Can the Leopard Change his Spots?

[rvilbig]

Jeremiah 13:23 reads (RSV): “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.”

I asked my bishop what this passage meant, and he said that it was conceivable that scripture was suggesting genetic adaptations. Since all humans have descended from two parents and yet have a considerable range of phenotypes, perhaps God was telling us that just as He changed genes so too can He change us. As Jeremiah writes: the Lord says “like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.” (Jer 18:6) So just as God evolved the world according to His plan, He may also evolve us into a new species, for “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, the old has passed away, behold, the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17).

What are your thoughts? Does the Bible suggest genetic adaptations to us?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[StrawberryJam]

No.

Do you have any other passages but this one to back up your theory?

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.”

The idea behind it is what the Church teaches that person can not live serious sin and also live in the state of grace. It has nothing to do with the range of phenotypes. I think the message is don’t be presumptuous, that you can live in sin and do what is good. He doesn’t want peope to have a complacent attitude towards morality, to what’s right and wrong. It is a warning to those who grow accustom to sin and think they can can do good as well. A person can not be devious all the time and then do good because it’s most likely a self-serving act not a selfless act for the good of others.

 

[rvilbig]

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.”

The idea behind it is what the Church teaches that person can not live serious sin and also live in the state of grace. It has nothing to do with the range of phenotypes. I think the message is don’t be presumptuous, that you can live in sin and do what is good. He doesn’t want peope to have a complacent attitude towards morality, to what’s right and wrong. It is a warning to those who grow accustom to sin and think they can can do good as well. A person can not be devious all the time and then do good because it’s most likely a self-serving act not a selfless act for the good of others.

I’m not suggesting that doing good is a matter of changing genes (if I follow what you’ve written), for “what is born of flesh remains flesh, and what is born of spirit remain spirit” (Jn 3:6). I’m just saying that there’s a parallel between genetic evolution and spiritual evolution, and both require the guidance of God.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[rvilbig]

No.

Do you have any other passages but this one to back up your theory?

Saint John Chrysostom also wrote about spiritual evolution using similar ideas: “[W]olves shall be overcome by sheep, whereas the sheep, though exposed to the fangs of wolves and bleeding from innumerable wounds, shall not only not perish, but even change the wolves into their own nature” (Homily 34)

Isaiah also makes a parable about a farmer trying to change grape genes but being unable to do so; in just the same way, God has been trying to change the faithfulness of the Israelites though they have mutated back to their sinful ways:

“My friend had a vineyard, on a fertile hillside; He spaded it, cleared it of stones and planted the choicest vines; within it he built a watchtower, and hewed out a wine press. Then he looked for the crop of grapes, but what it yielded was wild grapes” (Is 5:1-2)

These are some of my ideas anways.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[promethius]

I have to agree with John Paul Jones, the passage appears to state that we cannot expect to accustom ourselves with evil and then justify something along the lines of “I can stop any time and be a good person”.

What we live is what we are, if we choose to accustom ourselves to being evil, we will break down our will such that we will find it hard to come back to goodness. As a speaker I saw once broke it down, each person has two wolves at battle in them, one which fights to do good and one which fights to do bad. When you do bad things, you feed the bad wolf and he grows stronger. In a similar way, when we do good things or avoid bad things, we feed the good wolf instead. His motivational catch phrase: “make sure you’re feeding the right wolf so that he’ll win the fights”

 

[promethius]

Saint John Chrysostom also wrote about spiritual evolution using similar ideas: “[W]olves shall be overcome by sheep, whereas the sheep, though exposed to the fangs of wolves and bleeding from innumerable wounds, shall not only not perish, but even change the wolves into their own nature” (Homily 34)

More likely St Chrysostem was talking about the value of martyrdom in Christianity. Facing torment for and with a stoic belief in Christ brought about MANY converts… something we should not forget as a people.

Isaiah also makes a parable about a farmer trying to change grape genes but being unable to do so; in just the same way, God has been trying to change the faithfulness of the Israelites though they have mutated back to their sinful ways:
“My friend had a vineyard, on a fertile hillside; He spaded it, cleared it of stones and planted the choicest vines; within it he built a watchtower, and hewed out a wine press. Then he looked for the crop of grapes, but what it yielded was wild grapes” (Is 5:1-2)

While I agree that this is Israel being discussed, it has nothing to do with genetic modifications of an existing grape plant. Instead it has to do with selecting the chosen vines (or, in the case of Israel, the chosen people) and then those chosen still produced inadequate fruit. If we’re saying that this is pointing to God somehow genetically modifying people to predispose them to good, then this passage is also saying the impossible: that God failed in so doing.

Instead, Christ was sent to redeem us: the chosen vines that were choosing on our own to produce bad fruit. Genetic modification is not it, Grace through Christ’s eternal passover is.

 

[rvilbig]

I have to agree with John Paul Jones, the passage appears to state that we cannot expect to accustom ourselves with evil and then justify something along the lines of “I can stop any time and be a good person”.

What we live is what we are, if we choose to accustom ourselves to being evil, we will break down our will such that we will find it hard to come back to goodness. As a speaker I saw once broke it down, each person has two wolves at battle in them, one which fights to do good and one which fights to do bad. When you do bad things, you feed the bad wolf and he grows stronger. In a similar way, when we do good things or avoid bad things, we feed the good wolf instead. His motivational catch phrase: “make sure you’re feeding the right wolf so that he’ll win the fights”

Your philosophy is a strange mixture of Manichaeism and Pelagianism, in my humble opinion. You suggest that there is a cosmic dual between good and evil in man (Manichaeism) and propose that the good can emerge victorious by the efforts of man alone (Pelagianism). Also, why do humans have so many different genes when we all share two original parents? Isn’t it because God changed our genes? Perhaps God can transform our souls too.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[promethius]

You suggest that there is a cosmic dual between good and evil in man (Manichaeism)

Nonsense. I said nothing about cosmic duals. We have a fallen nature that is tempted by sin, and a soul that is created beautiful by God to give Him Glory. In that is a will which can either avoid evil or fall to it. Nothing cosmic about it.

and propose that the good can emerge victorious by the efforts of man alone (Pelagianism).

