Paul’s Adam (Part I)
"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is a former Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.
In my last post I suggested that the Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero.
But some might ask, “Why go through all this trouble? Why not just take it literally? The Bible says Adam was the first man. That’s the end of it.”
It’s not that simple, and if it were, people wouldn’t be talking it about it so much. First of all, reading the Adam story symbolically rather than as a literal description of history is not a whim, and it is certainly not driven by a desire to undermine the Bible. Rather, as we have seen, the Bible itself invites a symbolic reading by using cosmic battle imagery and by drawing parallels between Adam and Israel (to name two factors).
There is also considerable external evidence that works against the “just read it literally” mentality.
The biblical depiction of human origins, if taken literally, presents Adam as the very first human being ever created. He was not the product of an evolutionary process, but a special creation of God a few thousand years before Jesus—roughly speaking, about 6000 years ago. Every single human being that has ever lived can trace his/her genetic history to that one person.
This is a problem because it is at odds with everything else we know about the past from the natural sciences and cultural remains.
There are human cultural remains dating well over 100,000 years ago. One recent example is 130,000-year-old stone tools found on Crete. (Their presence on an island presumes seafaring ability at that time.) Ritual/religious structures are known to have existed as far back as 40,000-70,000 years ago. Recently, a temple complex was found in Turkey dating to about 11,500 years ago—7,000 years before the Pyramids.
In addition to cultural artifacts, there is also the scientific data from the various natural sciences that support a very old earth (4.5 billion years old) and the evolutionary development of life on it—things most readers of this Web site hardly need me to point out. Most recently, the genetic evidence for common descent has, in the view of most everyone trained in the field, lent great support to the antiquity of humanity and sharing a common ancestry with primates.
There is a third line of evidence that is a problem for a literal reading of the Adam story. Archaeological evidence gathered over the last 150 years or so has helped us understand the religions of the ancient Near East during and long before the Old Testament period. As is well known, Genesis 1 and the Adam story bear unmistakable resemblances to the stories of other peoples—none of which we would ever think of taking as historical depictions of origins. (We looked at some of this in previous posts.)
A strictly literal reading of the Adam story does not fit with what we know of the past. Some choose to ignore the data altogether. Others marginalize or interpret the data idiosyncratically to salvage some type of literal/historical reading. But, by and large, everyone—even including this latter group—has to do some creative thinking about how to handle the Adam story. A “just read it literally” mentality is not an available option. “What do I do with the Adam story?” is a real and pressing question for most people of faith.
In my experience, a lot of Christians—I might even guess most—have come to some peace with all of this. They may handle it in different ways, and some may not have arrived at a conclusion, but they at least recognize that something has to be done. They sense that a simple literal reading of the Adam story won’t work without creating a lot of cognitive dissonance, and so they are open to ideas.
But, sooner or later, another issue comes up that is hard to get around and for some simply ends the discussion entirely.
Paul.
Christians have to account for more than Genesis vis-à-vis archaeology and science. They have to account for what Paul says about Adam. As I see it, this is as non-negotiable as accounting for the data mentioned above.
In Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul draws a parallel between Jesus and Adam: Adam disobeyed (eating of the fruit) and brought death to “all”; Jesus obeyed (in his crucifixion) and (in rising) brought life to “all.” Jesus came to undo what Adam did. He came to reverse the curse of Adam.
There is really little doubt that Paul understood Adam to be a real person, the first created human from whom all humans descended. And for many Christians, this settles the issue of whether there was a historical Adam. That is what Paul believed, and for his argument to have any meaning, both Adam and Jesus have to be real people. If there was no Adam, there was no fall. If there was no fall, there was no need for a savior. If Adam is a fantasy, so is the Gospel.
For people who take the Bible seriously, Paul’s understanding of Adam can be an insuperable obstacle to accepting what we know about the past from other sources. Some feel there is really no choice but to reject science and archaeology completely. I really don’t think this is a viable option.
Others will accept to some extent the data we have, including evolution, but will insist that at some point along the line there was a first historical pair chosen by God to bear his image and from whom all true, image-bearing, humans are related. Placing an “Adam” somewhere on the evolutionary timeline is hypothetically possible, and there are knowledgeable people who find this a good way to reconcile Paul and science. (Although for others, this kind of “Adam” is too far from the kind of Adam Paul was thinking about, so it is not much help.)
However you slice it, what Paul says about Adam is a very important point of Christian theology. Clearly, what Paul says must be addressed.
