Will the Real First Adam Please Stand Up?
Seems like all the concerns about Pete Enns were not in vain. Enns has recently denied that Adam was a historical being. You can read the article here. Camden Bucey has a helpful post, in which he considers the relationship between Enns’ theology and his apparent affirmation of the teaching of the Westminster Standards. You can read that post here. The question that must now be asked is, “If we deny the historicity of Adam, how can we affirm the historicity of Israel and Christ?” In other words, “If Adam is simply a theological construct to help Israel understand their theological position as “son of God,” why not say that Israel was not an historical people, but simply a theological idea to help the people of God understand that Jesus was the second Adam and true Israel? For that matter, why not say that the Son of God was not a historical figure, but was simply a theological construct to help the people of God understand that they are sons of God? How does denying the historicity of Adam, the son of God, not lead to a reappraisal of the historicity of everything in the Bible? Why not, as so many solid men have done, take the Bible’s testimony that Adam was the first human being, as well as a type of the Son of God–representing his people? How is a denial of the historicity of Adam not moving where the neo-orthodox and existentialists have already gone?
Editors Note: The comment about Tremper Longman denying an historical Adam has been removed due to some concern that it was not completely substantiated. I will leave that to you to decide. You can hear what Longman says here and here.
About Post Author
I’m not surprised by this. To play on Dr. Enns’ words, is what he says so far from this . . .
There is much more to the church and Jesus in the New Testament than their experience of death and life. I am not trying to say that death and life is some magic key to unlock the mysteries of the Bible. But it does open a new window to seeing the â€ancient ways†in which the church thought of Jesus.
It also helps us look at the Jesus story from an angle that might be new to some readers here: Jesus is the beginning of the church. I imagine this may require some explanation.
The church seemingly comes to existence miraculously in the first century; “Jesus†was born of a virgin.
The church was persecuted by its countrymen, neighbors, and friends; “Jesus†died on a cross.
The church came through its suffering with new life; “Jesus†was raised.
The church goes to heaven after its existence here; “Jesus†ascended into heaven.
So, beware of the slippery slope is your argument?
I don’t see any necessary connection at all. Assuming the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (or most of it), we cannot consider the Edenic narrative as a testimony or witness in the sense that the self-identity of Israel (as Yahweh’s people) was born historically from covenant with Abraham and the promises, including rescue from slavery and inheritance of the Promise Land. It is from this personal coming of the Lord to his people that Israel was born and, from Israel, the Scriptures. Israel, as such, did not exist at the beginning of creation (or man), but they did eventually provide a protology which, probably not historical in large respects (the talking snake, the tree of knowledge, the rib for Eve, etc.), is authoritative for a theological anthropology that comprehends the (historical) place of Israel and her Savior.
“Historians of Israel, no less than other historians, have felt the pressure to conform their work to the scientific model. They have progressively done so, abandoning biblical testimony in favor of the ‘knowledge’ that scientific inquiry produces, until we have arrived at claims like [T.L.] Thompson’s: ‘There is no more “ancient Israel.” History no longer has room for it. This we do know. And now, as one of the first conclusions of this new knowledge, “biblical Israel” was in its origin a Jewish concept.'”
-A Biblical History of Israel (co-edited by Longman, ironically), p.51, citing a Thompson article in JBL 114 (1995):683-98, on p.697, and proving that some people actually end up slipping on logical slopes. Excellent post. Thanks.
So Kevin, are you saying what you believe in your post, or are you writing tongue-in-cheek ? I just want to be sure that I understand what you are saying.
Bill,
I agree with what I said. But, I’m fairly agnostic on the issue (the historicity of Eden), so I wouldn’t say that I’ve got all my dogmatic pieces in perfect order. For now, I just don’t see how the history of Israel or Christ are necessarily compromised by questioning the history of the creation narrative.
Kevin,
I am not simply saying beware of the slippery slope. I am intimating that a denial of the historical Adam affects everything from anthropology, to ecclesiology, to soteriolgy. Your epistemological affects every aspect of your hermeneutics. Deny the historical Adam and you have given up the strength of Paul’s argument concerning the historical second Adam.
Nick,
Paul was assuming the historicity of Adam and, thus, made his parallel. The question, then, is whether we can secure the redemptive meaning of this parallel without a historical Adam (namely, replacing Adam with everyman or with the first humans, if polygenesis is true). This redemptive meaning can still be fully “historical” in that it deals with real humans (all humans) and a real Christ who rose from the grave.
