Book Review: "Four Views on the Historical Adam"
Net Galley Review
By Matthew
Barrett , Ardel Caneday , Denis Lamoureux , John H. Walton , C. John Collins ,
William D. Barrick , Gregory A. Boyd , Philip G. Ryken , Stanley N. Gundry.
Zondervan
Grand Rapids, MI 49530
www.zondervan.com
ISBN: 9780310499275; $19.99, 10 December 2013.
Reviewed by Rev. Dr. Michael Philliber
for Deus Misereatur.
We were
sitting in one of the local pubs, doctoral students from diverse denominations
and deep in our ministries. We were talking about our theses topics, when
suddenly the conversation turned on whether or not Adam and Eve were genuinely
historical persons. I was the only one in a self-professed Evangelical denomination.
The others came from clans that had a reputation for being rather “broad” on
Biblical authority and historicity. It was a relatively awkward moment, until
things moved on. But I distinctly remember thinking then, in 2006, that I was
glad to be an Evangelical where this subject was not up for grabs. Nevertheless
since that time the discussion has come around to our part of town. A prime
example can be found in the newest 288 page paperback installment in the
Counterpoint series, edited by Stanley Gundry, and clearly titled, “Four Views
on the Historical Adam” published by Zondervan. To put it in a nutshell, the discussion in the
book revolves around answering two questions: (1) Is Adam a historical person
who really lived in time, space and history? And (2) Does it really matter to
the Christian Faith? The “Four Views on the Historical Adam” follows the format
of the other Counterpoint installments; (1) One dialogue partner makes their
case for their position; (2) the other interlocutors pipe in to point out
various holes or slips in logic; (3) then there is a rejoinder by the main
chapter writer; (4) and the cycle begins with the next dialogue partner.
Matthew
Barrett, Associate Professor of Christian Studies at California Baptist
Seminary, and Ardel Caneday, Professor of New Testament Studies and Biblical
Studies at North western College, launch into the introductory chapter. The
authors of this chapter rightly note that “when conflict emerges among
Christians, our quest for truth must not avoid conflict but face it, even if
this makes us uncomfortable” (14), so they busily unpack the rules of the game,
parameters for discussion, history of the subject, and the ideological
background that will often flow just beneath the surface. An important observation made in the chapter
quickly becomes clear as the book unfolds; “( . . . ) how one understands
Genesis, evolutionary theory, and even the age of the earth to a certain extent
will impact, in one way or another, what one believes about Adam and Eve” (25).
The first
chapter is handed to Denis Lamoureux, Associate Professor of Science and
Religion at St. Joseph's College in the University of Alberta. Lamoureux works
out a case for Evolutionary Creation, and specifically that there was no
historical Adam. He draws from his Seminary and Scientific training to build
his argument. Though holding to the inerrancy of Scripture, he stresses that
the writers of the Scriptures penned their material from within the framework
of ancient science. That God, accommodating his revelation to humankind, used
the vehicle of ancient science to teach “inerrant, life-changing, spiritual
truths” (41), giving numerous examples where he sees this is the case. To tease
out how he can hold to both, inerrancy as well as “( . . . ) Holy Scripture
makes statements about how God created ( . . . ) that in fact never happened”
(54, 56), he proposes the “Message-Incident Principle” (49-55). This brings him
to construct his reasons for rejecting Adam as a historical person; “To use
technical terminology, Adam is the retrojective conclusion of an ancient
taxonomy. And since ancient science does not align with physical reality, it
follows that Adam never existed” (58). Lamoureux also delves into the New
Testament, and explains how his “Message-Incident Principle” works in regard to
the New Testament’s mention of Adam at crucial places.
Next John
Walton, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School,
addresses the role of Adam and Eve as archetypes. Though Walton emphasizes that
he personally thinks Adam and Eve were real historical persons, his main accent
is to show how they were representative and not essentially the biological
forbearers of humankind. He walks the reader through the early chapters of
Genesis, pointing out the archetypal emphasis of the Biblical writer,
especially with the way role or function is being presented in those chapters. Walton
then turns to Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature and shows how Israel’s
neighbors did not depict human origins “in terms of a single couple being
created as progenitors of the entire human race” (99). Nevertheless the ANE
material did picture chosen humans as archetypes (99-104), as do the New
Testament documents (104-8). Walton then
presents one possible scenario where a Christian who is convinced that
evolution is consistent with reality and the Biblical witness is true might work
out “Adam and Eve” as archetypes, where the image of God was endowed to
hominids. However, in this setup, Adam
and Eve would be “neither the first people nor the biological/genetic ancestors
of all” (115).
