Tremper Longman Responds to Justin Taylor on the Historicity of Adam

H1Today’s guest post is from Tremper Longman III, who is the Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College. Dr. Longman recently filmed some courses for Logos Mobile Ed, and we had a chance to chat with him about the historicity of Adam.

In 2009, Justin Taylor on The Gospel Coalition mused, “I wonder how Longman would address the commonsensical point made by N. T. Wright,” in which Wright suggests that Paul clearly believed in an historical Adam and Eve, but viewed it in light of the “mythical or metaphorical dimensions to the story.” We asked Dr. Longman to respond to this question. See Taylor’s original post, “Tremper Longman on the Historicity of Adam.”

In the first place, I know that Adam is referred to in important places such as Romans 5:12, but the first thing I think we need to realize is that Genesis 1 and 2 are not interested in telling us how God created creation. It’s rather telling us that he did it, as well as a lot about who he is and our relationship with him. I’m not saying it’s not historical—it is. I consider this theological history. But the difference between Genesis 1–11 and Genesis 12ff is that the history as it’s recounted in Genesis 1–11 isn’t intended to be read strictly literally and precisely. We see that by all the use of figurative language, the lack of sequence-concord between creation accounts, and the interaction with ancient Near Eastern texts—not that they’re borrowing it, but they are interacting with it and actually polemicizing against it.

If that’s the case, then it’s okay to look to science in order to see what they’re saying about it. I’m not saying that we have to accept science, that science is always right, that it stays static, or anything like that. But it seems to me that there is a good case, especially based on the genetic evidence, that God used evolution. So I find myself affirming an evolutionary creationist perspective.

This raises a question about the historical Adam. In my conversations with biologists—and I’m talking about Christian biologists, such as Dennis Venema, Francis Collins, and Jeff Schloss at Westmont—and in my reading, the evidence suggests that evolution doesn’t work by starting with a single pair, but instead goes back to an original “breeding population” of between 5,000 and 10,000 people. That raises a question about possible conflict between science and the Bible. And don’t get me wrong—if the Bible says one thing and science says another, I’m going with the Bible! But on the other hand, I think that we should first ask, “Are we understanding the Bible correctly by insisting on this?” It’s often pointed out that this is the fundamental error that happened in the time of Galileo. Sometimes science can refine our understanding of the biblical text.

To me, it’s a question of whether I turn to my Christian biologist friends and say, “You’re in error because you’re teaching this,” or if I, as a biblical scholar, let them, as biblical scholars, have the latitude of teaching it. But it does raise the question of how we’re to understand Adam and Eve.

There are basically four positions on this. The first one is Young Earth Creationism: Adam and Eve were the first pair. And then there’s the Old Earth Creationist point of view as well: Adam and Eve were the first pair, but they were created a number of years earlier. Somebody like Tom Wright argues, based mainly on Paul’s use of Romans 5:12ff, that Paul regarded Adam and Eve as a historical couple. Now Wright’s view, as I understand it from conversations with him, is that he’s not adopting a similar position to the first two I just described, but rather that Adam and Eve are kind of a representative couple within that breeding population. They’re not alone. And actually, that helps explain certain features of Genesis 1–11, like who Cain married, who Cain was afraid of, and those kind of things. So that’s his view: they were an actual representative couple, like the queen and the king. Or we could conceive of them as the priest and the priestess, since Genesis 1 and 2 also talk about the cosmos using a kind of temple language.

And that might be the right solution. But I would also allow for the possibility that Adam and Eve are representative of that original couple. What I would insist on—remember, I think this is history, in the sense of talking about things that actually happened—I would insist that at some point in the evolutionary process, we’re now talking about a time when human beings have become conscious and capable of moral choices. We would describe them as innocent until they sinned. And I would also insist, because I think this is in keeping with the genre of Genesis 3, that there was a historical fall. I think those are important teachings of Genesis 1–3.

Now in terms of Romans 5:12 and following, I do think that it is possible—and I would suggest likely—that as Tom admitted in his quote, there are figurative elements, and that Paul would have recognized the figurative elements in the depiction of Adam. I would also point to another prominent New Testament scholar, James Dunn, who says that it’s patronizing to think that Paul had to think that Adam and Eve were an historical couple. There are other first century examples of this, using characters in a kind of archetypal way.

My good friend John Walton will say this about Adam, that Adam was an archetypal figure. And his next statement is that archetypes can be historical, like Melchizedek in the book of Hebrews. I agree that Adam is an archetypal figure, but my next statement is that Adam doesn’t have to be historical. I’m not insisting that Adam’s not historical, I’m just saying that if it turns out that he’s not, then it’s not going to undermine the truth of Genesis or Romans 5:12 and following.

* * *

Disclaimer: Logos Bible Software provides resources for everyone who studies the Bible. Guest posts reflect the views of their authors. You can read more about our publishing philosophy.

Share
Written by
Jonathan Watson
View all articles
34 comments
  • The view that Adam and Eve, whether a real couple or an archetypal figure, were one pair in the midst of many raises an important question for me. If Adam was one of say 5,000 living and sinned, how and why was his sin accounted to all other living men? I would expect there to be two sinners and several thousand sinless people. How did Adams sin pass to already living, sinless men and women? To answer that question one has to enjoin speculative theology and speculative history. It seems much more likely that Adam and Eve were a singular couple and sinned before procreation, thus all their offspring are sinners. If it were otherwise I would expect multiple lines of humanity–some sinners and some (at least for a time) sinless.

    • Well said!

      The author sounds pretty wishy washy to me. It could be this, or it could be that. If we looked at the whole of scripture this way then we really have nothing firm to stand on. Genesis is important because and we must have a firm understanding of who Adam and Eve were because the whole problem of sin lives or dies with them. If they weren’t real people, then the sin problem isn’t real and we don’t need Jesus.

