Recent evangelical discussion concerning Adam and Eve has served at
least one good purpose — it has helped to clarify what is theologically
at stake in the debate. The recent report by National Public Radio [NPR]
alerted the larger secular culture to the debate, but the debate is
hardly new.
What is new, however, is the candid admission on the part of some
that the denial of an historical Adam requires a new understanding of
the Bible’s basic story — and thus of the Gospel as well.
One of my recent articles, “False Start? The Controversy Over Adam and Eve Heats Up,”
made this point clearly. As I argued there, the denial of a historical
Adam means not only the rejection of a clear biblical teaching, but the
denial of the biblical doctrine of the Fall as well, leading to a very
different way of telling the story of the Bible and the meaning of the
Gospel.
By the way, those who try to deny that Genesis requires the affirmation
of a historic Adam as a real and singular human individual (arguing, for
example, that the Hebrew word translated “Adam” means only “the man”)
must face the fact that the Genesis narrative clearly presents Adam as a
singular individual who acts, speaks, marries, reproduces, and is
listed even in the genealogy of Jesus. Hebrew vocabulary offers no
escape hatch from historicity. Keep Reading...
No comments:
Post a Comment