Paul and the Historicity of Adam
and Eve
Peter Enns & Denis Lemoureux versus C. John
Collins & D.A. Carson
Where We are focusing…


Before I begin, I’ll go ahead and reveal my own cards. I am an Old
Earth Creationist who holds to a literary framework view of
Genesis 1. I agree with the best science of the day that says the
earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 13 billions years old.
The Creation account(s) has some historical referent in our spacetime history. I think there are good reasons to believe in a historical
Adam and Eve.
I do not intend to discuss the whole Creation/Evolution debate.
◦ Too big of a topic for an hour
 Hermeneutics, theology & church history, philosophy, science,
and other fields
◦ Too big of an issue for my feeble, mental faculties
◦ Too controversial of an issue for me to ramble about
Where We are focusing
We will look at two theistic evolutionist’s
handlings of the historicity of Adam and
Eve in Pauline literature
 We will focus of the work of Peter Enns
and Denis Lemoureux with responses by
D.A. Carson and C. John Collins.

Adam & Eve Existed.

Dr. D.A. Carson is Research Professor of
New Testament at Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School in Deerfield, IL.
◦ Adam in the Epistles of Paul

Dr. C. John Collins is the professor of Old
Testament at Covenant Seminary.
◦ Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?
Adam & Eve Never Existed

Peter Enns is a Senior Fellow of Biblical
Studies for The BioLogos Foundation.
◦ The Evolution of Adam

Denis O. Lemoureux is a professor of
science and religion at St. Joseph's College
at the University of Alberta, Canada.
◦ Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution
Introduction- Waltke Controversy


Bruce Waltke, after appearing on a Biologos video discussing
theistic evolution, resigned from RTS amidst an evangelical
firestorm.
Prof. Bruce Waltke is a preeminent Old Testament scholar, holding
doctorates from Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.D.), Harvard
University (Ph.D.), and Houghton College (D. Litt.). His teaching
appointments at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College,
Westminster Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary
Orlando, and currently at Knox Theological Seminary have earned
him a reputation as a master teacher with a pastoral heart. In
addition to serving on the translation committee of the NIV and
TNIV and as editor of the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible,
Waltke has written commentaries on Genesis, Proverbs, and Micah.
His latest publication, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical,
Canonical and Thematic Approach, earned the Christian Book
Award in 2008.
Introduction- What he said…
“If the data is overwhelmingly in favor of
evolution, to deny that reality will make us
a cult…some odd group that is not really
interacting with the world. And rightly so,
because we are not using our gifts and
trusting God’s Providence that brought us
to this point of our awareness.”
 His statements were conditional…

Introduction-What is Theistic
Evolution?

What is theistic evolution?

“The best harmonious synthesis of the special revelation of the Bible, of the general
revelation of human nature that distinguishes between right and wrong and consciously or
unconsciously craves God, and of science is the theory of theistic evolution. By “theory,” I
mean here “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for
the origin of species, especially Adam,” not “a proposed explanation whose status is still
conjectural.” By “theistic evolution” I mean that the God of Israel, to bring glory to
himself, (1) created all the things that are out of nothing and sustains them; (2) incredibly,
against the laws of probability, finely tuned the essential properties of the universe to
produce Adam, who is capable of reflecting upon their origins; (3) within his providence
allowed the process of natural selection and of cataclysmic interventions-such as the
meteor that extinguished the dinosaurs, enabling mammals to dominate the earth-to
produce awe-inspiring creatures, especially Adam; (4) by direct creation made Adam a
spiritual being, an image of divine beings, for fellowship with himself by faith; (5) allowed
Adam to freely choose to follow their primitive animal nature and to usurp the rule of
God instead of living by faith in God, losing fellowship with their physical and spiritual
Creator; (6) and in his mercy chose from fallen Adam the Israel of God, whom he
regenerated by the Holy Spirit, in connection with their faith in Jesus Christ, the Second
Adam, for fellowship with himself.” Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Theology
Introduction



Dr. Waltke’s resignation brought Biologos &
the theistic evolution controversy to the
forefront of the evangelical community.
Since then, numerous books have come out
on the subject.
The center of the evolution debate has
shifted from asking whether we came from
earlier animals to whether we could have
come from one man and one woman.
Introduction
Denis Lemoureux’s and Peter Enn’s works
serve as an apologetic endeavor to
accommodate the findings of science with
the truths of inspired Scripture.
 In the process, many evangelical leaders,
scholars, and theologians have said they’ve
gone “too far” and have compromised on
a key doctrine.

Both Agree on Paul in One Sense
Paul
believed
that Adam
and Eve
really
existed.
Denis Lemoureux’s Paul
"My central conclusion in this book is clear:
Adam never existed and this fact has no
impact whatsoever on the foundational
beliefs of Christianity." Evolutionary
Creation
 What is essential to Christianity?

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
God created humans
Humans bear the image of God
Humans are sinful
God judges humanity for sin
Jesus died for humans
Salvation is found through Jesus Christ alone
Denis Lemoureux’s Paul
Evolutionary creation claims that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the
universe and life through an ordained,
sustained, and design-reflecting
evolutionary process.
 Evolution is intelligently designed to bring
about what God wants.

