One surprising division in the world of Christian denominations and discussion, is the story of Adam and Eve for a host of reasons. The essential topic that seeps into every other discussion and division between us however, is the topic of significance.
There are many ways to be a Christian. Reformed, Fundamental, Creationist, Evolutionist, Orthodox, orthodox, or any number of extremely niche titles whom many Christians themselves aren’t familiar with. Even within those name groups there is a diversity of people who believe in contradictory propositions with each other.
This is one of the biggest dangers to the Universal Church.
In our aim to unite the church, as many scholars, theologians, and saints have in the past, the first natural subject to start with is the one of Adam.
SIGNIFICANT ADAM
There are two main extremes on the subject, especially regarding his mere significance to the rest of Biblical doctrine. For the one extreme, Denis O. Lameroux, Associate Professor of Science and Religion at St. Josephs College in the University of Alberta, member of Evangelical faith, is a propositioner of the thesis that Adam is not significant to Christian faith (Denis Lamoureux et al., Four Views on the Historical Adam (Zondervan, 2013)).
“Should they become convinced that humans evolved, they will be equipped never to lose a step in their Christian walk, because our faith is based only on Jesus Christ, His sacrifice on the Cross, and His boldly resurrection from the dead – and not on a historical Adam.”
Lamoureux goes on to describe his experience in coming to this conclusion, telling us that he was first a young-earth Creationist. To him, in order to even be a Christian, you had to be a young-earth Creationist, and any idea outside of that strict ideology was deemed outright devilish. Many Christians today hold this view, exactly as stated, and fully believe that anyone who is not a young-earth Creationist cannot possibly be a true Christian. Because of this, and because of his new appreciation for evolutionary science, he quickly became an Atheist (Lamoureux et al., Four Views on the Historical Adam).
“In Wilkinson’s closing remarks to the class, he looked at me and said, ‘Denis, I have a serious concern. Should you ever give up your belief in young-earth creation, would you also give up your faith in Christ?’ Ouch!” For many Christians, this is indeed the case, as it was for him.
On the other side,Philip G. Ryken, President of Wheaton College, Senior Minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church, holds the view that our perception of Adam seeps into our perception of everything else, and is thus essential for a Christian to have a proper Biblical understanding of. “The relationship between Adam and…[his] actions for the rest of the human race extend to sexuality, marriage, and our relationships in the home and in the church. The answer to ‘Who were Adam and Eve?’ provides essential information for… ‘Who am I?’” (Ryken et al., Four Views on the Historical Adam).
In a response to Lamoureux from another writer, William D. Barrick (a young-earth creationist), he says thus; “Though [the issue of Adam’s significance to Christian faith] might not be a salvation issue, the matter is still a gospel issue, because it touches on matters related to our need for salvation (universal sin)... Diminishing the identification of the first Adam can have a detrimental effect on one’s view of the second Adam. Questioning the accuracy of one part of Scripture always put the whole of Scripture in doubt.”
Going back to Ryken from the proposition stated above, the danger that is present in denying a historical or significant Adam is in the openness it leaves for excuses to sexually sin, heresy, and even the patterns in our day-to-day lives. A fictional Genesis 1-11 is a fictional myth, a fictional six days of work and one day to rest in God, and a fictional original sin that implicates all of humanity.
REAL ADAM
On the topic of fiction, Lamoureux has more to tell us. Through his scientific findings, he denies a significant Adam, in part because he can’t accept a real Adam. “Adam is incidental … humans descended from pre-human ancestors and... the image of God and sin were mysteriously manifested.”
He goes on to describe somewhat complex models about language, ancient science that the Rabbi’s held strong beliefs about, and the process of God’s revelations and accommodations. When he describes Adam as “incidental” he means thus; “Qualifying ancient science as ‘incidental’ does not imply that it is unimportant. The science in Scripture is vital for delivering spiritual truths. It acts like a cup that brings ‘living water’ to our thirsty souls. The word ‘incidental’ carries the meaning ‘to happen in connection with some more important.’”
The aspect of “accommodating” comes in strongly, as according to Lamoureux, God allowed the Jewish scholars to describe things such as firmaments and the creation story according to their ancient understandings. When Biblical figures such as Moses and Paul talk about the historicity of Adam, to which they themselves evidently believe in, he asserts the incidental importance of what Adam represents, and that is what matters when Moses and Paul talk about Adam as if he’s a real person, but the truthiness of his existence does not matter.
Ryken objects. What Adam represents only becomes important or significant to us, according to Ryken, if Adam was a real person. Jewish scholars, including Moses, Abraham, and Paul, also didn’t assume Adam was merely metaphorical. Adam is presented as a human being, with feelings and desires ( Ryken takes a sort of Occam’s Razor approach to interpreting God’s word, claiming that arguing Adam wasn’t a real person is not the natural conclusion. Further evidence he uses to back this point, is the use of chronology in the Bible. Seeing as Numbers, Chronicles I and II are all books dealing with the numbering and record-keeping of God’s people, Ryken uses this tool to support a historical Adam. Chronicles I, 1:1, “Adam, Sheth, Enosh.” If Adam was not a real person, why is he the first name in God’s records?
The purpose of Ryken’s writing was also to ascertain how useful the various theologies outlined in Four Views on the Historical Adam were for the church. While Lamoureux focuses on the accommodation of God’s people past, Ryken is concerned for the present people. He lists many reasons, ending with a connection to Jesus. An aspect of Jesus’ own significance is his theological and physical connection to Adam. “[Paul] is making the point that we are made of the same stuff as the father of our race. This matters because the body we have in this life structures the body we will have in the life to come: ‘As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as he was borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven’ (1 Cor. 15:45).”
LAYMAN’S PERSPECTIVE
To a non-scholar, what does any of this have to do with faith? God does not call every man to stir over the Bible as his life’s workings and indeed, many individuals trust that their drinkings from morning readings and church is enough vindication.
Just as there is a wide diversity of the view one takes on Adam’s mere existence, how one views that existence has countless effects to the rest of a person’s theology. The Bible starts with Creation, the first story children learn in Sunday school is often that of Adam and Eve, and whether one believes in a historical Adam or not, the implications of that belief are present elsewhere.
Due to the lack of thought afforded to such things as Adam’s nature and significance, many false ideas can arise in the general population of Christians minds. This is not ideal. A disconnect from the supposed origins of humanity allows a certain level of arrogance and enmity to enter the minds of Christians and often the result is forgetting that, no matter how or when sin entered the world, the first sinner was only human.
NARRATIO END
An important thing to keep in mind is that one can love God and be wrong. No human person will have an entirely correct theology; that is impossible. From here on out, discussion will change in support of one particular view but as [Ryken] says in his pastoral reflection “[Insisting] on traditional interpretations of Scripture and refusing to listen to the truths of science damages the credibility of Christianity and raises unnecessary obstacles in evangelism. So humility is needed on all sides.” One’s intent should never be focused on ‘winning,’ rather on knowing truth. With this one and only instruction to the reader, let’s continue to the argument.
Citations
Lamoureux, Denis, Philip Ryken, Matthew Barrett, and William Barrick. Four Views on the Historical Adam. Zondervan, 2013.
The (currently) only book used to illustrate the main point of the narratio: to demonstrate the great diversity of thought afforded to Adam and his significance as applied to the greater Christian discussion. Two other viewpoints are expressed in the volume, from John H. Walton, C. John Collins, and Gregory A. Boyd. Since William D. Barrick and Philip G. Ryken represent the most traditional view and Lamoureux the most non-traditional (the other views hold to a historical Adam of some sort), the essays written by them were the only ones included.