In my last two post I have discussed Jesus’ view of Adam according to the Gospels: What did Jesus know and how did he know it? and Collins and Enns on the “historicity” of Adam (Pt. 14). It seems to me that these are the options we have when it comes to understanding Jesus’ teachings regarding Adam from Matthew 19.3-9 and Mark 10.2-9:
(1) Jesus was an average human (not divine nor directly informed by the divine, though maybe quite superior to others as a prophet) and therefore it makes sense that as a first century man he would have been wrong on human origins. Of course this is not an option for traditional Christians.
(2) Jesus was an average human who was also divine in some sense, but his divinity was so integrated into his humanity that he would have believed things that other first century Jews believed–like a historical Adam–even if he was wrong. This might fit within a Kenosis Christology based on Phil. 2.5-11, but it is hard to reconcile with the Jesus presented in the Gospels, especially the Johannine Jesus who receives his teachings from God the Father.
(3) Jesus used Adam like someone might use “Huck Finn.” We know he wasn’t “real” but he helps serve our purpose if people understand his “character.” In these passages Jesus doesn’t name “Adam” but mentions a first human. That makes it a tad harder to argue for a literary “Adam” (as some do with Paul in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15).
(4) The Evangelists got this one wrong and Jesus never said this nor we don’t know what Jesus thought of Adam. What we find in Matthew and Mark should be attributed to their views, not Jesus’. Of course, this is difficult to argue because we have to have a reason for why we doubt Jesus said this.
(5) Jesus was informed by God through the Spirit as regards what he taught and therefore we should submit to his authority regarding Adam even if we don’t know how this meets modern science. It seems that this could cause problems considering that those affiliated with the Human Genome Project seem to be quite convinced that a “first man” is contrary to evidence. One would have to stand by their Christology assuming that the science of human origins is right about a lot but the “unknown” elements are enough to maintain a “first man.”
(6) Someone might argue along with (5) that modern science gets human origins wrong altogether.
I imagine that there are other variances so feel free to share.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian, forgive my ignorance if I’m just completely way off and have missed something. I personally haven’t done much studying concerning the whole Adam debate.
Is there any particular reason why we can’t just assume the first human was the first one who received the divine image? If we do this, then we can affirm science and still affirm ontologically a first, distinct human.
If I’m missing something, please let me know.
Daniel
If I understand the Human Genome Project correctly there are certain elements that appear in our genetic code that help researchers trace back shared ancestry. It appears that there is never a time when they can trace it back to two individuals. We are all inter-related, but that seems to have come about through various groups meeting and mating. I don’t know enough about it to explain it myself so I recommend this article: http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-to-a-single-primal-couple
Of course the main problem seems to be that Genesis and Paul (maybe Jesus) present Adam as the first human from whom all humans come. I don’t know if this can be reconciled or not.
I don’t know if this can be explained by postulating Adam’s offspring eventually intermingled with other proto-humans resulting in all these becoming homosapiens so that we can speak of Adam as the “first man.”
Thanks for the article, Brian. My question actually presupposes the truthfulness of what the human genome is saying. The answer to the question is one that probably isn’t verifiable and is more-so theological in nature. Semantics might get in the way of my question being clear, so I’m going to try and make it clearer, sorry.
So, presupposing that the human genome is correct, namely, that there wasn’t a “first couple”, can we just theologically affirm that Adam and Eve, amidst all these other proto-humans, were the *actual* first humans? The main reason being is that they were the first, of all these creatures, to have the divine image.
I assume we could do that. It would get Jesus off the book since he would be making a “theological” point about Adam and his wife, not necessarily one that could be validated by science. This would assume that Jesus interpreted Genesis to make very specific anthropological claims that Adam was the first endowed with the imago Dei and that until other proto-humans came to breed with the descendants of Adam they remained proto-human.
This doesn’t quite solve Paul’s problem on the other hand as we see in Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, and as Luke depicts him in Acts 17…but that is another topic.
I think my biggest issue here is what would be negated if there weren’t an original man and woman who did not fall. Personally, I’m fine if Jesus was wrong with his science, but not with his theology. So, if Jesus had a certain scientific view that wasn’t correct, but the integrity of the theological position (namely that a couple really did fall) still correct, then there isn’t a conflict in the narrative.
Perhaps it shows my ignorance to this debate, but there would seem to be a major need for a revision in our understanding of why Jesus (and even his role in this story) came if we go so far to deny something so fundamental as his theological view of the fall.
