Currently,
the historicity of Adam is a hot button topic in evangelicalism. In one sense,
this is nothing new. Back in the 1970s, the inerrancy of Scripture was a hot
button topic in evangelicalism. In addition, the historicity of Adam has been
an issue ever since Darwin.
So these debates go through generational cycles. Nothing
really changes. In every generation, you have conservative Christians and
liberals. You also have some professing Christians who try to split the
difference. The players change, but the play remains the same.
Every generation will have a remnant of Bible-believing
Christians, along with however many nominal Christians. That will continue
until Jesus returns.
The current controversy, represented by spokesmen like Peter
Enns and Daniel Kirk. Kirk and Enns focus on Paul’s view of Adam in Rom 5 and 1
Cor 15–although Enns has his own take on Gen 1-5.
Now, from a Christian standpoint, if all we had to go by was
Gen 1-5, Rom 5, and 1 Cor 15, that would be more than sufficient to establish
the historicity of Adam.
However, I’d like to point out that this focus is
misleading, for the Biblical witness to Adam is broader than Genesis, Romans,
and 1 Corinthians. Here are five more passages that clearly bear witness to
Adam:
1 Adam, Seth, Enosh (1 Chron 1:1).4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mt 19:4-6).38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God (Lk 3:38).
26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place (Acts 17:26).
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Tim 2:13-14).
In addition, 2 Cor 11:3 refers to Eve–which presupposes
Adam.
Over and above passages that clearly bear witness to Adam
are some other passages that possibly or probably bear witness to Adam: Job
31:33; Ps 82:7; Hos 6:7.
For instance, David Clines defends the Adamic referent in
his commentary on Job, while Thomas McComiskey defends the Adamic referent in
his commentary on Hosea.
Finally, there’s a secondary reference to Adam in Jude 14.
I’d point out that the references to Adam in Matthew, Luke,
and 1 Chronicles aren’t merely conventional, but theologically significant.
Sometimes I think that I must be very dull, because I simply cannot understand how someone could read the Bible and conclude that there was not a historical Adam.
ReplyDeleteIt's just completely beyond me.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI understand the point about the debates being somewhat cyclical. However, doesn't the face of Evangelicalism change with the debate? What I mean is, sure, something like old earth vs. young earth has been debated in previous generations. But while we are still having that debate, the old earth side is clearly dominating (or so it seems to me--I'm aware of Dr. Wood's recent post on the majority of protestant *pastors*, but I'm betting things would be different for the majority of *evangelical* scholars and, esp, *apologists* and these I think will be the ones who have the greatest force on the future of evangelicalism). At the same time, perhaps this colors or effects the current debate on Adam. In other words, evangelical scholars are now debating Adam because that is, as far as most are concerned, the only question that is left. Things like the age of the earth and extent of the flood are settled as far as many of them are concerned. The question of Adam is simply the next logical topic in the creation/origins debate.
Justin,
I don't think the biblical data is the most relevant factor for people like Enns or even less radical evangelicals. The most relevant factor is what the "science says." Some evangelicals (RTB?) are trying to hold onto Adam on the basis that they might still be able to make the science fit that. Personally, I'm very skeptical of that project. The scientific case for a historical Adam--at least one that very closely resembles the biblical narrative--will never get any more traction in the scientific community than the young earth position. So I think if said evangelicals are going to be consistent, they'll eventually have to treat a historical Adam with the same disdain they treat the young earth thesis.
janitorialmusings
Delete"I understand the point about the debates being somewhat cyclical. However, doesn't the face of Evangelicalism change with the debate? What I mean is, sure, something like old earth vs. young earth has been debated in previous generations. But while we are still having that debate, the old earth side is clearly dominating (or so it seems to me--I'm aware of Dr. Wood's recent post on the majority of protestant *pastors*, but I'm betting things would be different for the majority of *evangelical* scholars and, esp, *apologists* and these I think will be the ones who have the greatest force on the future of evangelicalism). At the same time, perhaps this colors or effects the current debate on Adam. In other words, evangelical scholars are now debating Adam because that is, as far as most are concerned, the only question that is left. Things like the age of the earth and extent of the flood are settled as far as many of them are concerned. The question of Adam is simply the next logical topic in the creation/origins debate."