In the
third chapter C. John Collins, Professor of Old Testament at Covenant
Theological Seminary, comes at the subject from an old earth position. He holds
that Adam and Eve “were both real persons at the headwaters of humankind” (143)
and that they are one of the essential elements in the Christian Faith. After
defining what he means by “history” and “historical” Collins then drafts up how
ANE texts, specifically with regard to origins, and the Biblical account of
Genesis 1-11 are similar and where they are dissimilar. His point seems to be
mainly to show that the “front end of the worldview story” (151) shapes the
rest of the narrative, as well as how people defined themselves in relation to
those accounts. “So it is fitting to find in Genesis an alternative front end
to the worldview story, which aims to tell the story the right way” (153). From
here he goes on to show Genesis tracing humankind back to a common source,
therefore affirming human unity which lays the groundwork for “Israel’s calling
to bring light to the world” (154). Next he unpacks the harmony of Genesis 1-11
as a literary piece, which harmony splashes on over into 12-50. Thereafter Collins
takes the reader through the Biblical storyline displaying how the Biblical
writers took Adam and Eve as real people at the headwaters of humankind. From
this Biblical story line, which includes a real fall into sin by an original
Adam and Eve, he sketches out how sin is an intrusion into God’s good creation,
an “alien intruder” (160), that affects the unified whole of humankind. Collins
ties together the essential hope that comes from a real Adam and Eve at the
headwaters of humankind, “If we have a good explanation for why things have
gone wrong, then maybe the Christian hope that somehow God will put them right
is a secure comfort also – a comfort that will help us to live fully human
lives, as God’s beloved people, even now” (167). In the end, he does open the
door, ever so slightly, for the possibility that there might have been more
than Adam and Eve – maybe a tribe under their chief, Adam. He draws this possibility
from Derek Kidner (172-3).
Rounding
out the dialogue, William Barrick, Professor of Old Testament at The Master's
Seminary, comes to the table promoting a young earth position. He stresses the
point that if the later Old and New Testament writers built their case on
earlier events that didn’t actually take place, then their position is
falsified (203-5; see also 221 fn 79). Further, he brings out the basic and
usual reasons that creation happened in the six 24-hour days stated in Genesis
1-2, showing the flow and connection of the passage. From here he puts together
the reasons for seeing Adam and Eve as the original pair of humankind from whom
we all spring, with all of the specialness of their creation. Next he describes
how the following chapters in Genesis grow out of the realness of the first
couple; including the fall of all humanity in their rebellion. Moving from
Genesis Barrick surveys Old and New Testament sections that either assume or
specifically reference the first couple. This brings him to the conclusion that
the “historical individuality of Adam as the parent of the race forms the basis
of New Testament theology. A mere archetype cannot fulfill the same textually
and theologically significant role” (218). Barrick then raises the stakes by
declaring that the holding to a historical Adam is “a gospel issue” (222).
Finally, the author rightly reminds the reader to be cautious about throwing
their lasso around the present scientific star, because “declarations by
scientists represent their interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence
itself. Science changes, the Scriptures do not” (227; see also 223 fn 84(4)).
“Four Views
on the Historical Adam” ends with two articles coming from pastoral
reflections. Gregory Boyd, pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul,
Minnesota, shows from his own personal experience why a historical Adam is not essential
to the Christian Faith. He goes on and makes a passionate plea for Evangelicals
to exclude it from the definition of Evangelical Orthodoxy. Philip Ryken, president of Wheaton College in
Wheaton, Illinois, and former senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in
Philadelphia, summarizes the reasons why Evangelicals must continue to hold onto
the historicity of Adam as the originating parent of humankind. Ryken takes a
wise, level-headed stance with regard to science and Biblical revelation,
noting that as “our faith seeks understanding, we are wise to exercise patience
both in our study of Scripture and with the progress of science” (269). He then
fleshes out seven well-reasoned points for maintaining our hold on the
historical Adam. In my personal opinion this was the best chapter in the whole
work; pastoral, evangelistic, missional, and compassionate.
To read “Four
Views on the Historical Adam” is something of a stretch due to the nature of
the book. It is intended to be a gentleman’s serious discussion of an important
subject. It is presented as a civil debate, which on occasion gets edgy. But
overall it is a worthwhile read. No matter where the reader falls on the
spectrum, he or she will gain insight, and be challenged. I recommend the book.
Thanks to Net Galley and Zondervan for the e-copy to write this review.
{As always,
feel free to publish or post this review; and give credit where credit is due.
Mike}
Comments