    • It seems that a lot of you are operating with a view that we have to have a genetic connection to Adam and Eve for their sin to affect us. The Bible nowhere says this. If Adam and Eve represent humanity the point is that humanity, created innocent by God, corporately rebelled against him. They did what we would all do in their place and their rebellion so corrupted the world that we cannot not sin…
      You know you can be overly literalistic in your reading of the Bible and this is a common error when it comes to Genesis 1-11 and also Revelation. We should recover the more nuanced reading of the early church fathers and those faithful interpreters who lived before the Scopes trial and not impose a literalistic modernistic reading on the text. I know it is tempting to think that the type of reading I give Genesis 1-11 is the result of a modern liberal approach, but is is neither liberal nor modern. And in terms of being wishy-washy, it is also possible to be overly dogmatic. There are certain things that are taught in the Bible that are clear (we are sinners who need a savior and that savior is Jesus), but not everything is equally clear and we need to be careful not to assert a false dogmatism even though that may be comforting to some. That said, thanks for the feedback. I am glad we are all thinking about these important issues even if you don’t agree with me.

      • I agree that we shouldn’t be dogmatic in everything. There are certainly gray areas that we really don’t know. I’m certainly not saying anyone should split over this issue.

        However, the bible VERY CLEARLY does say we have a genetic connection to Adam. The genealogy of Jesus is traced back genetically to Adam through Noah, who we all certainly share a genetic connection with since the entire world (yes, a literal flood that killed off the entire world except Noah and family did happen.)

        Our God is a god who works in history – meaning historically this stuff happened. If I can’t literally read the old testament then how can I literally read the new testament. Just because you can’t wrap you’re brain around how a guy got swallowed by a fish doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Heck, our God raised someone from the dead, literally! If you can believe that then why is it so hard to believe a literal reading of gensis. That’s not being dogmantic, it’s called having faith.

      • Dear Dr. Longman,

        Thank you for your talking points. I have learned an enormous amount from you while in seminary and even studied one of your books on Genesis (as well as John Walton’s commentary) as a classroom textbook. However, I was hoping for some clarification:
        If we view the Fall epic as a representative tale, then should we take all the elements in the story to be mere archetypes? For instance, was there an actual serpent or does he simply represent temptation? Did the serpent talk with a particular woman or with a large group of proto-homo sapiens? Was there an actual tree? Did the representatives eat the fruit of this tree? Or is everything meant to be representative of something larger (but less precise) than the text makes it?

        Thank you, Dr. Longman!

      • Dr. Longman,
        Thanks for your interaction here on this forum. Like one of the other commenters mentioned, I have benefited from several of your published works and am grateful for the work you have done to help us understand the Scriptures. Nevertheless, I remain troubled by some of the things you are saying here.

        First, the Bible treats Adam as an historical character. He appears in genealogies, not only in Genesis but also in 1 Chronicles and Luke. Additionally, Hosea, Jude, Jesus and Paul all treat Adam as an historical character and base their teachings and arguments on that fact and on the historical realities of his actions. For example, Paul’s instruction to the church in 1 Timothy is grounded on the fact that, “… Adam was formed first, then Eve…and Adam was not deceived but the woman,” and so on. I really don’t see how there is any wiggle room regarding the historical reality of Adam if we are to maintain any meaningful view of inerrancy or the reliability of the Scriptures.

        Second, those of us who are insisting on an historical Adam are not being any more “overly literalistic” in our understanding of Genesis 1-11 than Paul when he says in Acts 17 that God made all the nations of the earth from one man. This accords “literally” with what Genesis 3:20 say regarding Eve being the mother of all living. The Bible itself tells me that all humanity is genetically connected to Adam and Eve.

        Third, I don’t think you have given due attention to the force of Jonathan’s argument above and the implications of an evolutionary development of mankind. Paul clearly says in Romans 5 that death entered the world through the sin of Adam. Yet, if the evolutionary development of mankind is true, you would have people dying before Adam’s sin, and you would have people dying after Adam who were not ‘in Adam’.

        Fourth, I think you are letting science refine your understanding of the Bible inappropriately. When the Bible deals with ordinary natural events and things, then sure, let’s realize, for example, that Jesus probably meant the mustard seed was “littlest” in terms of significance rather that size, or something like that. But when we are dealing with supernatural events, like creation, the flood, the effects of the fall on the earth, or other miracles, why would we expect science or the investigation of repeatable natural events to speak accurately regarding these things? I would not expect science to get the age of the earth correct any more than I would a scientist to get the age of the wine correct that Jesus created in Cana of Galilee. I’m not saying there are no difficulties here for those of us who believe in young earth creationism, but I think the reliability, authority, and clarity of the Scriptures trump anything that science might claim when dealing with origins and other supernatural events.

        • Wonderful arguments! You brought up things I had not thought about. I am in complete agreement.

  • What complete and utter codswallop. I really struggle with the fact that so many scholars who are highly intelligent and in many cases genuine believers can so totally lose their marbles when interacting with Gen 1-11. Great scholarship on the rest of the Bible but jump to those first eleven chapters and suddenly the authority shifts from God’s inspired Word to almighty science. Good grief. Get a grip, repent of your nonsense and start trusting the Bible from the very first verse. Or take Martin Luther’s advise when he said “Trust that the Holy Spirit is more learned than you”

  • It seems to me that if Jesus could create thousands of pieces of bread and whole fishes out of nothing (without the need to mix flour and water and then bake it at 400 degrees, or without the need to have a breeding population of fish to lay eggs and grow into adult fish), then God could easily create a vast universe with an original human couple named Adam and Eve without the need for long periods of evolutionary processes (both the bread and fish looked like they had been through a baking and growing process; perhaps this is why there is “evidence” of an evolutionary process that looks like millions of years had passed). Evolutionary science teaches that nothing exploded (the Big Bang), then established order and natural laws out of the chaos, where life developed out of non-living things, found something to eat and someone to procreate with, and (just by chance) repeatedly had beneficial mutations that spawned the complex and diverse life forms on Earth today (even though mutations are typically harmful and do not survive multiple generations). This is their form of truth: nothing exploded, organized itself, and life came from nonlife. I think the sacred cow of science is playing too large an influence in our understanding of Scripture. While all truth is God’s truth, we should also evaluate the validity of the most current scientific fad of the times before altering our understanding of Scripture.