I didn’t say that either. What I said is that we cannot expect to remain sinful and then snaps fingers accept grace and become good. I didn’t say that grace was not necessary in sanctification or justification, merely that the human will learns to accept or reject evil by continued practice. Grace is a HUGE part in that, because the strength to reject evil and choose good IS part of God’s grace and goodness.

Also, why do humans have so many different genes when we all share two original parents? Isn’t it because God changed our genes?

under that logic no parents would ever have mixed gender offspring. In fact, every offspring they would produce would be an identical twin (at least genetically) because they would all be the same. There is still genetic varience in offspring, which would increase in measured degrees over time, especially as environmental pressure exerted it’s influence. At only one time in the scriptures can we clearly see that God modifies genetic make-up: Babylon and the scattering of the people there. Even then, that may be metaphorical for emergent cultures over time and not an instantaneous act as many people assume.

Perhaps God can transform our souls too.

undeniably God transforms the soul. When someone is a state of grace they are given special strength to continue to resist sin. That alone is an important reason to patronize the sacrament of Confession well and often.

 

[rvilbig]

under that logic no parents would ever have mixed gender offspring. In fact, every offspring they would produce would be an identical twin (at least genetically) because they would all be the same. There is still genetic varience in offspring, which would increase in measured degrees over time, especially as environmental pressure exerted it’s influence. At only one time in the scriptures can we clearly see that God modifies genetic make-up: Babylon and the scattering of the people there. Even then, that may be metaphorical for emergent cultures over time and not an instantaneous act as many people assume.

There is no signal transduction pathway between “environmental pressure” and genetic mutations. Mutations are constantly occurring do to wobble pairing and tautomeric shifts, and God actualizes every one of these quantum potencies as He “continues to work until now” (Jn 5:17). So all genetic variation was directly caused by God, unless you’re arguing that God is not the Author of life?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[John_Pascendi]

Yes like the robber barons who lie,cheat and steal,then with their blood money start a foundation with a goody goody two shoes name and with their names in huge letters over the front door! So many think that they can fool the Creator with pomp; and circumstance…go figure…Pas

 

[Hoosiercommons]

To rvilbig:

I believe you are misreading the passage from Jeremiah 13:23. It actually says, “Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”

Thus comes the old popular saying that a leopard doesn’t change his spots.

 

[promethius]

There is no signal transduction pathway between “environmental pressure” and genetic mutations. Mutations are constantly occurring do to wobble pairing and tautomeric shifts, and God actualizes every one of these quantum potencies as He “continues to work until now” (Jn 5:17). So all genetic variation was directly caused by God, unless you’re arguing that God is not the Author of life?

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

Again not what I said. What I said was that environmental pressure affects genetic varience as time passes. If food sources in a region grow on trees, the taller members of the species will be able to reach fruit that a shorter would not, thus would continue to be fitter for reproduction. It has nothing to do with mutation and everything to do with natural genetic varience when under stress.

That being said, DOES God actually control every single aspect of genetic mutation? The church teaches that deism is incorrect and that God’s will will eventually be done, but it never defines that God is responsible for every genetic flip possible. Instead it all flows according to God’s natural law that He instituted, not personal or conscious decisions.

 

[rvilbig]

To rvilbig:

I believe you are misreading the passage from Jeremiah 13:23. It actually says, “Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”

Thus comes the old popular saying that a leopard doesn’t change his spots.

You can read it in Hebrew if you like:

blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&c=13&v=23&t=RSV#conc/23

It seems the disputed word is “גַּם”- gam, which is translated as “then also” most often, and is how the RSV puts it. I stand by my interpretation.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Magnus467]

Either way, your understanding of genetics is flawed. A leopard with different spots does not necessarily represent a genetic adaptation. Most likely it is the dispersal of pigments due to a certain gene for genes.

 

[rvilbig]

That being said, DOES God actually control every single aspect of genetic mutation? The church teaches that deism is incorrect and that God’s will will eventually be done, but it never defines that God is responsible for every genetic flip possible. Instead it all flows according to God’s natural law that He instituted, not personal or conscious decisions.

Augustine would certainly hold that God governs all such contingent events in the universe. From his commentary on Genesis:

In the beginning, species were "produced potentially in their causes, before they could evolve through intervals of time, as they are now known to us in the works on which God is continuing to work until now (Jn 5:17) " (Augustine, Literal Meaning of Genesis, V.45)

I think Aquinas would also understand nature the same way:

"“God is said by some to be "the Nature Who makes nature.” This force intends the good and the preservation of the universe, for which alternate generation and corruption in things are requisite: and in this respect corruption and defect in things are natural, not indeed as regards the inclination of the form which is the principle of being and perfection, but as regards the inclination of matter which is allotted proportionately to its particular form according to the discretion of the universal agent.” (Summa, I.II Q.85, art. 6).

God is immanent; this is the doctrine of “creatio continua.” There are a few books out on this, by the way: Wolfgang Smith’s Quantum Enigma, and Robert John Russell’s Cosmology.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com