The Creation of Man and the Nations: Hermeneutics and Anthropological Divergences

18 September 2024

By Dr Adi Schlebusch

There is no such thing as “man” in this world. In my lifetime I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, and Russians ... But as for man, I declare that I have never encountered him. And if he exists, he is unknown to me.

- Joseph De Maistre (1753—1821), Conservative Philosopher 

Introduction 

Debates regarding nationalism and immigration policy increasingly tend to focus on our understanding of the socio-ontological character of nationhood, namely whether the propositional and ethno-nationalist understanding of nations are to be embraced. In this article I want to highlight a thesis that I recently developed in light of the above quote from De Maistre, namely how divergent hermeneutic approaches to Scripture and subsequent divergent views of human origins lead to distinct anthropologies, thereby amplifying how I believe the historical-critical methodology in theology and the accompanying rise of evolutionary theory in science which rose to prominence during the Enlightenment fundamentally reshaped anthropology in the West. 

The historical-critical and redemptive-historical approaches to the Bible differ significantly in their treatment of Adam, Eve, and the patriarchs, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who are traditionally understood to be the progenitors of humanity and its nations. In this article, I will argue that this exegetical divergence has broader implications for how we view the nature of nationhood itself. With propositional nationhood national identity is formed by shared values and ideas, whereas ethno-nationalism roots it in a shared ancestry, history, and culture. Creationism, particularly within the redemptive-historical hermeneutic framework, offers a historiographical foundation for ethno-nationalism, whereas the historical-critical approach as well as evolutionary theory, with its emphasis on common origins and gradual development logically aligns with the propositional view. Allow me to flesh my thesis out a little more.

Historical-Critical Hermeneutics and Propositional Nationhood 

Genesis 1–11 constitutes the biblical account of humanity's origins and the formation of the first nations. Within the historical-critical framework these early Genesis chapters are generally viewed as mythological or symbolic literary constructions. According to the historical-critical approach, Adam and Eve are not to be understood as real, historical people, but as archetypes representing the human condition. Similarly, Shem, Ham, and Japheth are seen not as the literal ancestors of specific ethnic groups or nations, but as symbolic patriarchs of humanity. 

By treating these early biblical figures as such, the historical-criticism de-emphasises the idea of real, flesh-and-blood forefathers of nations. Instead, the he story of Adam becomes about the abstract idea of humanity's fall into sin, and the story of the patriarchs becomes solely about the moral consequences of human action, rather than the establishment of real, tangible bloodlines. 

This view of Adam as an abstraction also carries over into the understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ, the second Adam. Just as Adam is reduced to a mythological figure representing humanity's fall, Jesus' redemptive work and resurrection is seen not as a physical and historical reality but as a spiritual or symbolic representation of humanity's restoration. Both the first and second Adam, therefore, are treated as abstract concepts rather than historical persons. Adam is not recognized as the federal head of the race and Jesus is not recognized as the Kinsman-Redeemer of humanity in a bodily, covenantal sense, but rather as a symbolic figure of spiritual renewal. 

Historical-criticism therefore logically correlates with propositional nationhood. In a propositional nation, people are united not by blood or shared ancestry, but by a common commitment to certain ideals, principles, or values. The historical-critical approach, in abstracting the biblical patriarchs by making them into mythological symbols, aligns with the idea that nationhood can be based on shared ideas rather than shared ancestry. Similarly, by treating both Adam and Jesus as representations of fall and redemption rather than the actual men, this approach abstracts both humanity's fall and its restoration into mere spiritual and cognitive constructs, aligning with the notion that identity, whether national or spiritual, is primarily an ideological matter rather than resulting from concrete, covenantal relationships.

Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics and Ethno-Nationalism 

In contrast, the redemptive-historical approach to Scripture treats the events and figures of Genesis 1–11 as real, historical events and people. Adam is viewed not merely as an archetype, but as the literal first man, the progenitor of all humanity. Similarly, the patriarchs—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—are regarded as the literal ancestors of the nations that descended from them. These genealogical accounts in Genesis are seen as establishing the ethnic and national divisions that exist in the world, rooted in real families, tribes, and bloodlines.