  • I think this is called speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It is evident that Mr Longman has bought into the liberalism of the day and leaves us lesser mortals unable to understand the plain reading of the Scriptures. To say Paul read the text the way he is reading it is simply ridiculous. I will stick with Paul and Jesus regarding the historical Adam. Evolution is debunked why would we want to give it any credence ? No historical Adam no doctrine of justification end of story. This is at a best a poor effort at trying to fit the bible into your belief system. Disappointing for a scholar i have enjoyed reading over the years.

  • and there are a lot of assertions about how if Adam and Eve are not historical then there is not a sin problem… But no arguments supporting that idea… It’s easy to assert a position without defending it… Would love to see an argument….

    • I suppose I will take up this challenge:

      It seems to me that rejecting a literal Adam would have a drastic effect on our understanding of original sin. While I cannot present a comprehensive case for the genetic transmission of sin, I will show a few of the major Scriptures. Romans 5:12 states, “…sin came into the world through one man (διʼ ἑνὸς ἄνθρωπος; not a representative group of humans) … and so death spread (διῆλθεν; lit. traveled through, penetrated) to all men” (ESV; emphasis added).

      Death “spread” to the rest of humanity, indicating a genetic transmission of a sin nature, which Jesus and Paul repeatedly discussed (Matt. 15:18-19; Luke 6:43-45; Rom. 8:10; Gal. 5:17; see the multiple references to a “sinful nature” [NIV] in Rom. 7-8 and Gal. 5). If death was transmitted because Adam was the “federal headship” of humanity, then Adam merely acted on our behalf and transmitted nothing but the consequences of his sin. Christians could confidently say they did not possess a sin nature at birth. Only the consequences of Adam’s sins would have been passed to humanity and not the sin itself. And since each human, while destined to share the consequence of Adam’s sin, is not actually born with a sin nature, the “federal headship” theory begins to align with the heretical doctrine of Pelagianism. However, the Scriptures make plain that “we are not sinners because we sin, but rather we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin” (J. I. Packer, Concise Theology, “Part Two: Original Sin”). This sin nature could only be passed on genetically; otherwise, it would be strange to think that our flesh is inclined to sin simply because our representative ancestor goofed up.

      Millard Erickson remarks, “The entirety of our human nature, both physical and spiritual, material and immaterial, has been received from our parents and more distant ancestors by way of [genetic] descent from the first pair of humans. On that basis, we were actually present within Adam, so that we all sinned in his act. There is no injustice, then, to our condemnation and death as a result of original sin” (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., 654).

      Note that the prepositional phrase “through one man” in Romans 5:12 is emphasized in the Greek by syntactically placing complex information outside of the main clause about a particular pronoun that is later found in the main clause (called a “Left Dislocation” by Runge, The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, 2008). Also note that Paul’s contrast between the “one man” Adam (v.12), also identified as a foreshadow of the coming Christ (v.14), and the “one man” (ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου) Jesus Christ (v.15), suggests Paul is referring to the specific actions of two individual human beings, not archetypes or representatives.

      “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 5:17; emphasis added). Paul’s comparison between Jesus and Adam breaks down if he thought that the individual human Jesus was the fulfillment of a multiplicity of proto-homo sapiens.

      “For as in Adam (ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ) all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22; emphasis added). The Westminster Larger Catechism 22 interprets this as such, “All mankind descending from Adam by ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him, in the first transgression.”

      It seems to me that the genetic transmission of sin from Adam has been widely accepted as the orthodox understanding of original sin throughout church history. It has scriptural support and the backing of an inductive approach to both the origins and extensiveness of sin. Claiming that Adam was merely an archetypal fictional character, or merely one among many humans, does not explain why every person possesses a sin nature from birth. Adam’s actions could only affect our flesh if his sin penetrates us at the genetic level.

  • Hey all,
    Thanks for your responses and your arguments to back up the assertions… And they are excellent arguments… I do have some responses to them not surprisingly, but it will be at least Friday till I can get to them… Today is my heavy teaching day… Thanks again.

  • How utterly disappointing! All through Scripture, Adam is treated as a historical character, not one of many, not archetypal, not representative. Sometimes, it seems as if we try to overthink the room.

    • Not representative!! Erm, you have read Paul’s argument about Jesus as a ‘second’ Adam? “As all sinned through one man” sounds very much like Adam is a representative to me. By that I don’t deny that he is also historical, just that he can be both. An example of the excluded middle fallacy by asserting he can be one or the other, not both.

