Deconstructing Adam?

The most recent edition of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology includes a fine article by Dr. Ardel Canaday. Dr. Canaday offers a compelling critique of the efforts of Biologos to "deconstruct Adam to fit evolution."

Take time to read the article HERE.

Adam matters... a lot

Specifically, it matters that Adam was a genuinely historical figure.

On Sunday I preached a message dealing with Genesis chapters two and three. One of the things that becomes quite clear is that Adam and the fall are, indeed must be historical realities. This is confirmed by Paul in Romans five. If Adam and the fall are mere metaphors then the gospel itself must be reformulated.

Little wonder then why liberal Bible scholars and emergent's like Brian McLaren who deny the historicity of the fall also diminish Christ and His cross. They deny the atonement because if there was no fall then there need be no sacrifice for sins.

H. Richard Niebuhr's summation of liberal protestantism still rings true:

"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

Check out this helpful article on the importance of Adam to Paul's epistle to the Romans.

Piper on Genesis 1-2

Piper's three key points:

1) We should teach without any qualification that God created the universe and everything in it. It wasn't always here. It didn't spontaneously emerge from a big bang alone, however God did it. God did it. That's clear, and everybody who believes the Word should preach that.

2) Secondly, I think we should preach that he made it good. There was no sin in it, when he first made it.

3) Thirdly, I think we should preach that he created Adam and Eve directly, that he made them of the dust of the ground, and he took out of man a woman. I think we should teach that. I know there are people who don't, who think it's all imagery for evolution or whatever.

And we should teach that man had his beginning not millions of years ago but within the scope of the biblical genealogies. Those genealogies are tight at about 6,000 years and loose at maybe 10 or 15,000. So I think we should honor those genealogies and not say that you can play fast and loose with the origin of man.

That's not the age of the earth issue there. That's the origin of what is a human being, when did that human being come into existence. I think we should say he came into existence by God's direct action and that it wasn't millions of years ago. That was within the scope of these genealogies.

Now, when it comes to the more controversial issues of how to construe Genesis 1-2 about how God did it and how long it took him to do it, there I'm totally sympathetic with a pastor who is going to lay his view down, having studied it, and is going to say to his people, "Here is my understanding of those chapters. These six days can't be anything other than six literal days, and so that's how long God took to do it. And this universe is about 10 or 15,000 years old. Though it looks old, that's the way God made it. He made it to look old," or something like that.

Or he might take another view that these days are ages.

Or he might take Sailhamer's view, which is where I feel at home. His view is that what's going on here is that all of creation happened to prepare the land for man.

In verse 1, "In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth," he makes everything. And then you go day by day and he's preparing the land. He's not bringing new things into existence; he's preparing the land and causing things to grow and separating out water and earth. And then, when it's all set and prepared, he creates and puts man there.

On the historicity of Adam and Eve

Ref21 has posted an excerpt from a book published last year by IVP UK entitled Should Christians Embrace Evolution. Fortunately, our friends at P&R have obtained rights to publish this book for the US market and will be releasing it this year.

One of the contributors, Michael Reeves, addresses the importance of maintaining the historicity of Adam and Eve.

Evangelical Christians have generally resisted the demythologization of the events of the Gospels, whereby, for example, the resurrection of Jesus is interpreted as a mythical portrayal of the principle of new life. Indeed, they have argued strongly that it is the very historicity of the resurrection event that is so vital. However, when it comes to the biblical figures of Adam and Eve, there has been a far greater willingness to interpret them as mythical or symbolic. The simple aim of this chapter is to show, in sketch, that, far from being a peripheral matter for fussy literalists, it is biblically and theologically necessary for Christians to believe in Adam as first, a historical person who second, fathered the entire human race.

Adam was a real, historical person

The textual evidence

The early chapters of Genesis sometimes use the word 'adam' to mean 'humankind' (Gen. 1:26--27, for example), and since there is clearly a literary structure to those chapters, some have seen the figure of Adam there as a literary device, rather than a historical individual. Already a question arises: must we choose between the two? Throughout the Bible we see instances of literary devices used to present historical material: think of Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night, or the emphasis in the Gospels on Jesus' death at the time of the Passover. Most commentators would happily acknowledge that here are literary devices being employed to draw our attention to the theological significance of the historical events being recounted. The 'literary' need not exclude the 'literal'.