Denis Lemoureux’s Paul
Dr. Lemoureux rejects scientific
concordism.
 Scientific concordism is the assumption
that God revealed scientific facts in the
Bible thousands of years before their
discovery in modern history.
 He rejects this notion because of the
presence of a three-tier universe in the
Bible.

Denis Lemoureux’s Paul

Genesis 1 and the firmament or expanse.
◦ They thought it was a hard dome because it
appeared that way.
◦ All ANE cultures believed this idea.

God places the sun, moon, and stars in
the firmament because it appears that
way. It is an ancient understanding of the
physical world.
Denis Lemoureux’s Paul
Denis Lemoureux’s Paul

Other biblical passages
◦ Acts 4:12 "Under heaven"
 This reflects a three tier universe
◦ Phil. 2:10-11
 "in heaven…on earth…and in the underworld"
 This passage uses an ancient understanding of the entire universe
that is three-tiered.
◦ Gen. 1:7
 Waters under the earth
 Ancients would travel in all directions and would eventually come to a
body of water. It made perfect sense to assume they were surrounded by a
body of water. This is where we get the phrase "ends of the earth."
 Ends of the earth
 Isa. 41:8
 Jesus himself uses this same ancient mindset of the day in Matt. 12:42
Denis Lemoureux’s Paul

Is concordism true?
◦ We find an ancient understanding of the physical
world.
◦ What we find in scripture does not align with the
scientific facts.

Did God lie?
◦ No. Lying requires deception and malice.
◦ God simply accommodates himself.
 The Holy Spirit descended to the level of ancient
humans and used their ideas (Ancient Science) in order
to reveal messages of faith.
Denis Lemoureux’s Paul

Creation in Genesis 1
◦ We find an ancient understanding of the creation of the
world.
◦ De novo Creation
 Creation that is brand new.
 Quick and complete origin of life. Things are made quickly and
fully formed.
 This is the origins science of the world.
 This is the best understanding for the ancient peoples.

Message-incident principle
◦ We find a message in Scripture that is timeless, good truth
that is carried by the vessel of an ancient understanding of
an incident.
◦ We find the message amidst ancient understandings of
things.
Denis Lemoureux’s Paul
Denis Lemoureux’s Paul

Biology in the Bible
◦ Implication of the three-tier universe
 If the astronomy is ancient…
 If the geology is ancient…
 Is the biology not ancient?
◦ This is a consistency argument.
◦ Ancient biology in Scripture
 The creation of life is mentioned to be "according to their kinds" in the Creation
accounts ten times.
 This is an ancient phenomenological perspective of the ancients.




Cows make cows…
Sheep make sheep…
Birds make birds…
People make people…
 This is the taxonomy-of-the-day.
 Implication?
 The ancients would have asked is "where do humans come from?"
 Retrojection
 Taking present experience and casting it back in time to explain the past.
Denis Lemoureux’s Paul

Adam?
◦ A human gives birth to a human who gives birth to another human and
so on and so forth.
◦ Origins implication: Adam is the retrojection of the ancients. This is an
ancient biology of origins. Adam is an extension of adding people all the
way back to the first "humans."
◦ Adam is simply a retrojective conclusion (de novo creation “according
to their kinds”) of an ancient taxonomy, which is based on an ancient
phenomenological perspective of biology.
◦ Adam is an incidental vessel that delivers inerrant foundations of the
Christian faith to remind us: We are created in the Image of God, we
are sinful, and God judges us for our sins.
◦ Though Adam never existed, he is the prototype of the human spiritual
condition. In order to understand our existence, we must see ourselves
in him—Adam is you and me.
◦ Adam = three tiers
◦ Adam was never created de nova like the Scriptures say.
Rebuttals to Dr. Lemoureux’s Paul
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Anticoncordism, which tends to reject
concordism out of hand, is not the only
alternative. Anti-concordism, as applied to
Genesis, tends to assume that the Biblical
account has little or no historical referent.
He assumes historical or scientific concordism
requires literalism.
He assumes a timeless message can be
abstracted from a story.
He assumes that Paul’s argument is not
somehow contingent upon facts of history.
Some of the statements could be poetic.
He assumes a level of ethnocentrism.
Peter Enn’s Paul
"The conversation between Christianity and evolution would
be far less stressful for some if it were not for the prominent
role that Adam plays in two of Paul's letters…In these
passages Paul seems to regard Adam as the first human being
and ancestor of everyone who lived. This is a particularly vital
point in Romans, where Paul regards Adam's disobedience as
the cause of universal sin and death from which humanity is
redeemed through the obedience of Christ. Many Christians,
however creative they might be willing to be interpreting
Genesis, stop dead in their tracks when they see how Paul
handles Adam.“ 79
 Paul really does believe this fact he is discussing in Romans
and First Corinthians.
 What Paul has to say is not based upon the OT.

