Skip to main content

A difficult question, but we'll take them as they come

Today there was an interesting post on Justin Taylor's blog where he posts a video where Tremper Longman suggests that the existence of a historical Adam and Eve is an open question. The question was then raised, what do we do with passages like Romans 5:12-13 which presupposes a historical reading of Genesis 1-3? As one who does not think that a literal Adam and Eve existed I find this to be a very interesting and important question.

The first thing to point out is that Paul is making an analogy, 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man...' (Rom 5:12a - TNIV). This is made clear in verse 18 when Paul picks up this thought again (5:13-17 are a digression - see e.g., Schreiner p. 268) saying, 'Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people...' (Rom 5:18a - TNIV). The 'just as' at the start of each clause signals that Paul is making an analogy. Does the analogy break down if there was no historical Adam?

Let's take a quick aside and examine another use of analogy in the NT. What about Jesus and the sign of Jonah? Does Jesus reference to the sign of Jonah require that Jonah have been in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights in reality? Why isn't it enough that in the story Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights? The analogy still works. It still gets across Jesus point that he will rise again from the dead in three days. Similarly, while not an analogy, Jude can cite a non-canonical text like 1 Enoch that certainly is not historical (see Jude 1:14) to make a point.

Thus, analogies and comparisons in general do not need historical referrents to make a valid, true, point. Obviously, though, I have not proved that this is the case in every instance or even in Romans 5. What's Paul's point in this section of Romans 5? He's attempting to show that all human beings subsequent to Adam have entered a world alienated from God and thus we commit sin which alienates us from God; and Christ undoes all of that. Does this argument require that a literal Adam have existed? Could Genesis 3 be a metaphorical way for explaining that somehow humanity fell, it sinned, it failed to achieve it's God given purpose (a suggestion, if my memory serves me right, allowed by Henri Blocher in Original Sin - if I'm wrong let me know and I'll correct it)? Would not Paul's argument still work? His point seems to remain in tact.

I realize this post leaves many other questions left unaddressed, I hope to address some of them in the next couple of posts.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…