But there is a factor in all of this that does not always get as much airtime as it should. It is regularly assumed that what Paul says about Adam is rather obvious, a sure starting point from which to engage this issue. “Well, I may not know what all the scientific and archaeological data are, but I can read English and I KNOW what Paul says. That is obvious, and I have no intention of messing around with that.”
Yes, we must take Paul seriously. But what if what Paul is saying about Adam is not as straightforward as a simple reading suggests? Maybe the matter is more involved than “Paul says it, that settles it”?
Paul’s Adam is not a simple matter. There are numerous factors that come into play in gaining a broader perspective on what Paul is saying and why he says it. In my next post, I want to list what some of these factors are. This is an issue that cannot be resolved in the series of a few (or many) blog posts. I am only interested in laying out on the table the issues that need to be kept in mind as we think about what Paul says about Adam and why he says it.
The tensions between science and faith, specifically evolution and Christianity, center on the issue of Paul’s Adam. As such, I think this is where our theological energies need to be invested.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
March 16th 2010
Neither the nature of our biological connection to this earth nor of our spiritual relationship with God should be ignored or denied. Always, however, the timelessness of the spiritual message of the Gospel must be considered more important science’s current (ancient or modern) understanding of the natural world. As a biologist, it annoys me when believers don’t seem to be interested in the wonderful insights of modern evolutionary biology, and even feel threatened by them. As a believer, it really concerns me when Christians come to harmful misunderstandings because they appear to place too much emphasis on their own view of the natural world and too little on the essentially spiritual message of the Bible. That is why the more measured discussions of these pages are so important.
Reply to this commentMarch 16th 2010
BK,
Reply to this commentI really do appreciate your recognition of humanity’s helplessness in sin and our need of Christ’s redemption. I agree with you that human beings were confronted with a choice at the beginning of human history in which they had to acknowledge God’s supreme authority over their lives by freely and willingly bowing to that authority. They had to show their recognition of dependence on God by submitting to His revealed will. Sadly, however, they rebelled against God’s authority by believing the lie of Satan and disobeying God’s will; at that point, I believe, their minds were darkened and their wills became enslaved to sin. Moreover, the consequences of that first sin passed onto their descendants in such a way that no human being, of himself, can find his way back to God, or restore himself to a state of spiritual liberty and peace with God. For that, we are dependent on the Good Shepherd to come and find His lost sheep. Our condition is therefore very different from the original condition of our first parents before the fall. (continued)
March 16th 2010
They were free not to sin, for their nature was pure; the image of God in them was by no means marred or sullied. That is not true now. Human beings in their natural condition are not free not to sin; the image of God in us has been vitiated; and until Christ takes the initiative in rescuing us from this condition, we remain enslaved to sin. As Jesus put it, “Everyone who sins is a slave to sin. . .If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” So the fall is not just a story to describe the existential experience of every person who passes from youthful innocence to the adult experience of a violated conscience. It was an actual historical event by which man’s legal status before God, as well as his spiritual nature, was radically altered. We do not become sinners by mere imitation of our parents; we are “born in sin,” with a fallen nature inherited from our first parents. That is why I believe the doctrine of a literal, historic fall is essential to a biblical understanding of the biblical gospel. Because our sin problem does not begin with us; it began long before we were ever conceive, when our first parents rebelled against God.
Reply to this commentMarch 16th 2010
Martin,
Reply to this commentYou are correct, The Fall, or perhaps more correctly our pre-Fall condition is clearly the point where I have the greatest difficulty with my case. The unbridgeable moral distance between God and humans - unbridgeable, that is, without divine intervention working through faith, is a position that could be compatible with any version of first human actors, don’t you think? No mechanism is needed to explain the faith-based position that we are not spiritually pure enough to stand before a Holy God. That boils down, I think, to our view of God. But, how did evolved humanity first come to be in a blissful relationship with a Holy God? How blissful was that relationship? Was the sin that caused Adam and Eve to fall already in them or did it only enter when they had dealings with Satan? Not that these questions are any easier to grapple with by reading the Genesis account. In Part II of his series, Dr. Enns seems to be heading in the direction of this problem by asking about our traditional views of how Paul interpreted Genesis. Let’s listen and continue to think and discuss.
March 16th 2010
BK, One further thought. You say that you are “annoyed” by the way many conservative Christians reject the ‘inisghts of modern evolutionary biology.’ But surely you understand the reason why so many Bible-believing Christians reject belief in common descent? It is because the Bible speaks so plainly of God creating the different basic kinds of creatures, with each reproducing ‘after its kind.’ That doesn’t preclude biological variation within limits, but it does preclude the idea that all creatures evolved from a single original life form. Moreover, most conservative Christians (myself included) believe (as one creation ministry puts it) that “the Bible presents a simple but historical account of actual events, and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe. . .” Most reject the idea “that God’s revelation in nature can be approached independently from God’s revelation in Scripture.” Historical research (scientific or otherwise) that ignores or contradicts biblical teaching is thus seen as unreliable, lacking empirical demonstration and (more importantly) biblical support.