The next question then must be: does the 'literary' exclude the 'literal' in the case of Adam? Not according to those other parts of the Bible that refer back to Adam. The genealogies of Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 all find their first parent in Adam, and while biblical genealogies do sometimes omit names for various reasons, they are not known to add in fictional or mythological figures. When Jesus taught on marriage in Matthew 19:4--6, and when Jude referred to Adam in Jude 14, they used no caveats or anything to suggest that they doubted Adam's historical reality or thought of him in any way differently to how they thought of other Old Testament characters. And when Paul spoke of Adam being formed first, and the woman coming from him (1 Cor. 11:8--9; 1 Tim. 2:11--14), he had to be assuming a historical account in Genesis 2. Paul's argument would collapse into nonsense if he meant that Adam and Eve were mere mythological symbols of the timeless truth that men pre-exist women.

The theological necessity

We can think of the passages cited above as circumstantial evidence that the biblical authors thought of Adam as a real person in history. Circumstantial evidence is useful and important, but we have something more conclusive. That is, the role Adam plays in Paul's theology makes Adam's historical reality integral to the basic storyline of Paul's gospel. And if that is in fact the case, then the historicity of Adam cannot be a side issue, but must be part and parcel of the foundations of Christian belief.

The first exhibit is Romans 5:12--21, where Paul contrasts the sin of 'the one man', Adam, with the righteousness of 'the one man', Christ. Paul is the apostle who, in Galatians 3:16, felt it necessary to make the apparently minute distinction between a singular 'seed' and plural 'seeds', so it is probably safe here to assume that he was not being thoughtless, meaning 'men' when speaking of 'the one man'. Indeed, 'the one man' is repeatedly contrasted with the many human beings, and 'oneness' underpins Paul's very argument, which is about the overthrow of the one sin of the one man (Adam) by the one salvation of the one man (Christ).

Throughout the passage, Paul speaks of Adam in just the same way as he speaks of Christ (his language of death coming 'through' Adam is also similar to how he speaks of blessing coming 'through' Abraham in Gal. 3). He is able to speak of a time before this one man's trespass, when there was no sin or death, and he is able to speak of a time after it, a period of time that, he says, stretched from Adam to Moses. Paul could hardly have been clearer that he supposed Adam was as real and historical a figure as Christ and Moses (and Abraham).

Yet it is not just Paul's language that suggests he believed in a historical Adam; his whole argument depends on it. His logic would fall apart if he was comparing a historical man (Christ) to a mythical or symbolic one (Adam). If Adam and his sin were mere symbols, then there would be no need for a historical atonement; a mythical atonement would be necessary to undo a mythical fall. With a mythical Adam, then, Christ might as well be - in fact, would do better to be -- a symbol of divine forgiveness and new life. Instead, the story Paul tells is of a historical problem of sin, guilt and death being introduced into the creation, a problem that required a historical solution.

To remove that historical problem of the one man Adam's sin would not only remove the rationale for the historical solution of the cross and resurrection, it would transform Paul's gospel beyond all recognition. For where, then, did sin and evil come from? If they were not the result of one man's act of disobedience, then there seem to be only two options: either sin was there beforehand and evil is an integral part of God's creation, or sin is an individualistic thing, brought into the world almost ex nihilo by each person. The former is blatantly non-Christian in its monist or dualist denial of a good Creator and his good creation;(1) the latter looks like Pelagianism,(2) with good individuals becoming sinful by copying Adam (and so, presumably, becoming righteous by copying Christ).

Read the entire excerpt HERE.

In related news, John (Jack) Collins, an Old Testament scholar at Covenant Seminary who was also trained in the sciences at MIT has written a book defending the historicity of Adam and Eve which will be released by Crossway.