Daniel
I agree with your observation. It seems to some that we can toss aside this or that element of the Christian narrative and it doesn’t impact the truthfulness of Christianity. I understand the desire to say this because we have seen what Fundamentalism can do to the Christian faith when all aspects are equated with the word “essential.” That said, many evangelicals seems to be swinging the opposite direction. They think they are removing Adam as merely one piece, but they fail to explain how the structure hold when that would piece holds up so many other pieces.
I respect Enns for giving a go at it. I assume Sparks is doing the same. But that is why I keep asking the hard questions when I read their works. If they project is a success it must continue to present Christianity as something meaningful and true. At least for me it must.
Here’s what concerns me about this. All these learned men don’t consider the other people in the first narrative. I love Biologos myself, but, they are on a warpath to mythologize Adam due to the genome and it is not necessary.
Right there in the text are “other people”, 2 groups. Land of Nod and the people Cain feared. There are no details, we don’t need them. Those people existed, they are in the text and we don’t now if they are part of God’s unique creating as Adam was or not. We are free to assume what we want to since there are no details, just because past folks have assumed they were Adam’s kids doesn’t make that true or reasonable.
Since Adam brought sin into the world, Paul’s theology is not negatively affected.
Just because Adam might not be their genetic father, he still brought sin into this world.
I bet money our understanding is what is flawed, not Jesus’. There’s the chance our traditions of the “sin nature” might be partly flawed. Adam doesn’t need to be everyone’s genetic father, he just has to be the man who brought sin into the world for the narrative to remain consistent and valid.
Adam’s historicity and it’s implications are interesting questions indeed, although a year ago I probably wouldn’t have given it a second glance and would have dismissed it as “new age drivel” 🙂
I have been following your posts on this with interest. I also find http://biologos.org particularly interesting in this regard. I suspect that in many circles too much religious emphasis is being placed on the supposed infallibility of the scriptures (or rather worse in the particular copies we have in modern language), rather than having a sober and realistic look at what we are reading, what we have know about the history to date and how we should understand it in the full light that we have at this stage. And more-so, where we don’t quite understand yet, to be honest and clear that we do not yet understand or possibly won’t ever understand in the life. That latter I believe is the hardest. The fear that if one piece doesn’t fit or is unexplained, then the whole faith will come down like a house of cards, pervades many believers’ thinking on this and it is time to point out that this is not the case.
Thanks for sharing your discoveries, thoughts and questions with us!
Patrick
Your proposal about Adam as the one who introduced sin into the world rather than being the one who is our generic err is interesting. Would have other humans or proto-humans have been sinless or would they have existed in outside the good/evil dichotomy (like an amoral ape). How do you see that working?
Roland
Indeed, I hope to avoid the “house of cards” approach. I think that is very dangerous. I think it can be dangerous to pretend that all aspects of the faith are autonomous though and that if we remove something it won’t impact other areas. Adam matters. Scripture matters. We may revise our views but we better be aware of how this impacts our worldview. That is why I am giving this subject attention. Thanks for participating in the discussion!
I think Patrick is mistaken about biologos being on a warpath to mythologize Adam. There seem to me to be many there who opt for a solution like the one proposed by Daniel. I call it the preadamite solution because it involves other humans who are not descendants of Adam. This does not work for me because in the Bible it is clear that Adam is the first human and Eve is the mother of all humans . Preadamites may solve our problem with modern science but they are not scriptural as I see it.
I’m one to believe that Adam was a real man, but also that evolutionary-creation occurred to the rise of biological life. Of course, as a primer, science should never dictate theology but it definitely should turn us back into the Scriptures.
Now I also think the Scriptures are completely sufficient for salvation, but for science? Nope. So what we receive in the richly poetic Genesis narrative is the Creation of Man. Was this out of proto-Humans or from the ‘genetic material’ that was available? That’s unknown, but I don’t think just because we can’t peg where Adam fits in, just that he was the means through which death entered, is fair enough.
I also think we may miss something on what death is as the enemy. If we take a literalist approach, the Garden is creating fruit and fruit is being eaten. That is a form of death. Even before Adam and Eve are barred, God gives them the animal skins. We may be anthropomorphizing when we think animal death is so horrendous. We may be importing our own despair and existential dilemma onto it. Even when Jesus is Resurrected, He meets His disciples by eating fish. That involves death still!
None of this is conclusive but it leads to a thought that “Death” is most evil, sinful and wicked in context to men. Mankind was not meant to perish, we were meant to live in the Garden in communion with our Lord in the Tree of Life.
Patrick:
I understand what you mean about BioLogos, I was a regular for awhile and they use to put up a more widespread analysis. I haven’t seen Alexander Denis in awhile, and it was he who was most helpful. Enns is a good man and asks good questions, but I don’t think he’s on the right path for this. A few of us who don’t like the direction of BioLogos dialog on Jon Garvey’s blog (http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/). He puts up some good and interesting material.