  • First of all I am gratified by all the discussion my comments have elicited (especially the 120 plus likes that I am taking as affirmative!). Unfortunately I won’t be able to answer all of them. I do want to point out that my comments here are a five minute response to a question that Justin Taylor posed a while back to a two minute Ytube statement I made. Most of the questions that you all raise I address in the book Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation which flows from a conversation that John Walton, Todd Beall, Dick Averbeck, and Todd Beal and I had in Chattanooga. There I deal at more length with the issue of genealogies, other references to Adam (which do not at all prove that Adam is historical as some of you are asserting; they are simply references back to the Old Testament stories, etc.), Romans 5:12, etc. So I am not going to repeat those here and refer you to that source if you really want to know more.
    Maybe this is better stated at the end than here but a lot of people may not make it to the end. I feel that is a bit unfair to write me off (or other supporters of evolutionary creationism like Bruce Waltke) as liberal. I take a lot of unpopular views with the “liberal” wing of Christianity: date of Daniel, Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch, etc.) I don’t try to write off the conquests of Joshua as subChristian. I even go against the archeological consensus which says that there was no Exodus or conquest… So when I think the Bible teaches something since I believe it is the inerrant word of God then I take that over other views. I just try to follow the biblical text.
    I will also point out that whoever said that evolution has been disproven has not read widely. I recommend strongly taking advantage of the Biologos website and the writings of evangelical Protestant biologists like Francis Collins, Jeff Schloss, Dennis Venema and others. Unless you have read their work, you have no right to say things like evolution has been debunked. I’ve read the writings of young earth creationists, intelligent design, reasons to believe and can intelligently reject their rejection of evolution. I just ask that those on the other side do the same with the argument in favor of evolution rather than just relying on, at best, fringe ideas or philosophers of science.
    But I will say a few words about original sin, though don’t take this as a full statement. Remember this is a blog posting not an academic journal.
    Maybe it’s just the circles I hang out with, but I was not aware that there were many people who held to the view that Adam’s sin was transmitted genetically (peccatum hereditarium) as an explanation of original sin. I guess I am most familiar with the federal headship view, a view I used to hold and is common in Reformed circles.
    I would dispute the idea that the Bible teaches it and it arises from Augustine’s misunderstanding and mistranslation of Romans 5:12 and also leads to a weak view of sin.
    Romans 5:12 says “Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—“ Notice that this verse and I would argue that the whole passage does not teach (and nowhere in the Bible is it taught) that we are sinful because of Adam’s sin. And in response to Darren Slade, the understanding that death spread like a disease is foreign to Romans 5:12. First (I don’t have a Greek font here, but the verb you cite is not found at Romans 5:12, it is the verb “enter” not spread, that is the verb understood here which is why NIV translates “in this way death came into the world” it does not say “death spread to all men” (contra I guess ESV). We neither inherit it (the hereditary view) nor is it imputed to us (the federal headship view). Adam introduces it as the first one who sins. As John Walton puts it in an interesting article in the journal Zygon by introducing sin Adam (and by Adam I would read either the historical Adam or perhaps a representative couple in a larger population (Tom Wright’s view) or the first humans as a whole) created the disorder of sin and a form of cosmic disorder that those who are born after (who would sin just as Adam and Eve did if they were there) cannot but sin (so this view also avoids the Pelagian heresy). The story of Genesis 1-3 tells us that humans were created innocent and capable of moral choice (or to see it another way at the point that the evolutionary process overseen and directed by God led to morally innocent people capable of moral choice), they chose to rebel and revealed our sinful human nature.
    Romans 5:12 does not teach that our sinful nature comes from Adam, but rather we are sinners because we sinned (not because Adam sinned). Augustine set off in a wrong direction by mistranslating Romans 5:12. Rather than understanding the Greek to say “because all sinned,” he misconstrued the Greek when he translated into Latin that Adam was the one “in whom” (in quo) all sinned.
    The idea that our sin nature is an inherited property also leads to a weak view of sin. Unlike Paul in Romans 5:12, I can simply say that my sin is not my fault but rather the fault of Adam. I inherited sin like I did a genetic disability. It’s not my fault. Again that is not what the Bible teaches. Such a view is a hopelessly naturalistic, deterministic and even fatalistic understanding of sin. Rejecting the idea of peccatum heriditarium “lifts the concept of Adam’s sin out of the idiom of causality in which to be a sinner is to be the recipient of an alien guilt. Adam is not our predecessor but our type. And so Adam is the truth concerning us as it is known to God and told to us.” This is an idea already expressed in Jewish literature of the Intertestamental period: “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” (4 Ezra 7:48).
    Also the New Testament passages that Darren Sladden cites (Matt. 15:18-19, etc) teach that humans are sinful (something we all agree on), they say nothing about how or why we are sinful. In other words, these passages do not support the genetic spread of sin.
    So let the debate continue. I happen to know that there are a couple of professional groups that have been funded to think about the issue of original sin over the next couple years composed of biblical scholars, scientists, and theologians. Should be interesting…. This is important work as the faith progresses into the future.

    • Most people are not going to have ready access to the Reading Genesis 1-2 book that you mentioned. I live in Georgia and WorldCat shows no libraries in the state that possess it. I’m interested in understanding why Adam’s inclusion in the genealogies is not valid evidence that the Bible treats him as an historical character, or why Paul’s arguments are logically valid if Adam was not real, so maybe I’ll go out and buy the book, I don’t know. It would have been nice to at least get a summary of your reasoning. And, for what it is worth, I have spent quite a bit of time on the BioLogos website, so I am not unfamiliar with the other side of this conversation.

      OK, I know this is just a blog comment and you can’t go into any sort of depth but I don’t see how this new view of original sin is any sort of improvement over the federal headship view. When Paul says in Romans 5:14 that Adam is a type, he means a type of Christ, not a type of us. Yes, we receive an “alien guilt” by being in Adam just like we receive an alien righteousness through being in Jesus Christ by faith. Paul even clarifies that everyone died (i.e., suffered the condemnation of Adam’s sin), even those who did not commit individual acts of sin by voluntarily transgressing a known command of God like Adam did. This is important because any view of original sin that says “we are sinners because we sinned (not because Adam sinned)” means, according to the analogy Paul makes in Romans 5, that we would then be made righteous because we commit individual acts of obedience, not because of Christ’s act of obedience. And, of course, this destroys the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

      I don’t doubt that people are getting together to discuss the issue of original sin because, theologically, it is the number one issue that argues against an evolutionary understanding of Adam and a non-historical view of the early chapters of Genesis. Romans 5 is a powerful argument against theistic evolution.

    • Dear Dr. Longman –

      I must begin by saying that it is a great honor to hear you interact with my post. As I said in a previous comment, I have been a great admirer of yours for many years. Though I realize that I am taking on a scholarly giant, I believe your response has failed to address the basic premise of my argument:

      All orthodox Christians accept the doctrine of original sin, which is the belief that every human possesses a sin nature from birth as a result of the Fall and is considered guilty of sin apart from being born again in Christ (for Scripture verses that support the concept that we are born with a sin nature, see the APPENDIX at the end of this post). Augustine’s doctrine of original sin was upheld at the ecumenical Council of Ephesus (AD 431). To deny this doctrine is to fall into heresy.

      The Scriptures are filled with statements about the sin nature of men. His intellect (2 Cor. 4:4; Rom. 1:28), his conscience (1 Tim. 4:2), his will (Rom. 1:28), his heart (Eph. 4:18), and his total being (Rom. 1:18–3:20) have been corrupted.

      Assuming that you accept this orthodox doctrine, the question becomes:

      Why is every person born with a sin nature?

      Because the possession of this sin nature relates specifically to our flesh, heart, and mind, it is reasonable to conclude that this sin nature is the result of a genetic inheritance (also known as “inherited sin” or the “seminal”/“realist” view). As I wrote in my original argument, it would be strange to think that our flesh is inclined to sin simply because our representative ancestor goofed up (the “federal” view). Claiming that Adam was merely an archetypal fictional character, or merely one among many humans, does not explain why every person possesses a sin nature from birth. Adam’s actions could only affect our flesh if his sin penetrates us at the genetic level.