Does it matter if Adam was an historical person? (2)

The situation with Dr. Bruce Waltke has now been featured on ABC News. The report features Pete Enns who was forced to leave Westminster Theological Seminary for holding and teaching a doctrine of Scripture that was not in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith (All teachers at WTS pledge their belief in and commitment to teach in accord with the WCF). Dr. Enns once professed a belief in an historical Adam but now apparently no longer holds that position. Interestingly, Dr. Waltke holds firmly to the fact that Adam and Eve were historical persons and the fall was a real event. If he is wanting the approval of modern scientists then he will need to jettison those beliefs.

I found Dr. Enn's words troubling. Will the Bible ever put a student at odds with something he hears in his biology class? I imagine so. I also know that what that student learns in his biology class will put him at odds with what his parents learned in their biology class or what may be taught in the same class the following year. How about belief in the virgin birth or resurrection of Christ? Will that put our hypothetical student at odds with what they learn in biology? How about the substitutionary atonement or the necessity of faith in Jesus if one is to be saved? Will these put us at odds with what we learn at school? Will these beliefs put us at odds with our culture? This obsession with the approval of our cultured despisers always marks the slide into theological liberalism which leads to apostasy.

It does matter whether or not Adam was an historical person. Robert Strimple lays out the issue clearly in an article posted by Westminster California.

You see, biblical Christianity, over against all other world and life views, is unique in viewing human sinfulness as the result of a Fall. Other religions and philosophies – and myths – look to sin's origin elsewhere; e.g., in the very constitution of man as composed of a lower as well as a higher nature, or in man's evolutionary past and his natural tendency to revert to a more primitive stage, or in the fact that he has not yet evolved beyond such a stage in certain respects. (And it is evolutionary theory regarding man's origin, of course, which has caused many to deny the biblical teaching regarding man's creation as a holy being whose sin is the result of his own mysterious free act of transgressing God's law.)

Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, views human sinfulness as a Fall – an unnatural development, a lapse from man's proper state – and thereby asserts that to find sin's "explanation" in the original constitution of man is to slander the holy Creator – and thereby also assures man that there is hope: hope for restoration, hope for redemption, hope for Paradise Restored.

On other views of the origin and nature of sin, human sinfulness must be seen as really inevitable (Adam = all men = sinner; to be human is to be sinner); and therefore how can sin ever be remedied or removed? The Bible, on the other hand, gives grounds for hope because, as another has written, the Bible “represents the ills in which man is involved not as the necessary faults of a being low, earthy, and animal by his constitution but as (the) effects from the fall of a being made in the image of God.” (3)

The biblical pictures of fallen human nature are painted with very dark colors, speaking, e.g., of man's heart as “deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt” (Jer. 17:9 RSV). But we must never forget that what is so pictured is not man but fallen man – not man as God created him but man as he has turned his back on God – not man the co-laborer with God but man the rebel. And the hope of the Gospel is that through the accomplishment of the Second Adam and the power of the Creative Spirit, man may be all that he was meant to be.

Read the entire article HERE.

A Cruel Mistress Indeed

Between sessions at Together for the Gospel I was able to check a few of my favorite sites on the web. Carl Trueman has posted an article concerning the situation with Dr. Waltke. In particular Trueman responds to Waltke's assertion that unless we (theological conservatives) get with the program and embrace evolution then we risk the sneers of our cultured despisers.

The recent comments by Professor Bruce Waltke, to the effect that Christianity risks becoming a cult, or at least being perceived as a cult, unless it embraces evolution, have provoked a storm of comment, pro and con. I do not wish to address Professor Waltke's comments directly; for the record, I have always enjoyed his writings (and found them helpful). He is a scholar and gentleman, and when Professor Waltke speaks, I listen, even when I disagree. Thus, what I want to reflect on here are not Professor Waltke's well-known and long-standing views on origins but the questions surrounding the claim that a Christianity which rejects evolution really does risk becoming a cult, and, if so, whether that is something about which we should worry...

