Just over a week ago, I posted an article about whether or not Paul’s theology of Christ requires a historical Adam. I was mainly interacting with Daniel Kirk’s article in Fuller Theological Seminary’s Spring 2013 issue of “Theology, News, and Notes”. His premise, as is mine, is that Adam might not be a factual, historical, literal person. However, this need not affect our theology of humanity, sin, and especially that of Christ!
Of course, much discussion arises from this topic today because of Christian engagement with some prevailing scientific views, mainly that of evolutionary biology and the hypotheses presented.
What I have found interesting in my interaction with some surrounding this topic is one particular argument that keeps surfacing. It goes something like this: Your view about what the text says or doesn’t say has already been concluded before engaging with the text.
Meaning that I and others have concluded Adam is not historical/does not have to be historical before actually exegeting what the biblical text communicates.
It’s a fair challenge.
However, I’d say this approach is not completely unbecoming to Christian theology. Continue reading →