This is the fifth and final post in a series of posts looking at the theological significance of Adam.

• The Theological Significance of Adam
• The Existence of Adam: Why it Matters
• Adam in the New Testament
• Theological Consequences of an Evolved Adam

Why the Original and Specially created Adam Must be True

As has been shown, the bible clearly presents Adam as a literal and historical figure. It is important also to note here the traditional, orthodox belief regarding Adam. “Basil (the Great) interpreted the creation account of Genesis 1 in a literal way and discussed the divine creation in terms of six literal twenty-four hour periods of time. This became the standard view of the early church – and of the church that was to come.”[1] Of course, not everyone held to a literal six-day creation account, like Augustine.

However, “Even with this allegorical interpretation of Genesis, Augustine believed in a fairly recent creation and explicitly warned against accepting the view that the world is old.”[2] The fact that the traditional and historical view of Adam and the creation account is literal brings up another issue, in our modern age, how much are we letting outside influences interpret the Bible for us instead of letting the Bible speak for itself?

This is the fourth post in a series of posts looking at the theological significance of Adam.

Theological Consequences of an Evolved Adam

It is often said that the best way to interpret the bible is to let the bible interpret itself. However this does not mean that we cannot or should not use extra-biblical resources and discoveries in or about our world to help us better understand biblical text when applicable.

One of the most debated topics today is concerning the creation of the universe and our world. For this, science has done much in the last 200 years to bring about much conversation and debate regarding how living beings, and for our purposes humans, came to exist. “There is no conflict between Christianity and science itself. This is because the Christian worldview, which believes that God create the world with natural ‘laws’ and orderliness, is what undergirds the entire scientific enterprise.[1]”

Beliefs and interpretations of scientific data may be problematic or incorrect, but not (correct) scientific data in and of itself. While there is much to be said on the scientific side of this topic, our concern here is primarily the theological one; does it matter if Adam came about by macro-evolution, or was he specially created by God more spontaneously? To say it does not matter how Adam came to be, or that he is merely a story representing the fact that all humans sin, is to either not understand the importance of the Christian account of creation, or to simply not care. What cannot be said is that it does not matter.

This is the third post in a series of posts looking at the theological significance of Adam.

Adam in the New Testament

One way to help us see the theological significance of Adam is to see how he is portrayed and referenced in the New Testament. In the gospels, we see Adam mentioned explicitly in Luke, and implicitly referred to in Matthew and Mark. “In the NT Adam is mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:38) and in similar reference in Jude, where Enoch is ‘the seventh from Adam’ (Jude 14). These passages simply mention Adam to locate him in his genealogical place (Matt. 19:4-6 and mark 10:6-8 imply reference to Adam but do not mention his name).”[1]

These passages do not have give us much theological implications regarding Adam, as they are merely genealogies. However, it does give more biblical weight to the argument that the gospel writers believed in a literal Adam, as it would seem rather odd to include imaginary people in a genealogy. There are however three important passages in the New Testament that carry theological and doctrinal implications regarding Adam: 1 Timothy 2:13-14; Romans 5:12-21; and 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45.

Regarding 1 Timothy, L. L. Morris writes, “In 1 Timothy 2:13-14 the subordinate place of woman is argued from (1) Adam’s being created first and (2) Eve’s being deceived, though Adam was not. This passage presumes that Genesis stories tell us something or permanent significance about all men and women.[2]” In this passage Paul is arguing from the belief that Adam was a real person. It would be incorrect to view the focus of this passage to that of the creation story, but it should not be overlooked as a place where the existence of Adam is important to the statement Paul is trying to make.

Romans 5:12-21 perhaps is the most scrutinized New Testament scripture on Adam, with many differing views and beliefs. Here we see Paul teaching that sin and death came into the world through one man (Adam), and that grace and the free gift of righteousness has also been given by one man (Jesus Christ). Similar to this passage is the one in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 and 45-49. Here we see Paul arguing the same point as Romans 5, as well as naming the original Adam the “first Adam” and refers to Christ as the “last Adam.”