To the first point, it is clear from the New Testament that Christian views, particular of the cross, were regarded as stupid and offensive by the wider world. I Corinthians 1 makes that point in dramatic fashion; and the various Jewish and Gentile persecutions of the church described in Acts would imply that the church was not only seen as holding silly beliefs but as doing so in a way that scared society - a hallmark of being regarded as a sinister cult. This continues in the post-apostolic period. Pliny, writing to Emperor Trajan ca. 112, describes how he broke up a local Christian group. He describes them as secretive and engaging in strange practices which reflected their strange beliefs. In other words, he seems to have regarded them as a cult. Historian Tacitus is much the same: when he alludes to the Neronic persecutions, he speaks of Christianity as `shameful and hideous.' Well, as I have said in this column before: if it's white and woolly and goes `Baaaa!' when you kick it, it's a sheep.

To the second point, every theological discipline has its own point of whackiness. Perhaps evolution is where Old Testamentlers feel the pinch. Homosexuality would be the hotspot for contemporary Christian ethicists. For me as a historian, it is the resurrection: my friends in the secular history world will always regard me as a mediocre, or, perhaps more charitably, methodologically inconsistent, historian because I believe the tomb was empty. I am guessing that scientists would probably regard that belief as ridiculous too: the empirical and theoretical evidence for bodies being resurrected after traumatic execution and days of decaying in a tomb is, to say the least, not very compelling. Let's face it: opposition to homosexuality and belief in the resurrection are whacky views in today's climate, enjoying little or no support from the scholarly scientific world. Do we therefore change our views on these in order to avoid being seen as a cult? Even more dramatic, perhaps, is the increasingly strident voice of the aesthetic atheists, of whom Hitchens and Dawkins are just the most famous. As aesthetic atheism gains ground, any form of theism will increasingly be regarded as idiotic and cult-like. What will we do then? Cultural acceptability is a cruel mistress...

The question of evolution is a tough one, but it is not to be determined by whether rejection of it leads those who despise Christianity as whole to regard us as a cult. That is an utterly irrelevant point. What I want to know is whether evolution is consistent with biblical teaching, particularly Genesis 3, Romans 5 and I Corinthian 15. Which form of evolution is it at which we are looking (there being significant disagreements even within the scientific community)? What about the scientific objections of men like Michael Behe? And how come some people, with little or no scientific training, and who spend their lives telling us how difficult it is to understand messy, written texts - texts designed to, ahem, communicate in a relatively direct fashion -- seem to think that scientific data is univocal, unequivocal, and perspicuous on this point? Funny how old Enlightenment views of science can be found alive and well in the most postmodern quarters, isn't it? Given the stakes in play, it is not unloving or divisive for me to ask for answers to
these questions; but whether I run the risk of looking like a cult member if I find the answers I am given to be inadequate and unbiblical is, frankly, a matter of sheer indifference to me. I may be destined to live life on the cultic fringe of society, but there are worse places to be.

Read the entire article HERE.

Bruce Waltke on Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve have been taking a bit of a beating from some well known scholars within the Reformed tradition. Tremper Longman made statements recently that allowed for the first couple to be mythical as has Pete Enns. Bruce Waltke, one of the world's great Old Testament scholars recently made statements that seemed to indicate he too allowed for Adam and Eve to be something less than historical figures. I was therefore encouraged by the following clarification by Dr. Waltke:

I had not seen the video before it was distributed. Having seen it now, I realize its deficiency and wish to put my comments in a fuller theological context.

1. Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.

2. Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.

3. I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position. I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.

4. Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.

5. Science is fallible and subject to revision. As a human and social enterprise, science will always be in flux. My first commitment is to the infallibility (as to its authority) and inerrancy (as to its Source) of Scripture.

6. God could have created the Garden of Eden with apparent age or miraculously, even as Christ instantly turned water into wine, but the statement that God “caused the trees to grow” argues against these notions.

7. I believe that the Triune God is Maker and Sustainer of heaven and earth and that biblical Adam is the historical head of the human race.

8. Theological comments made here are mostly a digest of my chapters on Genesis 1-3 in An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 2007).

Bruce Waltke, Professor of Old Testament Reformed Theological Seminary