      I would like to interact with a few of your comments:

      **“Maybe it’s just the circles I hang out with, but I was not aware that there were many people who held to the view that Adam’s sin was transmitted genetically (peccatum hereditarium) as an explanation of original sin.”**

      This seems strange to me. Below is a list of theologians and scholars – from Reformed to dispensational – who ascribe to a hereditary view of original sin. Keep in mind, this is just a list of authors that I personally have access to and can verify. No doubt there are many more:

      Augustus Strong (Systematic Theology, 2:619-28)
      John Stott (Romans, 150-53)
      Douglas Moo (Romans, 321-329)
      David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (God the Father, God the Son, ch.18)
      F. F. Bruce (Romans, 119)
      Lew Sperry Chafer (Systematic Theology, abridged, 1:379-85)
      Millard Erickson (Christian Theology, 2nd ed., 652-656)
      Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 494-98)
      Norman Geisler (Systematic Theology: One Volume, 770-71)
      Charles Ryrie (A Survey of Bible Doctrine, ch. 6)
      K.A. Matthews (Genesis1-11:26, 231)
      G.C. Berkouwer (Studies in Dogmatics: Sin, chs. 15-16)
      R.A. Torrey, Charles Lee Feinberg, and Warren W. Wiersbe (The Fundamentals, 3:14-17)
      J. A. Fitzmyer (Anchor Bible, “Romans”)
      Thomas Schreiner (Romans, 270-80)

      At least I know I’m not alone in my beliefs.

      **“I guess I am most familiar with the federal headship view, a view I used to hold and is common in Reformed circles.”**

      Certainly this must be a mistake. Many of the major Reformed catechisms, dorts, and confessions support a hereditary view of original sin (for specific details, see Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Sin, ch. 15). Here’s a brief list of some of them:

      Augsburg Confession
      The Formula of Concord
      Westminster Confession
      Heidelberg Catechism
      Canons of Dort
      Belgic Confession
      Gallican Confession

      The Belgic Confession specifically identifies sin as “a hereditary disease, wherewith even infants in their mother’s womb are infected” (Article 15). The Gallican Confession refers to sin as a “hereditary evil” (Article 10).

      **“I would dispute the idea that the Bible teaches it and it arises from Augustine’s misunderstanding and mistranslation of Romans 5:12…”**

      This is actually a red herring. “The matter does not hinge solely on the four Greek words of Rom 5:12d, for most agree that the Greek eph’ hō (‘because’) is a conjunction expressing cause or result…the universality of Adam’s sin dominates the passage (Rom 5:12–21), and this demands that we understand humanity as culpable for more than personal sins” (Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 231).

      While I agree that Augustine partly developed his understanding of inherited sin from a “faulty” Latin translation, Augustine’s use of the translation does not mean that his conclusion was wrong. In fact, Augustine’s use of the Old Latin is strong evidence that the ancient church understood and interpreted Romans 5:12 as having hereditary implications. Why else would they translate it that way?

      **“Nowhere in the Bible is it taught that we are sinful because of Adam’s sin.”**

      This is the first I’ve heard of it. Perhaps you ought to modify your statement to read, “My evolutionary interpretation of the Bible does not allow it to say that we are sinful because of Adam’s sin.” There are a lot of scholars, theologians, and commentaries that would disagree with your statement (see the list of people above). I can’t find a single dictionary, encyclopedia, commentary, or systematic theology in my library that does not endorse the idea what we are sinners because of Adam’s sin (and I have a big library!). The primary point of contention is not if but HOW Adam’s sin is imputed to us.

      **“The understanding that death spread like a disease is foreign to Romans 5:12… the verb you cite is not found at Romans 5:12, it is the verb “enter” not spread, that is the verb understood here which is why NIV translates “in this way death came into the world” it does not say “death spread to all men” (contra I guess ESV).”**

      This is simply incorrect. The indicative aorist verb διῆλθεν (“spread,” ESV) is, in fact, located in Romans 5:12. It is the fifth word from the end. It is translated as “spread” in the ESV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, and HCSB translations of the Bible. The definition “spread,” “penetrate,” and “travel through” is supported by all the major Greek lexicons, such as Friberg, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, BDAG, and Louw-Nida. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE NIV TRANSLATES THAT SAME VERB AS “SPREAD” IN LUKE 5:15.

      **“Those who are born after (who would sin just as Adam and Eve did if they were there) cannot but sin (so this view also avoids the Pelagian heresy).”**

      Why would Adam’s sin make it so we “cannot but sin”? Why would anyone’s actions incline others to sin unless the original action infected the others like a disease?

      **“The story of Genesis 1-3 tells us that humans were created innocent and capable of moral choice (or to see it another way at the point that the evolutionary process overseen and directed by God led to morally innocent people capable of moral choice), they chose to rebel and revealed our sinful human nature.”**

      I’m curious: At what point in the evolutionary process did humans “reveal” their sinful nature? Were Adam and Eve Homo sapiens, Homo ergaster, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis? Which one of our ape ancestors did God create out of the dirt and then eat from the forbidden tree? Which one of those proto-Homo sapiens were made in God’s image?

      **“Romans 5:12 does not teach that our sinful nature comes from Adam, but rather we are sinners because we sinned (not because Adam sinned).”**

      I must remind you, orthodox Christianity says the opposite. We are not sinners because we sinned. That would imply we were born without a sin nature and that we were perfectly clean until we chose to sin (this is the heresy of Pelagianism). Rather, orthodox Christianity says that we sin because we are sinners; we possess a sin nature from birth. Only Adam can claim to have become a sinner through the act of sin. It is significant to note that the majority of systematic theologies use Romans 5:12-21 as evidence for inherited sin.

