesis 2:6, “a rain cloud came up from the land,” since rain clouds do not literally come up from the land.

But consider a text like Psalm 135:7, “He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.” Psalm 135:7 thus provides a close parallel for Genesis 2:5-6, showing that clouds do rise from the land, at least in terms of how things appear to an observer standing on the land. Clouds appear on the horizon, whether the horizon is a plain or a mountain, and thus give the appearance of rising from the land.

The seventh time Elijah’s servant looked out over the Mediterranean, he said, “a cloud as small as a man’s hand is rising from the sea” (1 Kgs. 18:44). Not literally rising from the sea, of course, but rising in terms of appearance, since the cloud was rising in relation to the sea that formed the western horizon. Compare, also, Jeremiah 10:13,

When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar; he makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.²⁰

Note: The Hebrew particle, (ן), with which verse 6 of Genesis 2 begins, and which is translated “but” in the ASV and the NIV, usually bears the sense of “and;” it can also be rendered “then” (The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, edited by Benjamin Davidson, published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, reprinted in 1967, p. 233). An example of (ן) being used in the sense of “then” is found in Genesis 3:5, “then your eyes shall be opened.” It seems preferable to translate the particle (ן) as “and,” or even better, as “then,” here in Genesis 2:6. Thus, verse 6 may be translated, “then [referring to God’s act of creation on the second day] there went up rain clouds from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground.”

Genesis 2:7 now proceeds to discuss in greater detail than chapter one the creation of man and his role in God’s creation.