Paul’s Adam and the OT

Adam is relatively absent from the Old
Testament story.
◦ From a Christian point of view, we talk about
Genesis 3 as a turning point. We call it "the Fall."
◦ This is not a major turning point within the
Hebrew bible. Outside of genealogies within
Chronicles, Adam is never really brought up too
much.
◦ The Fall isn't seen as a cause of anything really.
We assume that depravity comes from the fall.
The text does not blame Adam like Paul does.
Paul’s Adam and the OT

If Adam's disobedience lies at the root of
universal sin and death, why does the Old
Testament never once specifically refer to
Adam this way?
◦ Adam is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 1:1.
◦ Hosea 6:7 should not be viewed as referring to
Adam as person's name. It should be viewed as a
place's name.
 Hosea is not concerned with the sin of all humanity. He
is concerned with Israel's failure to repent.
 Adam is the first of three places listed where Israel
failed to repent (Gilead and Shechem in vv. 8-9).
 Hosea 6:7 is not a brief allusion to the fall of man.
Paul’s Adam and the OT

Adam's punishment from God listed in Genesis 3:17-18 does not
mention his posterity would be born in a state of sinfulness from
which all efforts to eradicate oneself are in vain.
◦ Cain's disobedience is not causally linked with Adam's disobedience.
◦ Noah would be exempt from Adam's sinfulness that is passed down
because he is described as "a righteous man, blameless in his
generation. (6:9)"
◦ Why is Adam's disobedience not causally linked to the flood?
◦ Israel is given a choice whether or not to obey God's law- much like
Adam and Cain.
◦ The choice offered to Adam and Cain is the same choice later offered
to Israel: obedience yields blessing and disobedience yields cursing. The
Old Testament does not tie Israel's disobedience, or that of humanity at
large, to Adam's one act of disobedience.
Paul’s Adam and the OT
Paul's use of Genesis is clearly rooted in something
else other than a simple reading of the story.
 Paul's view of the depth of universal, inescapable
human alienation from God is completely true, but it
is also beyond what is articulated in the OT in general
or Genesis specifically.
 We read Genesis like we do because of the influence
of Augustine in the Western Church.

◦ Humanity's state was transformed because of Adam and
Eve's transgression. The depraved and guilty nature of the
first couple was passed onto their offspring and all of the
rest of humanity.
◦ All of humanity was in some sense present in Adam's
actions and disobedience
Paul’s Adam and the OT

We do not have to read it like this. The Eastern
Church, following Irenaeus of Lyons, sees the
story from a different angle. The garden story is
not about a descent from a pristine, untainted
original state of humanity. Rather, it tells the story
of naïveté and immaturity on the part of Adam
and Eve and the loss of childlike innocence in an
illicit move to grasp at a good thing, wisdom,
represented by the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil. Adam and Eve are like children
placed in a paradise, where they are to learn to
serve God and grow in wisdom and maturity, to
move to spiritual perfection.
Paul’s Adam and the OT





The story is about the how (how wisdom is obtained)
knowledge is to be pursued.
Knowing the difference between good and evil, right and
wrong, is desirable. This is found in Israel's wisdom literature.
Becoming like God in knowing good and evil is precisely
what God wants for Adam and Eve. The issue is not the
knowledge should be avoided lest one claim to be like God.
The problem is the illicit way in which Eve tries to attain
wisdom- quickly, prematurely, impatiently.
A wisdom reading of Genesis 3 does not address, and so in
no way negates, the universal and inescapable reality of sin
and death and the need for a savior to die and rise.
Paul as an Ancient Interpreter

Although Paul's gospel was fresh, radical, and counterintuitive to
both Jew and Gentile alike, Paul was an ancient man and naturally
held widely accepted views on a good number of things. Paul had a
cultural context.
◦ Paul believed in a three-tiered universe (Phil. 2:10-11; 2 Cor. 12:2).
◦ Paul's world did not include the Western hemisphere or the arctic
poles; reproductive barrenness is solely the woman's fault; the world
was created by a discreet act of God in relatively recent history, not
through an evolutionary process over millions or billions of years (Paul
would not have a category for the astronomical numbers we casually
toss about).
◦ Just because Paul’s access to knowledge about the origins led him to use
the language he did to make a theological claim, that does not mean we
need to accept the scientific accuracy of his statements in order to
agree with his theological conclusion.

Paul does not have to be right scientifically for us to agree with him
theologically.
Paul as an Ancient Interpreter

Paul’s handling of his Scripture is marked throughout by a
creative engagement of his tradition. That creativity stems
from two factors: (1) the Jewish climate of his day, likewise
marked by imaginative ways of handling Scripture; and (2)
Paul’s uncompromising Christ-centered focus. In other
words, Paul’s understanding of the Adam story is
influenced both by the interpretive conventions of Second
Temple Judaism in general and by his wholly reorienting
experience of the risen Christ. Paul is not doing “straight
exegesis” of the Adam story. Rather, he subordinates that
story to the present, higher reality of the risen Son of
God, expressing himself within the hermeneutical
conventions of the time.
Paul as an Ancient Interpreter

By the time Jesus came on the scene, Jews had already been
steeped in several hundred years of careful reflection on
their own now sacred and inscripturated story. This process
already began within the pages of the OT itself, a
phenomenon sometimes referred to as "inner biblical
interpretation," where Israel's latter literature shows
evidence of transforming its older texts in view of changing
circumstances (Chronicles).
◦ During this time, the Qumran community was writing books, the
Pseudepigrapha and OT apocrypha was written, and the
Hebrew scriptures were translated into other languages.