      **“Augustine set off in a wrong direction by mistranslating Romans 5:12. Rather than understanding the Greek to say “because all sinned,” he misconstrued the Greek when he translated into Latin that Adam was the one “in whom” (in quo) all sinned.”**

      Augustine didn’t mistranslate the passage; he relied on an already-existent translation. And while Augustine may have used a “bad” translation, there is precedent for understanding the relative clause “because all sinned” (ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) as suggesting that all of humanity sinned in Adam. The aorist indicative verb ἥμαρτον (“sinned”) oftentimes indicates a completed past action, especially in historical narratives. It is possible that Paul was saying all of humanity sinned in the past with Adam. It would make little sense to say that “all sinned” when, in fact, not all persons live long enough to commit conscious acts of rebellion (e.g. infants dying before they commit sin). However, if everyone sinned in Adam, then Paul’s statement becomes true that everyone (both infants and the yet-to-be-born) have sinned because they were “in the loins of their ancestor.”

      “One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for HE WAS STILL IN THE LOINS OF HIS ANCESTOR WHEN MELCHIZEDEK MET HIM.” (Hebrews 7:9–10).

      “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.” (1 Corinthians 15:21–22, ESV).

      “For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore ALL HAVE DIED;” (2 Corinthians 5:14, ESV).

      **“The idea that our sin nature is an inherited property also leads to a weak view of sin. Unlike Paul in Romans 5:12, I can simply say that my sin is not my fault but rather the fault of Adam. I inherited sin like I did a genetic disability. It’s not my fault.”**

      This is the most surprising of your statements. In fact, I was going to make the same argument against your position. Your view of original sin as not being a hereditary imputation is a low view because it relegates sin to mere human actions. According to your position, someone is a sinner only when that person chooses moral rebellion. Not only that, but your view eliminates the consequences of sin (death) because apparently there were other human beings living prior to and at the same time of the Fall, all of whom died apart from the actions described in Genesis 3.

      The hereditary view, on the other hand, has a very high view of sin because it treats sin as much more than a person’s behavior. At the hereditary level, sin is so pervasive that it has invaded every aspect of the human life (heart, mind, and body). Sin goes from being something we do (your view) to something we are (my view). Even our good deeds are stained with sin (Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:9-20). We sin because we are sinners.

      It is significant to note that Paul anticipates people saying “my sin is not my fault” in Romans 9:19-20 and does nothing to argue against it. “You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?…Why have you made me like this?’” Paul merely says that we have no right to question God’s design, even if some are destined for reprobation (vv.20-23).

      **“Such a view is a hopelessly naturalistic, deterministic and even fatalistic understanding of sin.”**

      I love this! “Naturalistic”? As if evolutionary theory is not naturalistic! “Deterministic”? I have no problem being called a determinist. Reformation theology is deterministic. The Bible has a lot to say about God determining the course of human history and human lives. “Fatalistic”? This is one of those throw-out charges against anyone who emphasizes the sovereignty of God. It demonstrates a lack of understanding about fatalism, which is the belief that an impersonal force, such as fate or a cosmic law, controls the universe. Those who adhere to fatalism believe that even God is subject to this impersonal force. No, the hereditary view of original sin merely posits that God, a personal first cause, acknowledges sin to be a disease that affects all aspects of life, even at the genetic level.

      **“This is an idea already expressed in Jewish literature of the Intertestamental period: “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” (4 Ezra 7:48).”**

      When I read this, I had to reread it again. You do know that this actually supports the hereditary view, right? 4 Ezra is saying that all of humanity sinned along with Adam! He didn’t just represent us. We joined him and, as his descendants, are considered guilty of the same original sin! Thus, we’re all born with a sin nature because we were with Adam when he sinned! Note that it does not say we are sinners because we sinned. It says that we all already sinned through Adam.

      **“Also the New Testament passages that Darren Slade cites (Matt. 15:18-19, etc) teach that humans are sinful (something we all agree on), they say nothing about how or why we are sinful. In other words, these passages do not support the genetic spread of sin.”**

      You are right. I never said that these passages explained how or why we have a sin nature. I merely said that Jesus and Paul discussed having a sin nature. However, to say that these passages do not support the genetic spread of sin is an argument from silence. Just because they don’t mention the hereditary aspect of sin doesn’t mean they don’t support it.

      It seems strange that you would be so antithetical to the belief that our sin nature is transmitted at the genetic level, especially since so much of evolutionary theory relies on changes in the underlying DNA sequence of different organisms. Since those who hold to a seminal view of original sin are not necessarily contending that the human species encountered a change in the genotype, perhaps a better term would be an “epigenetic” change to the genome that is inherited by all future generations. And since aging and dying are known to be genetically controlled (see, e.g. the DAF-16 gene and its relationship to different lifespans), the inheritance of sin at the genetic level would explain why humans have a molecular breakdown of their bodies and eventually die (Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death”).

      Again, the question becomes: if we did not genetically inherit Adam’s sin, then why do we have a sin nature? The actions of a representative would not cause all humans to be born in sin unless those actions were transmitted hereditarily.

      APPENDIX: Scripture Supports a Sin Nature

      Genesis 8:21
      Job 15:14
      Psalm 14:2-3
      Psalm 51:5
      Psalm 58:3
      Jeremiah 17:9
      Romans 1:8-8:13
      Galatians 5:17-21
      Ephesians 2:3
      Titus 1:15

      APPENDIX: Humanity is Born in Sin

      “What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?” (Job 15:14, ESV).

      “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5, ESV).

      “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies” (Psalm 58:3).

      “[You] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2:3).

      • Amen!! That was a excellent exegetical rebuttal.

        I also found the author’s closing comment (“This is important work as the faith progresses into the future”) quite disturbing. I realize that the author likely means that as scholars continue to study the doctrine of original sin they hope to be able to wrap their minds around it to a greater degree. However, the faith has been once for all delivered to the saints (e.g. – Jude) and I fear that the double-speak in statements such as these is that instead of building upon the scholarly work and sitting on the shoulders of giants of the faith such as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc we ought to be viewing them (in a sort-of evolutionary way) as those who had more primitive views of the bible/theology and our faith is progressing and evolving….we’re moving past the primitive faith of those who came before us…..and our views are so much higher. I would argue the contrary however, the high exalted view of God and totally depraved view of man in his fallen condition allowed them to see God more clearly than many of us do today….we are immersed in a culture of self-indulgence and we are gods over our own little domains….we therefore find it difficult to grasp God’s holiness and how His complete and utter “otherness” ought to frame every concept of how we approach Him and His holy word. To speek in place of God and reinterpret what He has said is a scary place to be.