There's a lot of truth to that. On the other hand, the theory of pre-Adamites has been around for a long time. Likewise, Fuller was originally the flagship of evangelicalism, but it went liberal pretty fast.
janitorialmusings-
ReplyDeleteI don't think the biblical data is the most relevant factor for people like Enns or even less radical evangelicals.
That fact says more about their deficiencies than it does about the Bible.
So I think if said evangelicals are going to be consistent, they'll eventually have to treat a historical Adam with the same disdain they treat the young earth thesis.
Count me out of that party. ;-)
I personally am "holding onto" a historical Adam on the basis that the Bible clearly affirms his existence. For years, "science" had no evidence of the Hittite civilization. "Science" once held to geo-centrism, spontaneous generation of flies from rotten beef, and many more things that are now rightly seen as error.
Science should never be magesterial (dictating or governing belief) for a Christian, but rather ministerial (serving truth):
http://www.arcticpilgrim.com/2013/02/the-potential-to-be-wrong-in.html
Justin,
ReplyDeleteOf course I can't (and wouldn't want to anyway) dispute that scientific theories have been discarded in the past. But current scientific theories about the age of the earth and the origins of man aren't in the same position as many of our past scientific theories that are now regarded as rubbish. Darwinism plays a very important role in the secular story. There is an important sense in which it is much more than a scientific theory. But it is also a scientific theory--and I agree with YEC Stephen Lloyd that it's a pretty good one--and all of it's clout as a for its more-than-scientific-theory status comes from it's scientific standing. So I highly, highly doubt we'll see Darwinism go the way of, say, phlogiston. And that goes for other theories which are a necessary part of Darwinism (e.g., an old earth and maybe a multiverse, etc.)
I should clarify that I'm talking about Darwinism going the way of phlogiston even *if* it has no more credibility than phlogiston. It simply plays too important a role in the secular story and there is nothing to replace it.
ReplyDeleteWhat is *called* Darwinism today is really Neo-Darwinism, so Darwinism basically already has gone the way of phlogiston. Darwin knew nothing of genetics at all. His "descent with modification" has no impetus for creating the variations that would come about. Indeed, the only bit of Darwin's view that continues to today's theory is the concept of Natural Selection--but that concept (i.e., those which are best adapted to an environment are more likely to survive) would be true even under a "The Universe Was Created Fifteen Years Ago" scenario, let alone a classical YEC view.
DeletePeter Pike,
DeleteI sort of see what you're saying, but sort of don't. Having genetics as in impetus for descent with modification seems like an important advance in Darwinism, but not a major structural change in the theory per se. Suppose shortly after Newton had come up with the inverse square law he discovered "gravitons" or some mechanism as the impetus for it. That would add to the theory, I think, but not overturn it in the way phlogiston has been.
Janitorial, you are equivocating on your use of the word evolution. What do you mean by that? If you mean natural selection, or change over time then it is trivially true. All YEC's that I know of accept that. Now if you are referring to (which I think is what you are doing) the thesis that all life is explainable over long ages by chance and necessity working on mutations, then I think it is philosophical dogma that idiots like Enns have bit into hook line and sinker. The General Theory loses much of its force for the theist who believes in revelation and the ability of God to intervene in his creation. The YEC guys aren't as bad as they are made out, and they often have good critiques especially of often pedaled arguments of atheists. So, I am not as concerned about that arguments as I am about the propaganda.
ReplyDeletePseudo-Augustine,
ReplyDeleteI didn't use the word evolution and I agree with the rest of your remarks, although I don't think Darwinism understood as an unguided process is necessarily a philosophical position as opposed to a scientific one.
Well, Darwinism is one interpretation that can be put on the evidence assuming that the past is like the present; once that assumption is questioned Darwinism doesn't look so obvious. Science takes place in a prior philosophical framework. Data doesn't come with explanatory tags. We fill in the gaps between data with assumptions. Young Earth Creationism accounts for much of the data. Now some one may reject their exaplanations, but that will be dependent on criteria like simplicity, parsimony, explanatory power, etc, which are all based on difficult to justify philosophical assumptions.
ReplyDelete