Kevin,
The federal nature of Adam is dependent on the historicity of the individual Adam. The federal nature of Christ is dependent on the individual person of Jesus. That is the point Paul made and it is the point we must make if we believe God. That is the point I was trying to make. If you admit that Paul was assuming the historicity of Adam, why would that not suffice. He was an apostle of Jesus writing inspired revelation. He wrote, “not the words of man, but as it is in truth the very word of God, which also works effectively in you who believe.”
Enns denying an historical Adam? What a shock. I wonder how he explains how the guilt of a non-existent person is imputed to everyone.
Nick and Kevin C – that’s exactly the point. If Genesis 1-2 are just some theological construct without a basis in facts (but designed to “teach us something” whatever that means) – everything we have in soteriology is a legal-fiction, it’s just God playing around with ideas. No, there is a real problem for mankind because there was a real problem for the real Adam.
No Adam, no problem of sin, no salvation necessary – no need for Christ. Yet all the skeptics want the tail end of the bargain (Christ and his benefits) but because they’ve allowed science and ANE material encroach on them they have to give up the front end of the bargain. So inconsistent.
Boils down to an issue of authority and supernaturalism. Skeptics don’t particularly like either, just like the old liberals.
Blessings for tomorrow, but only if you have a real problem with sin.
Matt
Nick,
Well, that’s where we disagree, on both of your points.
I disagree with federal theology. Adam’s guilt (assuming his historicity) is not imputed to us; rather, Adam’s guilt is the ontology (of sin) in which we find ourselves (all humans since Adam). It is, indeed, “because” of Adam, as the first among us, that we are born in a fallen creation — per Romans 5:18-19 — but our sin (and guilt) is no less our own, because we love the same self-dependence by which Eve listened to the serpent and ate the fruit (a seemingly mythical narrative).
And, God does not inspire Scripture by over-riding, in this case, Paul’s assumptions about the historicity of Eden. Biblical inspiration can, and does, include the finite material, at hand, of the human authors. Yet, it is still infallible according to His purposes and intentions. Similarly, we don’t believe in a three-tier universe anymore (with heaven literally above the sky), even though several biblical authors were obviously working with this cosmology.
Kevin,
Do you affirm the imputation of the righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ–the second Adam?
Nick,
Yes, I do. I’m fully in league with the Reformed on the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. When it comes to law and gospel, I’m fully Reformational Protestant, and I have the same problems with the FV and NPP as, I imagine, you do.
We need the imputation of Christ’s works and merit because we are sinners, enslaved in sin and unable to make a perfect/eternal atonement, not because Adam’s guilt is imputed to us. Federal categories are not helpful here — this is about ontology — but federal representation is, indeed, helpful and necessary when we turn toward understanding the remedy of this ontology of sin. In other words, a federal soteriology does not require a federal protology. Sin entered the world with Adam (actually, Eve, or whoever the first humans were), and all subsequent generations have been born as sinners (and, therefore, guilty). However, this sin and guilt is fully our own since it constitutes the most fundamental part of ourselves (without which there is no “self”) — our will. It is as impossible to disown our guilt as it is impossible to disown ourselves. Thus, it is impossible to lay the blame elsewhere (Adam or whoever). Hence, federal categories are not helpful here and are actually misleading.
Nick, of course I do, though perhaps I was not clear. As you pointed out, Enns does much more than exalt his precious ANE literature over the Bible. He cuts the theological underpinnings out from the faith. Westminster should have fired him years ago.
Nick, of course I do, though perhaps I was not clear. Enns is so worried about exalting his precious ANE literature over the Scripture that he cuts the foundations out from under the faith. Westminster should have fired him years ago. I shudder to think how many ministers of the gospel have beem poisoned by this man’s foul theology.
Kevin Carroll,
Sorry to have confused you. I was writing the last comment to Kevin Davis. I had not considered the fact that two Kevin’s were commenting. See you at Twin Lakes?
Interesting discussion here, Nick, and I look forward to picking this up in person.
It seems that Kevin Davis is on to something here—”federalism” is not the only way to understand the relationship between Adam, Christ, and humankind. Other constructs have been batted around in the Reformed world since the time of the Reformation.
That said, I do think we need to be careful in all this to not assume that if someone becomes convicted as to the basic veracity of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, then that someone must needs be denying the reality of an historical first pair (Adam and Eve). This is not to suggest that it doesn’t cause other difficult questions to arise, but my point is that it doesn’t necessarily preclude the biblical fact of a man upon whom the imago Dei was stamped and upon whom the command to obey was placed.
Pingback : Evolution and how not to be a cult « After Existentialism, Light
This blog from Carl Trueman is interesting and is related to this discussion
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/04/postscript.php
Pingback : Great Homeschool Conventions chooses theistic evolution over creationism « Johannes Weslianus