Did Adam And Eve Have Belly Buttons? (An exercise in theological navel gazing)

By Peter Merz

It's a question that has plagued both contenders and detractors of the Christian-Judeo Faith throughout the centuries of man. Theologians have wrestled with it and artists have been branded as heretics or saints all because of a stroke of a paintbrush. The answer to this question has been the catalyst for controversy and strife within the halls of Christendom. For some the resolution to this theological dilemma is more vitally important than the ABC's of Salvation and Predestination and Freewill. So what is this question that creates strife and division when it rears its ugly head? It is simply did Adam and Eve have belly buttons (or navels)?

Yes, I know this question in and of itself seems very silly and not worth the tax it takes on the human mind to even bother with an answer. But the answer to this question has serious implications and equally serious ramifications.

After doing some reflective navel-gazing and some research I found it just how surprising how vitally important it is for the framework of one's theology whether or not Adam and Eve had navels. The answer one chooses to this question has the potential to open many a Pandora's Box of viewpoints of our point of view on our God and selfsame Creator. The question boils down to a three camps of belief on the topic. One camp contends that Adam and Eve were created beings and as such had neither an innie or an outie , but rather had no belly button feature at all (that would come as a standardized feature on later models). Another camp says that Adam and Eve were not direct creations of God, but rather the result of "fill in the blank" number of years of natural evolution; and as natural beings that would have had a natural birth they would both have to possess belly buttons. And then we have the thinks outside the box think-tank that says, "Sure, Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Not because they went through the process of natural childbirth but instead because God performed plastic surgery on them and gave them belly buttons." So nice to have your cake and eat it too, isn't it?

Okay before delving further into this exercise in navel-gazing, there first is some housekeeping that needs to be attended to. What is the purpose of this mark on the human anatomy that we have so eloquently dubbed the navel (or belly button, if you prefer). The umbilicus (aka: belly button or navel) is the indentation (often called an "innie") or protrusion (often called an "outie) that eventually forms as a result of the removal of the umbilical cord from a newborn child. As a fetus develops and matures within the mother's womb, it is suspended in amniotic fluid and connected to the mother via a life-line that we call the umbilical cord. The umbilical cord is a flexible tube that carries oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus from the mother, and that whisks the byproducts away from the baby so that the mother's body might eliminate them. When the baby is born, the baby now assumes these functions for itself, and so the tube is removed. The belly buttons marks the spot where one was previously attached to one's mother, and is also a visible testimony to the fact that one was the product of a natural birth. Okay, everybody on the same page so far? Good.

According to the Bible (yes, that's right I'm referring to the Bible in explaining a topic that has its roots in the Hebrew Scriptures) Adam and Eve were not products of natural childbirth, but were instead direct creations of God.

"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (soul)" (Genesis 2:7).

According to the Genesis time-line woman had not yet been created this is also reaffirmed by the Apostle Paul:

"For man does not originate from woman" (1 Cor. 11:8).

So if this is the case how could it be possible for Adam to have had an umbilicus? Still an even greater question to ponder would be: would not the very presence of an umbilicus be a visible testimony to an utter and sheer falsehood? The mere appearance of an "innie" or "outie" on Adam would be a visible sign that Adam came into being through the process of natural childbirth, when in fact he did not. If God had chosen to put any such sign upon Adam it would have been a false witness and testimony to a lie. To put it more clearly, if God had chosen to create an artificial umbilicus on Adam then it would mean the God (that the Scriptures declare cannot lie) was in fact a liar.

Now the same problem exists also with Eve.

"So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And the Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And 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'" (Gen. 2:21-23).

Eve like her husband (Adam) was not the product of natural childbirth but was a supernatural creation. For God to have placed an umbilicus upon Eve would have been a declaration of a falsehood. Forsooth, an artificially-created umbilicus would be a visible statement of a contradiction to Eve's creation by her matchless Creator.