There was tremendous literary output by faithful Jews in
trying to come to grips with how their scriptures and
current events intersected. The NT was written amid this
flurry of interpretive output.
Paul as an Ancient Interpreter

There are various "Adams" of Jewish Interpreters that do not agree
with Paul's unique view.
◦ The Wisdom of Solomon refers to Adam as one who was "delivered
from his transgressions" (10:1). Adam was a master of all things, but
transgressed God's command. Adam is presented as some sort of victim
of the death that entered the world "through the devil's envy," not
through Adam's disobedience (2:23-24).
◦ Ecclesiasticus talks about Adam being formed from the dust, but there
is no mention of a fall or sinful nature inherited by his offspring (17:114; 33:10).
◦ Sirach places the blame not on Adam for the misery of all humanity but
solely on Eve (25:24 [1 Tim. 2:14?]).
◦ In the book of Jubilees, Adam is a priestly figure who actually offers
sacrifices for his own transgressions.
◦ In On the Creation of the World, Philo understands Adam to have been
made perfect and immortal, fully possessing the image of God (134135). The further the human race extends from him, the less of the
image they posses (141).
Paul as an Ancient Interpreter
Paul's Adam is an example of the rich
interpretive activity, where Adam is called
upon to address various theological
concerns.
 Paul's handling of Adam is hermeneutically
no different from what others were doing
at the time: appropriating an ancient story
to address pressing concerns of the
moment.

Paul as an Ancient Interpreter

Paul does not use the OT with exact precision of
the original context. The crucifixion and
resurrection changes how he interprets his Bible.
The text is not the master; it serves a goal- the
absolute and uncompromised centrality of what
God has done here and now in the crucified and
risen Christ.
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
2 Cor. 6:2 and Isaiah 49:8
The "seed" in Gal. 3:16,29
Gal. 3:11 and Hab. 2:4
Rom. 11:26-27 and Isa. 59:20
Rom. 4 and Gen. 15:6
Paul as an Ancient Interpreter

Paul had an interpreted Bible. How Paul understood
the OT was affected by interpretive traditions that
were older than Paul but shaped his thinking more
subtly.
◦ 2 Tim. 3:8 mentions Jannes and Jambres, the magicians in
Pharaoh's court during Moses' day.
◦ Gal. 3:19 mentioned the law being mediated by angels.
◦ 1 Cor. 10:4 mentions a moving well that followed the
Israelites' during the desert experience.

We cannot and should not assume that what Paul
says about Adam is necessarily what Genesis was
written to convey. Paul was an ancient man with
ancient thoughts, inspired though he was.
Paul’s Adam
Paul's Adam: The historical first man, responsible for
universal sin and death.
 Adam is a vital theological and historical figure for
Paul. But, Adam is also typological and symbolic in
Paul (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:44-49).
 What makes Paul difficult to read for us today.

◦ All the extrabiblical factors mentioned earlier.
◦ We do not know the full context of the situations. They
original hearers know something we lack.
◦ There are grammatical challenges to reading Paul.
◦ His thoughts tend to come with such a flurry of energy
and passion that his pen can hardly keep up with his heart
and head. He is not as logical, systematic, and clinical as he
is made out to be.
Paul’s Adam
The reason Paul uses Adam the way he does
reflects his Christ-centered handling of the
OT in general. Paul's understanding of Adam
is shaped by Jesus, not the other way around.
 The uncompromising reality of who Jesus is
and what he did to conquer the objectively
true realties of sin and death do not
DEPEND on Paul's understanding of Adam
as a historical person.

Paul’s Adam

We can leave behind the cause of sin with leaving
behind the fact of sinfulness. There are three core
elements that remain:
◦ The universal and self-evident problem of death.
◦ The universal and self-evident problem of sin.
◦ The historical event of the death and resurrection of
Christ.
What we lose: Paul's cultural answer to how those
things came about.
 We can hold to a "sin of origin" without believing in
Augustine's doctrine of "original sin." The former is
the absolute inevitability of sin that affects every
human being from their beginnings, from birth.

Paul’s Adam
Paul's goal is to show that what binds these two
utterly distinct groups together is their equal
participation in a universal humanity marked by sin
and death and their shared need of the same
universally offered redemption. Paul's Adam serves
that role. Everything else is subservient to that goal.
 The New Perspective gets Paul's thinking right. Paul is
combating covenantal nomism within his letters, doing
the law out of gratitude to stay in the covenant. The
Jews did not think of themselves as earning God's
favor through the observation of the Law. The law and
other Jewish markers "kept them" in the covenant
community.

