The New Testament in the Mirror of Evolution

 From the Christian faith, the most important events in humanity’s history are elastically described in part in the Old Testament sources, but especially the New Testament. It is a known sequence: the first man – a paradise tree with a forbidden fruit – the first sin – the punishment for sin – the coming of Christ the Redeemer and Savior to Earth. Although the interrelationship and sequence of these events do not give the impression of impossibility, the fact is that the latter is a scientifically proven fact. It is not a problem for a lay Christian-believer to accept this sequence of events literally, as the sacred sources tell us. Still, a person who has mastered a certain amount of scientifically verified information feels a discrepancy between science and faith. The specific events conflict with the evolutionary principle; more precisely, they cannot be understood as a logical evolution product. We must objectively admit that this issue has not yet been explored on a theological level to rely on some official church hierarchy views. Therefore, all our following remarks and considerations should be understood only to contribute to the discussion and not as information about already generally accepted interpretations.

If the evolutionary principle is the real “Divine Technology” of creating the world and all in it, then there should be a possibility to incorporate the mentioned biblical events into the evolutionary scenario organically. Almost provocative questions also arise, for example, whether the person of Jesus Christ belongs to the evolutionary process or stands outside it. This is a problem that has been addressed by many prominent religious thinkers, such as Teilhard de Chardin, Gerd Theissen, and others. Sigurd Daecke gave his polemical article a direct title: Jesus Christ is the Light of Evolution.35)

The basic precondition for solving the indicated questions is translating the source into the “language,” which corresponds to the recipient’s knowledge level. We know that the language of religious books is, above all, metaphor and parable. When it comes to the sower who went out into the field to sow grain, it is clear – after all, Christ himself explained it – that it is neither a sower nor a grain, but something much more important. So if the sources of the Old Testament said of Adam and Eve, the tree with the forbidden fruit, the first sin and the punishment for it, it is clear that it has only a symbolic meaning; it expresses something significant, what really happened and what required a real and historically proven “intervention” of God-Creator, t. j. the coming of Christ to Earth. In connection with this problem, it is not uninteresting to point out that Pope John Paul II. does not mention the specifics of the first sin, but calls it a “mysterious sin,” and that Jesus Christ himself does not mention the events surrounding the fall of the first people anywhere in his messages.

When we think in this way, it is quite natural for us to shed light on the need and meaning of another important event, which, as if – in comparison with the action of God-Creator and God-Son – remained in seclusion. It is about sending the Holy Spirit, promised and sent so that with his help, we can gain a deeper understanding of the Old’s events, especially the New Testament. So we can ask, what have we actually found so far?

In fact, Teilhard de Chardin was the first of the religious thinkers to elevate evolution from a position of general contempt to the level of the Divine mechanism of world creation. However, his understanding of evolution is quite general and mystical; it does not allow his “scenario” to examine such specifics as first parents, their first sin, etc. From this point of view, G. Theissen’s interpretation is more acceptable to many intellectual believers.36) According to him, during the transition from biological systems to intellectual ones, something appeared that was contrary to God’s love, and that needed to be corrected. The determining factor in further evolution has been selected based on “strength,” based on a struggle in which the stronger wins. However, this process is not compatible with the principle of love with which the world was created, so a correction in the form of a message of love was needed. In this sense, the coming of Christ to Earth was the logical culmination of previous evolution. Accordingly, the person of Jesus Christ is a logical link in evolution.

However, even G. Theissen’s interpretation does not provide a sufficiently convincing and satisfactory correlation between science and biblical texts. Interestingly, a much more specific orientation can be provided here by the science from which we would least expect it, namely physics. Physic knows best how it works in the inanimate world and what has actually changed with the advent of Homo sapiens.

The knowledge is known from physics: when two physical objects meet (for example, two billiard balls), the more energetic they always lose part of their energy during the interaction, and the one who had less of it, in turn, gains it. It will never be the other way around, which can be convinced by experimentation or theoretical calculation. The law of conservation of energy would not prevent a situation in which particles with a lot of energy would take away from the particles of other particles, even the little they owned. However, this situation will never occur. Literally, this can be commented on so that nature always chooses the “more human” one from two possible alternatives, i.e., it clearly always prefers a “fraternal” division, resp. Until a complete exchange of “capital.” Thus, the inanimate world’s processes take place – in the figurative sense of the word – by the law of love. This is manifested in the fact that the real world’s objects seem to always indulge more in the other than in themselves when they interact with each other.

The man received the gift of thinking and free decision. When he interacted with another person, he could opt for a fraternal division or a division determined by egoism, that is, by preferring himself. Contrary to God’s expectations and will, the man opted for the second variant. He did it in the beginning, he did it later, and he does it now. Even as a learned Christian. In practice, it looks like when a rich entrepreneur meets a poor consumer, after the “interaction,” the rich are even richer and the poor even poorer. What did this selfish choice provide to man? The opportunity to become rich, powerful, and ruling. “You will be like God” – the snake of the first man tries, and he succumbed to temptation. And the role of women in this process? Many still encourage their men to earn as much money as possible, seek office, and rise above others. In general, we can say that the egoistic choice in mutual coexistence may have been the “first sin” committed not only by Adam and Eve but by the first people in general and by others, including us. This is probably the inheritance of the first sin. There were and are those who did not and do not commit this sin, but there are few of them. People’s selfish thinking in mutual “interactions” was and is the root cause of all conflicts, wars, hatred, anger, and suffering. If a man acted like inanimate nature in mutual relations, there would be no wars, disputes, lack of everything necessary, and humanity could really live in a “paradise.” Man has lost this paradise because he has misused God’s gift — thought and free will — for selfish purposes. The tragedy of this “sin” is most convincingly demonstrated in another. Let’s notice who we glorify after “interactions.” One who has given up something for the benefit of another, or one who has been able to benefit for himself or his loved ones? The “winner” is always glorified. Celebrated is the politician who can win more privileges for “his nation” at others’ expense. The duke who can destroy as many enemies as possible is acclaimed. This is how a man does, and it is clear that by doing so, he has so manipulated evolution that the whole world has literally called for his salvation and correction.