Reply to this commentMarch 17th 2010
Martin,
No problem. I gave up many years ago trying to “argue” biological facts. It’s challenge enough to teach them to a university class, despite their depth and beauty. I know lots of fine Christians, and I am sure that you are one, who do not accept the biological view of origins. I also know many fine Christians who do. This is really one of the points I was trying to make. Christian six-day creationists and evolutionary biologists, not to mention some Christian brothers and sisters who can barely read or write, can live effectively under the daily guidance of the same Savior and walk the walk full of grace. This fact can help us keep our interpretive puzzles in the proper perspective. God Bless.
Reply to this commentMarch 17th 2010
BK,
Reply to this commentWould you at least agree with me that no theory of origins which is based on the physical data found in DNA or the observable similarities of bones, organs, etc., found in different species is free of assumptions? That is, all ‘facts’ are interpreted facts, and the interpretation always reveals certain underlying assumptions that are being made by the interpreter—assumptions that are of a philosophical or religious nature? Would you agree with that? Would you agree that all scientific endeavor is built on a particular philosophy of science?
March 17th 2010
BK, The reason I ask that question is to point out that one’s beliefs about the past may be quite plausible and convincing given our epistemological assumptions—but if those underlying assumptions are mistaken, what we think we “know” may not be true at all. I believe it was Ronald Reagan who once said about his “liberal opponents” that they were not ignorant, they just happened to know a lot of things that weren’t so. Now, it seems to me that some of the things of which you feel so certain in the realm of evolutionary biology—those things which lead you to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis—are built on the philosophical assumption that God’s revelation in nature can be approached independently of his revelation in Holy Scripture. But what if that is a false assumption? What if, to arrive at a true picture of earth’s past, we need to factor in—in addition to the data of DNA, homology, etc.— the simple but accurate account of primeval history given in Genesis 1-11? We have to connect all the dots given to us by God, instead of just some of them, to get a true picture of earth’s past. Would they not change the picture we see?
Reply to this commentMarch 18th 2010
About 800 comments here, so if someone else has asked this I apologize… but, what if Paul was wrong? Will you tackle this possibility in other posts?
Reply to this commentMarch 20th 2010
Martin,
Reply to this commentAssumptions; of course, we make them all the time. One has to start somewhere. Equally important are the questions we derive from our assumptions. Good assumptions usually lead to good questions. All useful advances into unknown territory are based on asking the best questions. With real assumptions, we are prepared to change them when our investigations reveal facts that seriously challenge them. If it cannot be changed, the “assumption” should be called a statement of faith. Since, through faith, we believe that God speaks through His word and has spoken by that means to widely different peoples and cultures for at least 3000 years, we really can’t call this an assumption because we are not prepared to modify it. We do, however, make some assumptions (hopefully not statements of faith) about our interpretations of Scripture and, more to the point of this blog, about the methods we us to interpret Scripture. New understanding from both biblical scholars and scientists continually challenge us to test our interpretive assumptions. So, I agree, we first need to make a list of the positions we insist on holding as statements of faith and what positions we will allow to remain “simply” assumptions. Continued…...
March 20th 2010
As for the questions concerning biological origins, which are way off topic for this particular blog, I refer you to two of the best recent biology books written for the non-biologist, with sufficient rigor to satisfy the most critical biologist.
Reply to this comment1. “Life Ascending. The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution” by Nick Lane, W.W. Norton and Co., 2009.
2. “The Machinery of Life” 2 Ed. by David S. Goodsell, Springer Science, 2009
March 22nd 2010
Isn’t the point true, whether Paul thought Adam was an historically real figure or not? I have no training in theology at all, but a high school English student (at least when I was in high school 40 years ago) would recognize the passage in question as an obvious typology that makes a truth claim of its own regardless of the fact that Adam was not Jesus and Jesus was not Adam!!
Reply to this commentMarch 25th 2010
Hi Pete, I appreciate these posts. I’m also grateful that there is a place where these things can be discussed.
One quick question on post sequence. What post is Paul’s Adam (Part 2)? It’s not clearly linked on the right side of the site here. I may use these for a course and I want to make sure I refer to the posts in proper sequence. Best, Joe
Reply to this commentMarch 21st 2011
“humans share ancestry with other forms of life.” unbelievable…
Reply to this comment