Paul’s Adam
Paul is saying that the Gentiles do not have to
become Jewish to stay in the covenant
community. The resurrection of the Son of God is
a game changer; gentiles can now be part of the
covenant as gentiles. Paul pushes Adam to the
forefront in a brand new way to address the
problem of sin and death, a problem the
resurrection defeated.
 Any attempt to retain the old distinctions the
resurrection did away with are met with the full
arsenal of Paul's rhetorical skills, passionate
personality, and theological insights.

Rebuttals to Dr. Enn’s Paul
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
He ignores the OT’s use of the Adam story in other
pericopes.
He does not consider other Second Temple
Literature concerning Paul’s issue of where sin
originated.
He assumes because of his commitment to the
New Perspective that Paul’s arguments do not
depend on a historical Adam.
He abuses Irenaeus of Lyons’ account.
His viewpoint concerning how the apostles used
the OT is not the only way to interact with those
texts.
His view of inspiration may place undue emphasis
on human frailty.
1-Adam in the OT
Forest and the Trees Problem: How does our
perception of the big picture (the forest) interact
with our interpretations of the text (the trees)?
 There are several difficulties with this claim: the first
is, what exactly constitutes a "citation," presumption,
or echo? Does an allusion to any part of Genesis 1-5
count as one of the echoes? Does not the presence
or absence of allusions depend on the communicative
intentions of the writers? The later writer may or
may not find an echo of this passage useful to what he
is trying to do in a later text-which means the
perceived rarity of citation hardly implies that this
story has no bearing on the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

1-Adam in the OT


Narrative rarely tells the reader what the he or she should believe
outright. Rather, it shows one the consequences and ends of
actions and decisions within the flow of the plotline. We do not
need a statement from the writer that “Adam’s disobedience affects
all people who follow him” because the text shows this fact.
Cranfield says “ (Original Sin) is a natural inference drawn from the
Genesis narrative and surely its intention.”
Peter Enns reverses the prototype of seeing Adam as
representational of Israel instead of seeing Israel as
representational of Adam. Adam and Eve, as persons in covenant
with God who disobey the LORD, become types or symbols of
divine will and intention throughout Torah and the rest of the OT.
N.T. Wright in his The New Testament and the People of God says that
"If Abraham and his family are understood as the Creator's means
of dealing with the sin of Adam, and hence the evil in the world,
Israel herself becomes to the true Adamic humanity…”
1-Adam in the OT

Commands issued to Adam are given to Abraham and others (1:28; 12:2; 17:2,6,8; 22:16).

The "blessing" idea is explicit in 12:2-3 and is combined with being fruitful and multiplying in 17:20;
22:17-18;26:3-4; 28:3: these echo God's blessings upon the original pair (1:28).

The idea of "offspring" and "seed" ties the rest of Genesis with the first eleven chapters (3:15; 4:25;
12:7; 13:15-16; 17:7-9).

Abraham, Abel, Noah, and Israel mirrors Adam by building altars to sacrifice to the LORD.

Israel is to be a nation of priests over God's earth much like Adam and Eve were priests and viceregents over the earth (Exo. 19). The prophets call Israel to be the people through whom the
LORD will act in relation to the whole world.

Outside of Genesis 1-5, explicit references to Eden as a prototypical place of fruitfulness occur in
Gen.13:10; Isa. 51:3;Joel 2:3, and Ezek. 28:13; 31:8-9; 36:35.

Adam is mentioned in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1 as-well-as the genealogies in the earlier
chapters of Genesis and Luke (3:38).

The tree of life receives further mention in the OT & NT (Prov. 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4; Rev. 2:7;
22:2, 14, 19).

Numerous passages refer back to creation (Psa. 8; 104)

Human rest on the Sabbath imitates God's rest after his work on creation (Exo. 20:11, echoing 2:23).

Malachi 2:15 is likely referring to God's intent in marriage (Gen. 2:24).
1-Adam in the OT
Hosea 6:7 is disputed but good reasons exist to
translate the verse as
“But like Adam they transgressed the covenant;
there they dealt faithlessly with me.”
 Ecclesiastes 7:29 may be an echo of the Fall. “See,
this alone I found, that God made man upright,
but they have sought out many schemes.” [many
schemes 7:20?]
 Job 31:33 could be an allusion. “if I have concealed
my transgressions as others do (margin: As Adam
did) by hiding my iniquity in my bosom. ”

2-Second Temple Literature on
Adam
Various Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal texts
link Adam’s disobedience with a universal
punishment of death.
 Apocalypse of Moses-Adam said to Eve, “Why
have you wrought destruction among us and
brought upon us great wrath, which is death
gaining rule over all our race?” (14:2)
 4 Ezra- Ezra speaking to God says: “And you laid
upon him one commandment of yours; but he
transgressed it, and immediately you appointed
death for him and his descendants.” (3:7)

2-Second Temple Literature on
Adam
2 Baruch-“When Adam sinned and death was
decreed against those who were to be born, the
multitude of those who would be born was
numbered.” (23:4)
 2 Baruch- “Adam sinned first and brought death upon
all who were not in his own time.” (54:15)…“For
when he transgressed, untimely death came into
being. . .” (56:6).
 4 Ezra 7:118-199- “O Adam, what have you done? For
though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours
alone, but ours also who are your descendants. For
what good is it to us, if an immortal time has been
promised to us, but we have done deeds that bring
death?”