Pax,
Cal
Well, I guess I see things differently at biologos. I think Adam was not a historical person and think biologos is all too open to other options which do not hold up. Here is a statement from biologos:”The BioLogos view holds that both Scripture and modern science reveal God’s truth, and that these truths are not in competition with one another. It accepts the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and common ancestry, including the common ancestry of humans. While there are varying views of how to reconcile the truths of science and Scripture (for example with regards to a historical Adam), those who hold to the BioLogos view accept God as Creator and believe that the Bible, though open to a diversity of interpretations, is ultimately the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God.” As you can see they are open to a diversity of interpretations. The problem with biologos and the ASA as well is that they a mostly scientists who know the science very well but they are weak on interpretation of scripture because they have so few people trained in that area.
I’m not fully convinced these are the only options …
That’s why I wrote in the final line: “I imagine that there are other variances so feel free to share.”
Brian,
I’m just proposing that Adam introduces sin, but, it could be he doesn’t have to be our genetic father in every case. His first sin infected humanity even if he isn’t our parent, because inevitably humans would have all sinned. That’s a theory of mine. Then the “other people became sinners, their kids were,etc.
There’s a potential problem with my theory beyond tradition about the sin nature. I don’t know where it is, but, I think I’ve read a verse where it does state(NT) that all humanity did emanate from Adam. If that’s accurate, my theory is blown.
Am I the only one who doesn’t find a reference to the man and woman of Gen 2-3 in Mk 10:2-9? Jesus quotes Gen 1:27 and/or Gen 5:2 in Mk 10:6 but neither of those verses refer to the man and woman of Gen 2-3 only to the fact that God made mankind male and female generally, he also quotes Gen 2:24 in Mk 10:7 but neither does that verse refer to the man of woman of Gen 2-3 so much as it is a general teaching on marriage. I guess I’ll go with option (7), which is that Jesus never refers to the first man in the gospels and therefore has no discernible position on the historicity of the same.
I think it is important to consider the comparison by Paul between Jesus and Adam (Rom 5). Jesus was a real person, there is little doubt about that, so when Paul says that in Christ all are reconciled to God, does it mean that there were no other people at the time Christ started this “new life”? So therefore if Adam introduced an aspect to the world, would it be fair to give Paul’s comparison more value than it may have been given in the past? In other words, just like Christ was not the only human, but he did introduce a new era (despite being called the “first” of many brothers), so Adam was not the only human at the time, but he was the first of the humans with “God’s image” on/in them. That begs the question: What does “in the image of God” mean?
I have attempted to narrow down the Bible-science-creation-evolution debate to the following three questions (for which I don’t necessarily have answers yet):
1. Is it theologically necessary for there to have been an historical Adam?
2. To what extent, if any, did God guide the Big Bang and biological evolution?
3. How can Christians become comfortable with allowing the findings of science to influence the interpretation of Scripture?
Paul,
I can’t answer your questions, but, here’s a thought.
In the OT narrative, we see Yahweh warning of judgment and eventually executing judgment on Israel repeatedly. Maybe in Egypt( maybe not though), definitely in the wilderness, definitely in the era of Judges when Yahweh abandons Israel, in the era He empowered Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Jerusalem and enslave the Jews and 70 AD is warned about.
In all cases, the text makes it imminently clear that the judgment is based on Israel becoming a spiritual whore. Sure, there are specific sins given, but, the primary cause is Israel was an apostate, spiritual whore.
I point this out to get to this point. In Matthew 23-24, Jesus does the exact same judgment dialogue with Jerusalem. He uses the murder of Abel in His discourse and applies the moral liability on the heads of the sanhedrin. He warns them of the 70 AD judgment.
Is it reasonable now in this last, greatest and harshest judgment in human history to think God is judging Jerusalem using a mythical figure and mythical murder when the rest of the entire narrative, Yahweh judges Jerusalem using obvious, real flaws of the people AND In Jesus’ day there were plenty of these obvious flaws since they rejected Him and wanted Him murdered?
Also, how could Jesus use a mythical murder of a mythical man to apply justification for a real judgment? Just makes no logic to me.
Patrick
It seems that Paul is presented as arguing that Adam is the source of all humans in his Athenians sermon in Acts 17. It seems likely that this is the argument of Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 a well.
resident
I’m having a hard time understanding your interpretation. It seems pretty evident that Jesus strings Genesis 1-2 together to say (1) humans are created male and female and (2) that first male and female is how it was “in the beginning” so that determines how marriage should work.
