If We Reject Paul’s Adam, Why Not Reject His Christ?

Daniel Kirk, associate professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, recently wrote an article titled, “Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?” (It Would be helpful if you followed the link and read the entire article). To date, the article has been shared over 1700 times through social media. Kirk is coming against the notion that a person must affirm a historical Adam before he can affirm 

1) the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture, 

2) a good world gone wrong, 

3) the sinfulness of all humanity, and 

4) a historical Christ. 

Kirk agrees that the Apostle Paul assumed there was a historical Adam (In Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15), but he argues that the Apostle was reimagining the Genesis creation account in light of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

Kirk argues, “the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a historical Adam or historical Fall in large part because what Paul says about Adam stems from his prior conviction about the saving work of Christ.” Kirk believes Paul’s account in Romans 5 leaves room, “for a person who was chosen by God from a developing or, at any rate, numerically numerous, human race to play the role of representative in obedience and disobedience.” Make no mistake, Kirk affirms Paul’s main point in Romans 5, “that God’s grace, righteousness, and life abound to the many because of Christ.” Yet, he rejects the assumptions with which Paul “illustrated these things to be true” [a historical Adam]. Paul’s emphasis is that God has one worldwide people in Christ. Thus, according to Kirk, Paul does not ask or answer the question of whether an evolutionary account of human origins might stand within the story of God’s new creation work in Christ.

I Disagree with Kirk’s Conclusions for Several Reasons:   Continue at SBC Voices