Sure, sure, many of you may be going this is all just frivolous blathering with very little merit as a topic point. But think on this: The question as to whether or not Adam and Eve ever possessed such a distinguishing mark has not only fueled debate in the religious world for centuries, but has also reached its way into the United States Congress! Over 6 decades ago in 1944, a subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives Military Committee (chaired by Congressman Durham of North Carolina) refused to authorize a little 30-page booklet titled "Races of Man," that was to be handed out to U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen fighting in World War II, solely because this little booklet had a drawing that depicted Adam and Eve with belly buttons! The members of the subcommittee ruled that showing Adam and Eve with navels "would be misleading to gullible American soldiers."

Some of this world's greatest artists have also wrestled with this demon, as did the Roman Catholic Church. In the year 1646, Sir Thomas Browne, a doctor and philosopher from Norwich, published his work titled, "Pseudodoxia Epidemica" in which he sought to expose some of the "vulgar errors" then present in society. Browne devoted an entire chapter to "Pictures of Adam and Eve with Navels". He pointed out that such notables as Raphael and Michelangelo were guilty of such "vulgar errors." The Catholic Church as a rule seemed to be against artists depicting Adam and Eve with navels in their paintings, so this posed quite a conundrum for a number of artists who didn't want to antagonize the church. More than a few chose the easy way out and simply painted the first couple with strategically placed foliage, long hair, or forearms blocking the abdomen. And yet Michelangelo had the gall to paint Adam with a navel, an on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, no less! Some theologians of his day accused Michelangelo for heresy for these defiant strokes of his paintbrush.

Okay now back the "think outside the box" think-tank group who insist that God created navels for Adam and Eve. As to when God performed this retouching work (perhaps with a divine airbrush) upon the apex of His creation is the subject of debate. This strain of thought is known as "The Omphalos Argument," and it is sub-divided into three basic theories: Pre-, Post-, and Mid-Umbilicism. The word "Omphalos" is a Greek word meaning "knob," and was the Greek word typically used to describe the navel.

Pre-Umbilicism

 
The theory that at the moment of creation Adam and Eve were given navels by their Divine Creator is known as Pre-Umbilicism. Some of Pre-Umbilicism's theories can get pretty bizarre in their wild speculations. Some adherents to this theory actually believe that Adam and Eve were connected to their Creator by some sort of cosmic umbilical cord. They also insist the reason that Adam and Eve have navels is because they were made in the image of God and God Himself sports a navel. They speculate that the God of the universe was at some point in eternity past some sort of giant fetus floating out there in nothingness, attached to some gigantic placenta-like blob. The "point of severing" (a critically important term for them) was when this blob exploded ("The Big Bang") and cut loose. Sometime later He awoke, complete with a navel, to realize that He was God, and then set out to create a universe out of the remnants of the mass that exploded. How anyone could debate this type of ludicrous malarkey with a straight face must be a sight to behold.

Mid-Umbilicism

 
Mid-Umbilicism suggests that Adam's navel was created when God took away his rib and created Eve. God chose to pull the rib from the center of Adam's blank abdomen, creating a puncture wound. The visible sign used to prove that the woman had come from the man. These same proponents of Mid-Umbilicism believe that Eve had no navel but only Adam had need of one. Some in this camp get far out with their theories teaching bizarre theories that advocate male supremacy and purport womankind of being mankind's temporary slaves and that only man was destined for immortality but not so for woman.

Post-Umbilicism

 
This final theory places the umbilicus on both Adam and Eve after their sin (all over some bad decisions regarding a certain tree), and at the point of being driven and banned from the Garden of Eden. This group believes the umbilicus was a mark and a scar to remind Adam and Eve of their being "severed from" their God, much like a baby who is severed from its mother when the umbilical cord is cut, with the navel being a constant reminder of that previous connection now forever severed.

Let's face it this cadre of people are right up there with the "Flat Earth Society". Sorry "think outside of the box" think-tankers, I have no choice but to flush your illogical and crazy theories down the toilet.

The conclusion of the matter is this: To insist however passively or passionately that God crated navels for Adam and Eve (beings that he directly created and who were not born of natural childbirth) is to say that God was guilty of a gigantic hoax and grand deception upon humanity. And such an assertion goes against the very nature of God revealed to us in the Holy Bible. However, on the other hand, the absence of navels on the first human couple would be a powerful, long-lasting witness to creation itself and power of a Divine Creator.