Roland
I tend to read the image of God as being equal to being God’s “vice-regent” or representative on earth. I think one of the psalms speaks of heaven for God and earth for humans.
Brian,
Here’s what I’m seeing, Jesus is saying that in the beginning God made mankind male and female in Mk 10:6 (i.e. not Adam and Eve in particular but men and women more generally) and that when a man marries a woman God brings them together as one flesh in vv 7-9. On this reading there is no reference to Adam and Eve in vv 6-9. Where precisely do you find Adam and Eve in this text?
resident
Obviously Jesus doesn’t name “Adam” (though Adam is “man”), but he does quote passages from Genesis 1-2 that are about Adam and Eve. So if I understand you correctly you see Jesus as extracting the language of Genesis 1-2 (that originally referred to Adam and Eve) and principalizing it to be about God creating gender in general, not the first couple specifically?
That could work if we can argue that Jesus intentionally recontextualized the words from Gen 1-2 to be extracted from the Adam-Eve story into a principle about gender only. Interesting.
LePort,
“So if I understand you correctly you see Jesus as extracting the language of Genesis 1-2 (that originally referred to Adam and Eve) and principalizing it to be about God creating gender in general, not the first couple specifically?”
Correct, I would say that Jesus extracted the theology of Gen 2:24 and applied it to the gender categories of male and female mentioned in Gen 1:27 so as to universalize his point about marriage. Moreover, I don’t think that the reference to God creating mankind “male and female” originally referred to Adam and Eve in Gen 1:27 but to God creating two different gender categories (remember that Gen 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25 are separate pericopes that originally might have been two different creation texts).
You are correct that he does not focus on the characters. That has me thinking. Of course, his reference to Genesis 2 comes along with the Adam-Eve story but I think you rightly note that even Genesis 2 extracts a principles here. Jesus takes the principle, but doesn’t mention the characters.
Hmmm…..
LePort,
To phrase it another way, it seems as if Jesus is grounding the theology of Gen 2:24 in Gen 1:27 rather than that part of the Adam and Eve story found in Gen 2:18-23 (note the differing contexts in which “Therefore” is used at the beginning of Gen 2:24 and Mark 10:7). In addition to this you have to keep in mind that not only does Jesus not explicitly refer to the characters of Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6-9 but also his larger point in that passage has nothing to do with them either, which is what’s most important from the perspective of what the historical Jesus actually believed given that Mark 10:6-9 at most only reflects the general tenor of a particular conversation that took place between Jesus and some Pharisees.
Honestly, the more I think about this matter the more convinced I become that Mark’s Jesus is not affirming the historicity of Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6-9 much less the historical Jesus himself.
Brian said “I imagine that there are other variances so feel free to share.”
Ok. I’m going off the observation that we know there is a woman we are all descended from genetically, let’s call her “mitochondrial Eve, we know that though we are all descended from her, and can prove this genetically, we also know she was not the only extant woman at the time, though her mitochondria touches us all.
Likewise, we know that there is a man we are all descended from, let’s call him Y-chromosomal Adam” (who we know had at least two sons who also reproduced, we can call them ‘Haplogroup A’ and ‘Haplogroup BT’) though we know also that when Y-chromosomal Adam lived there was (likely) a human population of at least 10,000.
So if we can hold this as a rational secular belief, and rational secular belief is subset of rational sacred belief, we can hold this as a rational sacred belief. Now some would argue this isn’t being done on biblical grounds, to which it can be pointed out that much of theology is done on implicit ‘rational’ grounds, not explicit biblical grounds (take the doctrine do the Trinity for example) and there have been theologians who have exactly posited this notion from the bible implicitly ( such as the Calvinist theologian Isaac de La Peyrère, for example).
So at least one option we could attribute to Jesus is that he knew we all descended from at least one common mother and one common father, and through them inherited rebellion. Now if there were Adamic contemporaries, they did not walk and talk with God. Before God’s intention was made known, sin was in the world [Rom 5:13] but rebellion not imputed, so this should influence how we see the exclusivity of Adam and Eve, in that the were the first couple to ‘knowingly’ rebell against God. Where there is no law there is no transgression [Rom 4:15] which is why the Law brings wrath.
So, in considering what Jesus knew, we must also consider those possibilities that don’t attribute to him our own presuppositions, such as Adam and Eve were the first humans physically, (vice Adam and Eve where the first two to walk and talk with God), or even the idea that Adam and Eve were those two from whom we all descend notwithstanding that science’s two weren’t contemporary, from whom we inherit knowledge of God and a propensity to rebell.