2-Other Mentions of Adam

Jesus refers to Adam or the events of creation in some historical
sense.
◦ Matt. 19:4-5 “He answered, "Have you not read that he who created
them from the beginning made them male and female, 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 (Gen. 2:7)'?
◦ Matt. 23:35- “…so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed
on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel (Gen. 4:8) to the blood of
Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the
sanctuary and the altar.” (Luke 11:51)
◦ John 8:44- “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your
father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing
to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he
speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
(Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 “Nevertheless through envy of the devil
came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.”)
3-Paul’s Arguments and Adam
Genesis 1-3 is mentioned in passing by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:7-12;
2 Cor 11:3; and 1 Tim. 2:13-14. Although there is no reason
to doubt that these references share the usual assumption of
Second Temple Jews that Adam and Eve were historical, it is
not easy to insist that the argument depends on this
assumption for its validity.
 “Not only must we conclude that Paul himself believed in the
historicity of Adam, but that the structure of his argument
requires the historicity of Adam. In other words, for Paul
Adam is more than an optional extra, a mythological
accretion which may be excised without loss. Far from it;
Paul so tightly relates the saving cross-work of Christ to the
significance of historical Adam that it is difficult to see how
one can preserve the former if the latter is jettisoned.”
Carson

3-Paul’s Arguments and Adam
Enn’s work shows a sense of scholarly arrogance. The
traditional view concerning the message of Romans is
“Paul confessed his sin and inability to save himself
and accepted Jesus as his savior, and led others to do
likewise.”
 “The Protestant reading of Paul reflects medieval
theological debates, not Paul or the Judaism of his
time.”
 “Romans is often read within Protestantism as a tract
for how an individual can get saved; we are justified by
grace through faith, not by works… “Getting saved”
may be part of the application of Romans, but if one
makes it the whole message, much of Paul’s argument
will be missed.”

3-Paul’s Arguments: Romans 5

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world
through one man, and death through sin, and
so death spread to all men because all
sinned-- for sin indeed was in the world
before the law was given, but sin is not
counted where there is no law. Yet death
reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
those whose sinning was not like the
transgression of Adam, who was a type of
the one who was to come. (Rom. 5:12-14)
3-Paul’s Arguments: Romans 5


Paul's reference to the time period from Adam to Moses (5:13-14)
certainly presupposes a historical figure (i.e. Adam) at the beginning
of the period, corresponding to a historical figure at the end of the
period (Moses). Moreover, this period in world history is not simply
an abstract, bounded, temporal entity---we are not dealing with a
"time" in the abstract; rather, this period is portrayed as a time
during which (a) the "law" (of Moses) had not yet been given; (b)
sin was in the world; and (c) death reigned. This threefold
description can only refer to the Old Testament period stretching
from the fall of Adam to the giving of the law to Moses; and it treats
the period as real history inasmuch as all die within it.
Not only does Rom. 5:12-14 lay considerable emphasis on the one
sin, one trespass, or one act of disobedience which brought ruin to
the race; but implicitly the argument depends on the notion that
before that one act of disobedience there was no sin in the race.
This accords very well with Gen. 1-3; it cannot be made to cohere
with any evolutionary perspective which denies the centrality of a
fall in space-time history.
3-Paul’s Arguments: Romans 5
Adam is portrayed as the "type" (tupos, NIV "pattern," 5:14) of one to
come. The relationship between type and antitype in the Scriptures is
complex; but Ellis correctly insists that New Testament typology cannot be
thought of apart from God's saving activity in redemptive history, as
determined by God's definite plan of redemption which is moving toward a
predetermined goal from a specific point of beginning. As Versteeg
comments, "Thus a type always stands at a particular moment in the
history of redemption and points away to another (later) moment in the
same history. . . . To speak about a type is to speak about the fulfillment of
the old dispensation through the new."
 Adam is not portrayed as the first sinner, of which other sinners are later
copies; but as the representative sinner, whose first sin affected the race.
This distinction is crucial if the parallel between Adam and Jesus is to be
maintained; for Jesus is certainly not portrayed as the first man to perform
some definitive righteous act, but as the representative man whose definitive
righteous act affects those who are in him. Preserve this parallel between
Adam and Christ, and the historicity of Adam cannot simply be pro forma,
as far as Paul is concerned.