  • IT is a great danger to do what you are doing. What are you doing is ad-libbing. Who are we to contribute to the Bible text? To do so is to distort the text. Where do we stop when we have begun such an endeavor? If we believe God has given us the Bible for faith, life and practice then to say it is not clear in it’s message and we have to ad-lib to help define it than our statement that God gave us the Bible means nothing.

  • If, as you say, the answer to the question cannot be answered in Genesis 1-2, then how does your conclusion follow that it is “ok to look to science” for an answer to the question? Not that looking to science is a bad thing in and of itself, but why not look to the rest of Scripture first? Why do we have to ignore the rest of Scripture prior to looking at what science says about it?

    Indeed, if we look at Scripture first, the answer is immediately and clearly given–Adam is a literal, historical figure as Jesus & Paul clearly think. If Scripture answers the question, then the matter is resolved, and science must produce results that yield to the authority of Scripture; not the other way around.

  • I’ve studied this stuff just about all my life. From junior in abot 1983 until today, I have spent a LOT of time work through this stuff. My interest in this subject have lead me to earn degrees in Marine Bilogy, Environmental Biology, Computer Science, and soon to complete a Masters in Biblical Studies/Theology. I have taken dozens of evolutionary biology classes, too many to even remember them all. I have close to 300 semester hours invested… and still it is hard to get my head around some of this stuff. But I hate seeing people make claims that they really do not understand. Now I am not a genius or some giant in this area, but I think I am one of a very few people that have the Greek NT open while running electrophoresis gells at home. So when I see something that cross from theology to biology, I have to stop and read it. For those who are interested, here are some thoughts and challanges.

    “the evidence suggests that evolution doesn’t work by starting with a single pair, but instead goes back to an original “breeding population” of between 5,000 and 10,000 people”.

    1. I agree! However, evolution teaches that everything evolved from a single living cell created through spontaneous generation… not 5,000 organisms. How did it occurring in the beginning with only one cell or one organism? Do you know why they claim evolution needs 5K to 10K? It is because evolution is not what you think it is. Evolution is a generic change based on frequencies of genes. Look up Hardy-Weinberg. The math doesn’t work based on a single person, two people, a single cell in a primordial soup, etc. But sure, we have what some people would call evolution vs. Evolution (note big E versus little e) occurring every day… macro vs. micro. But that doesn’t prove everything evolved from nothing, life from rocks, and man from a primordial soup. Adam from monkeys.

    2. Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as literal people. Was Jesus confused?

    3. If you look up “YOM” (not the hundreds of words that contain the word YOM, but only where it is used in its root form in the text) you will find about 1980+ references in the Old Testament. Of those, all but about 2 refer to a single day. Those other two, the text is just too generic to say. When old earth Creationist claims YOM can mean something other than a day, they just simply fail to understand language and Hebrew. YOM is root word or a stem. Other words are made from it just like we have “peninsula” made from “peni” and “insula”. “peni” means “almost” and “insula” means “island”. However, if an old earth Creationist looks up “island” the way they study the Bible, they would look up all of the words that mean “island” and “peninsula” would show up. Then they would claim that peninsula can mean an island or it can mean “almost an island”. But I say… “No” peninsula is not an island! The same thing with YOM. YOM is a root or stem and when you find it in its root or stem in the text, it means a day. I have 2000 examples as evidence. Can you find one to prove it wrong? Actually, you might be able to find 2. But 2:2000 is a pretty good odds that I am right. Don’t believe me, just look up all of the references old earth Creationsist use. Then use Logos to look at the Hebrew… not Strongs! Look at the actual text and not the root. Note that NONE of them are YOM. They are all words that contain YOM. Now go find the ones that are actually YOM. Now find any that do not mean a day. Note, all of the ones in Genesis, YOM is in its root form. Why is that?

    4. Evolution and aging things depends on the speed of light and nuclear decay. They say the speed of light is constant. Ok, what is speed? Distance over time. The universe is expanding and speeding up therefore as it expands total net gravity is spread out more and more, total net gravity for a single point is less, therefore according to Einstein time would then increases and therefore the speed of the universe expandig increases. Therefore, neither time nor distance is a constant, therefore speed cannot be. That pretty much destroys any hope of aging the universe.

    Best regards,
    Jon

  • It has been an interesting and exciting discussion and exchange of opinions regarding Longman’s view on historicity of Adam. I shall not insert any exegetical explanation of any sort on Rom 5:12, especially this is a blog comment and not an academic journal whereby more detail explanation is deemed appropriate. However, I would respond to this discussion in the following ways.

    I think the first issue is our misunderstanding of the genre of Gen 1-2, or even Gen 1-11, which some scholars call theological history, and others call myth. That is because we moderns understood myth as untrue story. However, myth to the ancients is simply a literary writing to record the events pertaining to their origins. Through evolution of word meaning, it became what we understood today. Based on the ancients’ understanding of myth, Gen 1-2 narrative is historical, however, not literal history, in the sense that it happened exactly it was described. I agree with Jon, the last comment, that there is negligible evidence to prove that the Israelites lived in Egypt. But does not make Israel non-existent? Absolutely not. I beckoned that it is our lack of literary knowledge such as myth that frustrates us from being honest about our ignorance. Reaction is defensive.

    I do not think that science is more superior than the Bible, however, we should reconcile the archaeological facts with our Bible reading, which some called interpretation. If Gen 1-2 is read as literal history, we still can’t reconcile the gap between the existence of dinosaurs and Adam and Eve. Dinosaurs has established to appear about 100,000 years (don’t quote me) ago or even longer. By the literal reading of Gen 1-2, humans civilisation appears around 10,000 years. That is a big gap to fill. Of course, I do not agree with the Old Earth Creationism that a day is a million year. Based on the genre of Gen 1-2, a literal reading does not help to reconcile the conflict between science and Bible. Thus, genre criticism is essential in determining how we should read a biblical text.