How are we to view Adam in light of these passages? Daniel C. Harlow writes, “In formulating his typology, Paul’s main interest is to depict Christ as a representative figure, one whose act affected not only himself but the entire human race. He brings Adam less as a figure of history than as a type of Christ – a symbolic stand-in for the fallen humanity.[3]” Harlow, who believes that homo sapiens cannot be traced back to a single originating pair based on evolutionary science, says we must not read as Genesis 1-3 as factual events. However, he concedes, “Paul, like Luke, no doubt regarded Adam as a historical person, but in his letters he assumes the historicity of Adam instead of asserting it, and in Romans 1-3 he can describe the problem and universality of sin at great length without any reference at all to Adam.[4]”

More must be said about the New Testament writer’s belief in a historical Adam, as well as the context in which these references to Adam were written. Could it not be the case that a literal Adam was not “asserted” because it was already generally accepted? And do we really think that Paul would speak so matter-of-factly about sin originating with Adam had he “known” Adam was not a literal being? Even if Paul’s main purpose in these passages is to show that Christ is a “symbolic stand-in for the fallen humanity” it is hard to believe that Paul is not also bringing Adam in as a literal, historical figure. Speaking to the passage in Romans 5, L.L. Morris writes, “Romans 5 stresses the connection of humankind at large with Adam. It was through that one man that sin came into the world, and the consequences of his sin was death.[5]”

If sin did not in fact enter through one man, when and how did it enter? Harlow and others in his position argue that “sin entered the world through (not because of) Adam, and that death spread to all because all sinned. Adam was the first sinner, but the responsibility for humanity’s sin falls squarely on the human race as a whole.[6]” But this does not answer how sin and evil began. Conservative scholars would agree that we are all responsible for our own sins, but that is not what is being disputed. The origination of sin is the problem. Both references in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 to Adam portrays him as a literal being and the initiator of sin in this world.

It is difficult to see how, strictly from biblical exegesis only, Adam could be interpreted any other way. Paul presents Christ as the hope and savior of all who have descended from Adam, “The ground for this hope is the believer’s relationship to Christ, who, undoing the effects of Adam’s sin, has won eternal life for all who belong to him ([Romans] 5:12-21).[7]” It is clear that Adam is presented in the New Testament both as the representative for the human race, and as a historical figure through whom sin entered the world.

Other posts in this series:

• The Theological Significance of Adam
• The Existence of Adam: Why it Matters
• Theological Consequences of an Evolved Adam
• Why the Original and Specially Created Adam Must be True

This is the second post in a series of posts looking at the theological significance with Adam.

Why It Matters

With the amount of debate that surrounds the creation of Adam and his existence, one popular question has often been raised by many who are confused by or put off by such disagreement; does it really matter? The question must be addressed in two ways: why it matters how God created our universe, and why the importance of Adam’s existence matters. To begin, we will look at the latter question first.

C. John Collins gives four reasons why the literal existence of Adam and Eve matters. He writes, “If we abandon the conventional way of telling the Christian story… then we really give up all chance of understanding the world. Specifically, if we deny that all people have a common source that was originally good but through which sin came into the world, then the existence of sin becomes God’s fault, or even something God could not avoid. In either case there is little reason to be confident that any relief is headed our way.”[1]

The practical implication of Adam and Eve simply being a mythology is the consequence that God in fact is the creator of sin and evil, or that he cannot avoid it. If this is so, then our hope of God finally conquering sin and evil comes with little confidence. Collins continues, “Second, the notions of sin as an alien invader that affects all people, and of atonement as God’s way of dealing with the guilt and pollution that comes from this defiling influence, depend on the story of the original family and their original disobedience.[2]”

Jesus is often referred to as the “second Adam” of whom God came to give himself and make right what the first Adam corrupted. “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.[3]” Without the first Adam, the death and resurrection of Jesus loses much of its meaning. “Third, if we cannot insist on a common origin for all mankind, then we have given up the grounds, from both the Bible and common sense, for affirming the common dignity of all people.[4]”

This goes beyond Christian thought and doctrine. If all humans do not have a common origin, why argue for the common dignity of all people. Also, how could Christians argue for the common solution that Biblical faith offers to all people? Lastly, Collins writes, “Fourth, how we relate to the story of Adam and Eve does, sooner or later, face us with what stance we will take toward Biblical authority.[5]” We must decide if we accept the authority of Jesus. Part of this authority includes whom God gave the right and ability to write the Bible and show us how to interpret the Genesis account.