3-Paul’s Arguments: Romans 5

“The argument is a narratival one: an event that
happened in the past (as in, “one man’s trespass,
one man’s sin, one trespass, one man’s
disobedience”) had consequences (“many died”),
even from Adam to Moses (another character in
the story), that is, before the law of Moses.Verse
17 is explicit: “Because of one man’s trespass,
death reigned through one man.” These events
were followed by what Jesus achieved (“one act
of righteousness, one man’s obedience”), both in
his death and resurrection.”
3-Paul’s Arguments:1 Corinthians
15:20-27

“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the
firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 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. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits,
then at his coming those who belong to Christ.Then comes
the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father
after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his
feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For "God has
put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says,
"all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is
excepted who put all things in subjection under him.”
3-Paul’s Arguments:1 Corinthians
15:20-27

“The point of the argument is not simply that Christ
has introduced a new historical factor into the status
quo of universal sin , but that just as all death can
trace its roots back to one man, so all resurrection
from the dead can trace its roots back to one man.
Contextually, Paul 's argument for the resurrection of
Christ's people depends on the resurrection of
Christ; and the structure of this resurrection
argument depends on the parallel structure, VIZ: that
all participate in death because of the introduction by
Adam of death as a kind of firstfruits. The argument of
the context requires an individual at the head of both
lines the line of death and the line of the resurrection
of the dead.”
3-Paul’s Arguments:1 Corinthians
15:20-27


Similarly, explicit mention of Adam in v.22 argues for a historical
person. It does not help to point out that Adam in Hebrew means
man, for (a) even in the Hebrew Old Testament, one can usually
distinguish in Gen. 1-3 between Adam qua man (generically) and Adam
qua first Individual man: (b) the New Testament was written in
Greek, not Hebrew; and so if Paul had wanted to say man generically
he would have been better off using Greek anthr6pos, rather than
referring to the name of the first human being, a name which Greekspeaking Gentiles in Corinth would certainly recognize as belonging
to the first human being ; (c) the parallel between 'Adam ' and
'Christ', two individuals, needs to be preserved as much in this
verse as in the preceding one.
The reference to death as the last enemy to be destroyed
(v.26)almost certainly casts a backward glance at the Introduction
of death into the race effected by the disobedience of our first
parent (Gen. 3) .
3-Paul’s Arguments:1 Corinthians
15:20-27

The first part of v.27 (,For he "has put everything
under his feet." ') is a direct quote from Ps. 8 :6,
which in turn reflects the creation narrative of
Gen . 1:26- 30. In both Gen. 1 and Ps. 8, it is man
who is vested with authority over all things. But
Paul, like the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(2 :5ff), applies the language to Christ as the last
Adam, who retrieves the situation lost by the first
Adam.!" This backward glance is entirely lost if
Paul is unconcerned about the historicity of
Adam, and the historical reality of man's pre-fall
condition.
3-Paul’s Arguments: 1 Corinthians
15:44-49

“It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual
body. If there is a natural body, there is also a
spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man
Adam became a living being"; the last Adam
became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the
spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the
spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man
of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was
the man of dust, so also are those who are of the
dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are
those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne
the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear
the image of the man of heaven.”
3-Paul’s Arguments: 1 Corinthians
15:44-49

When Paul in 15:45a cites Gen. 2:7, he inserts the words first and Adam. These additions
make it clear that Paul does not intend to refer to man generally, but to one specific
man, the first one, Adam by name. It is on this basis that Paul can refer to a second man,
a last Adam, as an individual figure. The argument is greatly weakened if the first Adam
may be construed as a reference to all humanity; for the last Adam must be an individual
and not a reference to the new humanity, since the last Adam has become a life-giving
(not a life-receiving) spirit. Only about Jesus Christ, the individual Jesus Christ, could this
be said. Moreover, Paul says that "we have borne the likeness of the earthly man" (15:49),
not that we are the earthly man; and in the same way we shall bear the likeness of the
man from heaven, which clearly cannot mean we are the man from heaven. The language
is reminiscent of the "in Adam"/"in Christ" contrast of 15:21. Clearly, neither Adam nor
Christ is here presented in a purely private capacity. Both function as representative
heads, the one of the earthly humanity, the other of the heavenly humanity; and it is
difficult to perceive exactly what Paul could be saying if this parallelism is destroyed. The
cogency of his argument for a resurrection body of a nature like Christ's resurrection
body is destroyed if there is no representative entailment from Christ to us; and there is
no reason to think such entailment must exist unless the historical representative
entailment from Adam to us also exists.
3-Paul’s Arguments: 1 Corinthians
15:44-49

We may put this in a slightly different fashion. As Ridderbos writes, "The anthropological
contrast is anchored in the redemptive-historical." The "natural" mode of existence which
springs from participation in Adam is succeeded by the "spiritual" mode of existence
which springs from participation in Christ. But Christ in this passage appears not as an atemporal parallel to Adam, but as the later figure, the eschatological figure, the antitypical
figure, the figure who comes in fulfillment. Such categories are meaningful only if the first
figure is a figure in history. One cannot fail to be reminded of the argument of 2 Peter 3:17. There we are told that those who scoff at the prospect of the second coming have two
historical examples of God's cataclysmic intervention to stand as witnesses to what God
can do---viz, the creation and the flood. But to a generation which disbelieves heartily in
both of these historical events which God has designed at least in part to serve as
pointers to the far greater cataclysm of the second coming, what can we possibly offer by
way of assurance that Christ's coming will not be forever delayed? In the same way, we
may ask ourselves: To a generation which disbelieves in the historicity of the individual
Adam who stands as representative of the race and who introduced both death and a
certain kind of body into that race, a man designed by God to serve, at least in part, as a
pointer to the second Adam who brings a new, "spiritual" body and escape from death,
what can we possibly offer by way of assurance that there is reality to these promises and
not just pious talk?
3-Paul’s Arguments: Acts 17:26-31