    I think the major objection to science is the misunderstanding of evolution advocated by some renowned scholars such as Tremper Longman, Bruce Waltke, and others. I believed these scholars do not subscribe to Adam and Eve were created through evolution, but others parts of the world might. Most conservative evangelicals have a stigma against evolution because of their literal history reading and churches’ refusal to reconcile these information; their refusal was partially due to their limited intellectual capacity. Evolution might have been possible through the millions of years, if it is understood as a natural process of adaptation to the living environment. We should not be overly concerned about evolution if we understood it correctly. Media and some outspoken scientists such as Richard Dawkins have made evolution an unnecessary critical issue against human civilisation, and unfortunately, Christians are overly reactive without analysing these theories and/or opinions.

    I also noticed that many discussed here relied heavily on doctrinal truths, either by modern theologians or early church fathers, and that perhaps, allow me to say, is the pitfall of the many arguments presented. I am not saying these doctrines are incorrect and should be removed. I also gathered that most of you discussed here have some theological education, if not MDiv (I presumed). So, we should know how doctrines were established and their basis; it is the Bible. That means, it is from our exegesis, and to some, hermeneutics is the foundation to the formation of these doctrines. If we rely on doctrinal truths as if they were inspired as the Bible, then we have disqualified ourselves from being a Bible-believing Christians. Doctrines must, and I used the word ‘must’, be countercheck with the Bible, and be updated with biblical scholarship. Sad to say that many Christians bought into the lie of anti-intellectualism. Theologians, undeniably, are the main contributory factors to this present phenomenon.

    Back to the historicity of Gen 1-2, I think we should read the Bible according to its literary convention, and that is read poetry as poetry, and read narratives as narratives. That is, read non-literal history as non-history. I do not see this approach curtailing the inspired nature of the Bible, in fact, I see God’s creativity. Much of the problem of reading the Bible came from our understanding of inspiration, and that attributed to the Chicago statement inerrancy and inspiration, crafted by some conservative evangelical scholars and led by renowned theologian, J I Packer. There is nothing wrong to craft a concise statement of faith, but it is contradictory to the canonical status of the Bible if we read this doctrinal statement as inspired by God.

    I think Adam and Eve were historical figure, as well as the representative of humans, though the story presented in a mythical fashion. What has been read as literal history in NT concerning Adam may be in a literary vogue. I also think that Paul and his theology have been misunderstood by many conservative evangelical scholars, not of their own faults, but they are simply blinded by the literature of NT which tend to be read theologically. I would say that we should read the Bible according to the literary convention of the various genre contain in it.

  • I have been very interested in following this discussion. I am not a pastor, seminary student, or professor of theology, but someone who has loved, studied, and taught the Bible for more than 35 years. Perhaps I don’t have the proper credentials to weigh in as a part of this discussion, but there seems to one salient point that has been omitted by everyone who has posted a comment.

    When Jesus made references to Old Testament persons and events, He wasn’t relying on Hebrew Scriptures, either properly or improperly translated, nor was He relying on established “doctrine”.

    He is God – He was there! He missed nothing! (“Before Abraham was, I AM .”)

    He was not only an eye-witness to the history recorded in all of Genesis, but was a fully sovereign participant in every event described in every narrative.
    (I know it is not recorded that Jesus called Adam by name, but in
    Matthew 19:4-6, he is clearly making reference to Adam and Eve when he quotes Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24.)

    It seems that Scripture is disseminated – and sometimes dissected – by some in order to reconcile its words to confirm what already makes sense to them, and by others in a true effort to understand what God has said. Many seem to have lost their awe and wonder in the Person of God Himself – His absolute omnipotence and omnipresence which need no defense and which cannot be adequately understood by any human being this side of heaven.
    God and His works are inscrutable – and yet research and study are addictive – the more I learn the more I want to know and understand.

    Christians as a rule, do not insist on empirical evidence regarding the miracles surrounding God’s revealing Himself and speaking to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, miracles surrounding the life of Moses and the deliverance of the Children of Israel from Egypt, the miraculous preservation of the lives of Daniel and others while in exile in Babylon, the virgin birth of Christ, miraculous healing and provision for the multitudes who encountered Jesus, other events of His life that defy human explanation, or most importantly and most miraculously, His resurrection. Therefore I am always puzzled by those who seem to pick and choose what they deem to be historical and what they see as allegorical. It seems a slippery slope. God used real persons and actual circumstances to teach greater truth throughout His word – one does not necessarily contradict the other.

    Thank you for always making me think –
    Blessings –

      • It is indeed a very critical point that divides us in interpretation, and that is how we read the Bible. If the Bible is a stream of philosophical discourse, then literal reading is correct. Unfortunate, many people also ignore the fact that the Bible has many genres. Some may be read literally, and some may be read non-literal. This is the beautiful of the Bible, in comparison to other religious scriptures (Buddhism, Taoism, etc). It is the record of God’s acts in history that exhibits his relationship with his creation, and this characteristic is depicted through songs, wise sayings, prophecies, etc, that are known as genres. We should read the genres according to their conventions, since God through human writers revealed himself and his redemptive plan in these fashions. This does not curtail the inspirational nature of the Bible, as some may assume.

        It is not arbitrary, as some have misunderstood, to read some literally and non-literally. In fact, by reading every part of the Bible as literal history may prevent us from understanding the revelation of God.

        One thing I do agree with Susan is that the Bible should not contradict itself. However, that unity may not be aligned with our modern definition of unity. Remember, English language has changed so rapidly that some words are understood differently than the previous millennium.

        It is no surprise that Jesus in his divinity would know the scriptures inside out, but we should also balance with his humanity that what he quoted are within the Torah. A Jewish boy would receive Torah education from 5 to 16 years of age.

        You have mentioned ‘historical’ as opposed to ‘allegorical’ reading, that I find them interesting. Often, people compare historical or actual versus allegorical or non-actual. Allegory is thought that a word meaning is represented by another meaning that has no relation to the word itself (this may not be the best definition). E g, soil may mean our spiritual life as in the parable of the soil. But, reading Gen 1-2 non-literally is not allegorising it. Rather, we are allowing the genre to paint the picture of creation to us without the details. Therefore, allegory is different from non-literal history.

  • […] and discussion regarding the Historicity of Adam. The first post, by Dr. Temper Longman presented an evolutionary creationist perspective. Then, in April, Dr. Richard Gaffin presented a counterview defending the historicity of Adam. It […]

Written by Jonathan Watson
theLAB