The views expressed in this article are of the author only and do not necessarily represent those of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
Four Views on the Historical Adam
Adel B. Canaday and Matthew Barrett, editors
Zondervan (2013). 288 pp.
The question of the historical Adam carries implications for how we understand the nature and purpose of God’s creation and, ultimately, his plan for salvation. In my former church, a number of parishioners regularly debated whether or not Adam was a historical person. Some suggested that Adam was a fictional figure that gives us a framework for understanding human history, while others insisted that the historical Adam was essential to Christian doctrine. While we all remained committed to the truth of the gospel, we nonetheless had our disagreements. Four Views on the Historical Adam brings these disagreements to the fore and offers believers across the theological spectrum a showcase of viewpoints.
Denis Lamoureux argues for the “No Historical Adam” view. Lamoureux is firm in his commitment to this view, suggesting that the historical Adam has “no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity” (p. 38). He grounds his view on three hermeneutical tenets: “scientific concordism,” the “message-incident” principle, and “accommodation.” Scientific concordism asserts that God imbued the Scriptures with scientific knowledge, and scientific discoveries will affirm biblical accounts. The “message-incident” principle suggests that “Holy Scripture makes statements about how God created living organisms that in fact never happened” (p. 56). Accommodation charges that God accommodated the scientific understandings of textual recipients such as when Jesus and Paul refer to a historical Adam to their primarily Jewish audiences. For Lamoureux, while a historical Adam is a “falsified” historiography, the first chapters of Genesis assert timeless spiritual truths about the nature of God.
In contrast, John Walton asserts that Adam existed, taking numerous biblical passages at face value (Gen 5, Luke 3). Arguing for the “Archetypal Creation View,” Walton believes that while Adam and Eve were historical figures, their existence served archetypal rather than scientific purposes. Walton creatively asserts that Adam and Eve may not have been the first humans, but rather the next in a long line of hominids. Walton believes that “God undertook a special act of creation that gives the entire human population the image of God” through the unique creation of Adam and Eve (p. 114). Walton also puts forth an account that seeks to reconcile theistic evolution with a literal fall, a point of contention other contributors charge against him.
C. John Collins presents the old-earth creation view, asserting that Adam and Eve were historical figures. Collins opts for reading Gen 1–11 as “true history . . . because it gives us the true story of how the world began, how evil and suffering came into the world, and how God is still committed to the world he made” (p. 167). For Collins, the biblical account of creation does not demand a literal interpretation; it is perfectly acceptable for this history to include mythical or figurative elements since other biblical passages embrace this practice (such as Ps 105). Collins argues that the Creation-Fall-Redemption story of Scripture leaves room for non-literal interpretations of creation accounts.
Walter Barrick argues for the young-earth view, affirming a literal reading of Gen 1–11. He begins with several assumptions about Genesis that influence his position. The book is supernatural revelation handed to Moses, historically accurate, universal in scope, and the rest of Scripture embraces a literal reading of the text. Barrick exposits Gen 1–5 in order to demonstrate that a literal interpretation of the text is superior to figurative interpretations.
Interspersed between the chapters are reactions from the other contributors, which gives the book a conversational feel. While these responses are generous and take seriously the contributions of each scholar, Lamoreux’s position takes the most criticism since he ultimately rejects a historical Adam. Nonetheless, these responses allow readers to understand the primary objections to each argument, leaving the audience to come to their conclusions on their own.
A unique feature of the volume is the inclusion of “pastoral perspectives” by Gregory Boyd and Philip Ryken. Boyd holds that a historical Adam existed yet is inconsequential to Christian theology; Christian doctrine does not rise or fall on the question of the historical Adam. Ryken’s view is the opposite, asserting that the historical Adam is a lynchpin for understanding creation, the purpose and nature of the gospel, and the nature of Christ. Both chapters are strong, well-argued, and helpful for understanding the ecclesial implications of each position.
Four Views on the Historical Adam provides pastor theologians, laypeople, and skeptics alike a snapshot of the current debate and demonstrates the diversity of viewpoints that Christians hold on the matter. Hypothetically, a pastor theologian could use this book as the foundation for a Bible study or sermon series on Genesis. I highly recommend this volume for the libraries of pastor theologians, laypeople, and churches.
Benjamin Espinoza (PhD, Michigan State University) is the Lead Pastor of Avon Wesleyan Church in Avon, NY. He is a member of the St. Peter Fellowship of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