“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, that they
should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way
toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each
one of us, for "'In him we live and move and have our being';
as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are
indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought
not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or
stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he
commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has
fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness
by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given
assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
3-Paul’s Arguments: Acts 17:26-31
“The Athenians prided themselves in [the fact]
that they were sprung from the soil of their
native Attica. The Greeks considered themselves
superior to non-Greeks. Against such claims of
racial superiority Paul asserts the unity of all men.
The unity of the human race as descended from
Adam is fundamental in Paul’s theology.” F.F. Bruce
 “The making of all kinds of people from one
person is an historical statement, which grounds
the universal invitation- an invitation that itself is
established by an event (the resurrection), in the
light of a sure-to-come future event (day of
judgment).” Collins

4-Irenaeus of Lyons

“For the most part…they (the Greek Fathers) are rehearsing the clichés of
catechetical instruction, so that what they say smacks more of affirmation
than explanation. While taking it for granted that men are sinful, ignorant and
in need of true life, they never attempt to account for their wicked plight.” J.
N.D. Kelley

“It was a natural consequence of this polemic attitude towards Gnosticism,
that the anthropology of the 2d and 3d centuries of both the Western and
the Eastern Church was marked by a very strong emphasis of the doctrine of
human freedom. At a time when the truth that man is a responsible agent
was being denied by the most subtle opponents which the Christian
theologian of the first centuries was called to meet, it was not to be
expected that very much reflection would be expended upon that side of the
subject of sin which relates to the weakness and bondage of the apostate will.
The Gnostic asserted that man was created sinful, and that he had no free
will. The Ancient Father contented himself with rebutting these statements,
without much reference to the consequences of human apostasy in the
moral agent, and the human will itself.” W.G. T. Shedd
4-Irenaeus of Lyons


“According to Irenaeus, the first humans
were created morally innocent, their
innocence being more like that of a child
than of a full adult. God’s goal was for them
to mature into moral confirmation, but the
fall interrupted the process.” Collins
“They (Augustine and Irenaeus) both agree
that the sin of Adam and Eve does have an
effect, which presupposes our actual descent
from this original pair.” Collins
4-Irenaeus of Lyons

“Though God intended the immature Adam and Eve to grow into maturity,
this process was interrupted by the Fall. Because Adam was not yet
mature, in his weakness and inexperience, Adam chose to listen to Satan
and disobey God. Thus, humanity lost the divine likeness, that is, the
endowment of the Spirit, and fell into the grasp of Satan. Adam's sin was
disobedience to God, but this disobedience held important consequences
for Adam's progeny. This first instance of disobedience led to the sinfulness
of the whole race. He also believed that all of humanity shares in Adam's
deed and therefore they also share in his guilt. Though Irenaeus never
defines how this takes place, he must hold that there is some kind of
mystical solidarity within the human race.” J.N. D. Kelley
◦ “…through the disobedience of that one man who was first formed out of the untilled
earth, the many were made sinners and lost life.” Against Heresies 3, 18, 7
◦ “In the first Adam, we offended God, not fulfilling his commandment…to him alone
were we debtors, whose ordinance we transgressed in the beginning.” Against
Heresies 5, 16, 3
◦ “In Adam disobedient man was stricken…” Against Heresies 5, 34, 2
5-Other Ways of Handling the OT
Three Views on the New Testament
Use of the Old Testament
(Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)
by Peter Enns and Kenneth Berding
 Commentary on the New
Testament Use of the Old
Testament by D.A. Carson and G. K.
Beale

6-Inspiration and Incarnation
His arguments are built upon his incarnational model
of inspiration.
 “As Christ is both God and human, so is the
Bible…Christ’s incarnation is analogous to Scripture’s
“incarnation.”…The human dimension of Scripture is,
therefore, part of what makes Scripture Scripture. But
it is precisely this dimension that can create problems
for modern Christian readers, because it can make
the Bible seem less unique, less “Bible-like,” than we
might have supposed.”
 Good reasons exist to still hold to the orthodox view
of inspiration.

What We Might Lose…

The grand narrative of Scripture is
somewhat different.
What We Might Lose…

The reliability of Paul may be subtly
undermined.
◦ What future parts of Paul's arguments are the
result of his ancient mindset and thus nullified
because "we moved on?"
◦ What do we do with the other Biblical writers
on Adam? What other portions of Scriptural
history, ethics, and general doctrine are the mere
thoughts of ancient, unlearned people?

Where does human dignity and objective
value apart from one’s relation to their
socio-cultural community derive itself from?
Closing Admonitions

I recommend the works of D.A. Carson,
Peter Enns, and C. John Collins.
◦ Possible reviews should be in the works.


We should be loving in our treatment of
brothers and sister who hold different
viewpoints yet sharp in our defense of the
truth.
Let us proceed with intellectual humility,
Christ-exalting attitude, and scholarly
engagement regarding the issues surrounding
God’s creation.