America is not only noted for its being a melting pot of culture, it is also one of the great melting pots of theology and has been for almost the past 200 years.
Some of the greatest theological seminaries and colleges are located in the US, and so too are many of the great Christian publishing houses. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that it provides fertile soil for theological debate. One of the most recent issues to rise to the surface has been the question of whether or not the Adam of Genesis was a real historical figure.
Although this has surfaced relatively recently in Reformed and evangelical circles, it is anything but a new concern. The historicity of Adam has long been dismissed by liberal theologians, but has now come to the fore in theologically conservative institutions and publications, causing no small measure of debate.
Symbolic or adopted?
Alternative interpretations for the Adam in the opening chapters of Genesis range from his being a symbolic figure representative of the human race to a pre-existing individual or tribe of hominids adopted by God and conferred with the privilege of being his image-bearers. So too the references to Adam, especially in Paul’s letters, are reinterpreted as a ‘teaching model’ used by the apostle to make a doctrinal point rather than make a statement about history.
Fitting with evolution
This view of Adam, which diverges from the more widely held view that he was an actual person, appeals to those who are drawn to some kind of evolutionary interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. Authors such as Dennis Lamoureux and Peter Enns have argued passionately for the need to abandon the traditional view of Adam for one that sits more comfortably with the views of science on evolution.
Stand out problems
The problems that arise from adopting this interpretation are many, but two stand out in particular. The first is an exegetical one in terms of how the creation of Adam is described in Genesis 2.7. As Prof. John Murray of Westminster Seminary argued a generation ago, the language used in that verse gives very little latitude for interpretation. Most notably, when it says, ‘…and the man became a living being’, it is clear that prior to that moment when God ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’ he had no existence as a living being. So the idea of God simply adopting an already existing life form does not fit with the text.
The second problem is both exegetical and theological and relates to Paul’s references to Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 and how he relates to Christ. In both instances Paul is opening up the vital connection between the gospel and history and the fact that it can only genuinely be ‘good news’ if what was lost by Adam on behalf of the human race through his fall into sin was actually regained by Christ through his obedience on behalf of all who trust him.
Seen on that plane and in its wider context of the message of the Bible as a whole, the issue of whether or not Adam was for real cannot be dismissed as merely academic. The integrity of the gospel and our hope of salvation hang on it. Theological sneezes in America have a nasty habit of spreading theological colds around the world. It’s always wise to see them coming.