This has significant implications for understanding of the redemptive work of Christ as well. In the redemptive-historical paradigm, Jesus is not merely a symbolic or mythological figure; He is the real, historical second Adam, whose work of redemption is not only spiritual but truly physical. We become part of God’s family in Christ as adopted sons and daughters, participating in a real, covenantal relationship. Understanding the significance of Christ’s work as the Kinsman-Redeemer highlights the familial and tribal nature of the incarnation. Christ's incarnation takes place within a specific tribal and familial context, as evidenced by the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17, which affirms Christ's membership in the tribe of Judah and the royal family of David. His humanity is not abstract, but deeply rooted in God-given genealogical distinctions.

Christ's redemptive work reinforces the ethno-nationalist model. His role as Kinsman-Redeemer emphasises that salvation is a familial and covenantal matter, rooted in real, historical relationships. Joseph de Maistre's observation that "man" as an abstract concept does not exist, but only real men embedded in real contexts, aligns well with this view. Maistre’s critique of Enlightenment liberalism, particularly its emphasis on abstract man divorced from his relationships, reflects the danger of reducing human identity to mere ideas, just as the historical-critical approach reduces both Adam and Christ to symbolic figures. In reality, as the incarnate Christ demonstrates, human identity is inseparable from the relationships of kinship, geography, and tribe. 

The redemptive-historical approach thus supports ethno-nationalism by affirming that nations are real, historical entities, grounded in familial and tribal bloodlines. Creationism, by affirming the historicity of Genesis 1–11, provides a theological foundation for this view. Nations, like individuals, are ordained created with distinct identities and decreed to fulfil distinct roles within the divine plan.

 
Creationism versus Evolution 

The tension between creationism and evolutionary theory further underscores the divide between these two approaches to nationhood. Creationism, particularly young-earth creationism, views human history as relatively short and sees humanity as descending from a single pair of ancestors—Adam and Eve—within a few thousand years. This view naturally supports the idea of distinct nations emerging from the early patriarchs, with each nation having a clear, divinely ordained genealogy. 

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand—a theory adhered to by the vast majority of Westerners today—views humanity as the result of a long, gradual process of biological development. While both views see all humans as sharing a common ancestry, in the evolutionary model which postulates gradual development over millions of years, there exists no identifiable historical dividing lines between different ethno-racial groups. From an evolutionary perspective, the origin of distinctions between different races and ethnicities is historically untraceable and moreover lacks any supernatural mandate, making this model naturally align more closely with the idea of propositional nationhood, where national identity is not based on blood or ethnicity but on shared human values or ideas. 

Creationism offers the coherent framework for understanding nations as distinct entities with both an origin and a purpose rooted in God’s decree, whereas evolutionary theory supports a universalist anthropology, suggesting that national and cultural distinctions constitute mere incidental and perpetually evolving expressions of the proposition of the universal man.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the theological debate over the interpretation of Genesis 1–11 has significant implications for how we view nations. The historical-critical hermeneutic, by treating the early chapters of Genesis as mythological or symbolic, aligns with the idea of propositional nationhood, where national identity is based on shared ideas rather than shared ancestry. Similarly, by viewing Jesus as a symbolic second Adam, this approach abstracts the work of redemption into an ideological concept rather than seeing it as a covenantal reality. In contrast, the redemptive-historical approach affirms the literal historicity of Adam, the patriarchs, and Christ, providing a theological foundation for ethno-nationalism. Nations are seen as real, historical entities grounded in familial and tribal bloodlines, just as Christ’s incarnation and redemptive work is grounded in His historical familial and tribal identity. 

Creationism, especially within the redemptive-historical framework, supports this ethno-nationalist view by asserting that nations have real, divinely ordained origins rooted in the divine will as manifested in divine providence. Evolutionary theory on the other hand, with its emphasis on gradual development, tends towards the support of propositional nationhood, where national distinctions are merely coincidental and the universally-shared origin of all people is historically absolutized. Our theological and scientific commitments therefore have a profound impact in terms of shaping our anthropology.