 |
| courtesy of www.freeimages.com |
Peter Enns is an author and seminary professor. He believes in theistic evolution, i.e. that God used the process of evolution to "create" life on Earth. Because he believes in human evolution, he is sure that the Apostle Paul got it wrong about Adam being the first human. I have provided the transcript of the video below along with my comments.
Video Transcription
Dr. Enns' words are in red and my comments are in black.
One approach that is helpful to me is that I think Paul certainly assumed that Adam was a person and the progenitor of the human race. I would expect nothing less from Paul, being a first century man. And again, God speaks in ways and uses categories that are available to human beings at that time. I don't expect Paul to have had a conversation with Francis Collins about the Genome Project and how common descent is essentially assured scientifically. I don't expect him to understand that.
Dr. Enns starts off with an accurate statement. The Apostle Paul did certainly assume that Adam was the first human and father of the human race. How did Paul arrive at the conclusion that Adam was the first man? He took the Bible literally. By literally I mean that Paul read the narrative of the creation of Adam in Genesis and believed it to be true as written.
The fact that Paul believed Adam to have been literally the first human is important. We know that Paul was a student of the Hebrew Scriptures. He spoke Hebrew fluently. He grew up immersed in the study of the Old Testament and was the pupil of a famous rabbi. Surely, if anyone is qualified to interpret the Hebrew Bible it is Paul. How did he interpret Genesis? He took the story of Adam from the first few chapters of Genesis to be an actual historical account. Modern scholars (especially those who are not native Hebrew speakers) should be careful before they try to correct Paul's understanding of how to interpret the Bible! Yet many, like Enns, think they know more about biblical hermeneutics than the inspired Apostle Paul. They claim Genesis is a myth or some other non-literal story.
But when it comes to believing in a literal Adam, Paul is in good company. Jesus also believed in a literal Adam and Eve as the first human beings (Matt. 19:4). So did the writers of 1 Chronicles (1 Chron. 1:1), Job (Job 31:33), Hosea (Hos. 6:7), Luke (Luk. 3:38), and Jude (Jude 14). In fact, every time Adam is mentioned in Scripture he is referred to as literal, not figurative or mythical.
Notice how Dr. Enns patronizes Paul. He makes Paul out to be an ignorant first century knuckle-dragger who didn't know anything about science. The truth is that Paul was a highly educated man. He grew up in a Roman culture that had its own views on origins. Some Greeks even believed in a form of evolution. [1] Paul would have been aware of those views. But in spite of what the science of his day said concerning origins, Paul believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Dr. Enns implies that if Paul had been our contemporary he would have believed in the theory of common descent [2] and thus would have never assumed that Adam was a real person and the father of all mankind. However, Paul didn't believe in the godless scientific theories of his day so why should we assume that he would believe the godless theories of our day?
Does that then violate the theological point that Paul is making of connecting Adam and Jesus? And more importantly, does the non-literalness of Adam affect the non-literalness of Jesus? There, I think, Christians would pretty much come down and say, "Absolutely not. The two are not connected in that way."
Here Dr, Enns asks the right questions but gives the wrong answer. He understands the dilemma produced by not believing in a real Adam, but he doesn't know how to solve it. He knows that Paul assumes a historical Adam, in a real garden, committing real sin by disobeying God, and receiving the real penalty for his sin, and thereby passing sin and its penalty on to all of his real descendants. Furthermore, Paul ties this real Adam to the real Second Adam, Christ. If Adam is just a mythical character, then he really didn't disobey God, he really didn't sin, he really didn't fall, and we really didn't inherit a sin nature from him. One can conclude then that Jesus, the Second Adam, need not have died for the redemption of fallen Adam's descendants if none of it really happened in the first place. Dr. Enns tries to make the dilemma go away by asserting that the two Adams aren't connected, but he fails to offer any proof of his assertion.
In Paul's mind there may be a more organic connection, but talking about, to use common terms, the non- historicity of Adam, a person of antiquity, a story of antiquity, that even in Paul's time was hundreds and maybe thousands of years old, and Jesus staring you in the face. How you handle this does not determine how you handle this.
Dr. Enns suggests that Paul may been mistaken in his belief in a historical Adam. This denies the inerrancy of Scripture and is a very low view of biblical inspiration. Apparently, Dr. Enns believes that Paul was mistaken and that the Holy Spirit allowed him to write error into Scripture.
More importantly, how Paul handles Adam does not determine modern scientific discoveries about the origin of humanity. Paul does not determine that issue for us. Paul is a first century man and what he says about Jesus and Adam has to be understood in that context.
This statement by Enns is most telling. He argues that the inspired Scripture written by Paul does not determine how we should understand the origin of humanity. Essentially, Enns believes that what an apostle of our Lord wrote under the superintending work of the Holy Spirit of God does not determine for us whether Adam was real or not! Well, if we can't trust Scripture to tell us the truth about the origin of humanity, then where do we turn? Dr. Enns turns to supposed "modern scientific discoveries". Pardon me Dr. Enns, but your eisegesis is showing!
Endnotes:
[1] Paul James-Griffiths, Evolution: an ancient pagan idea, http://creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-idea, accessed on November 20, 2014.
[2] Common descent is the idea that all life on Earth has descended from one common ancestor. Creation scientists disagree. See Chimp-human DNA Similarity: What Does It Really Mean?
Dr. Enns starts off with an accurate statement. The Apostle Paul did certainly assume that Adam was the first human and father of the human race. How did Paul arrive at the conclusion that Adam was the first man? He took the Bible literally. By literally I mean that Paul read the narrative of the creation of Adam in Genesis and believed it to be true as written.
The fact that Paul believed Adam to have been literally the first human is important. We know that Paul was a student of the Hebrew Scriptures. He spoke Hebrew fluently. He grew up immersed in the study of the Old Testament and was the pupil of a famous rabbi. Surely, if anyone is qualified to interpret the Hebrew Bible it is Paul. How did he interpret Genesis? He took the story of Adam from the first few chapters of Genesis to be an actual historical account. Modern scholars (especially those who are not native Hebrew speakers) should be careful before they try to correct Paul's understanding of how to interpret the Bible! Yet many, like Enns, think they know more about biblical hermeneutics than the inspired Apostle Paul. They claim Genesis is a myth or some other non-literal story.
But when it comes to believing in a literal Adam, Paul is in good company. Jesus also believed in a literal Adam and Eve as the first human beings (Matt. 19:4). So did the writers of 1 Chronicles (1 Chron. 1:1), Job (Job 31:33), Hosea (Hos. 6:7), Luke (Luk. 3:38), and Jude (Jude 14). In fact, every time Adam is mentioned in Scripture he is referred to as literal, not figurative or mythical.
Notice how Dr. Enns patronizes Paul. He makes Paul out to be an ignorant first century knuckle-dragger who didn't know anything about science. The truth is that Paul was a highly educated man. He grew up in a Roman culture that had its own views on origins. Some Greeks even believed in a form of evolution. [1] Paul would have been aware of those views. But in spite of what the science of his day said concerning origins, Paul believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Dr. Enns implies that if Paul had been our contemporary he would have believed in the theory of common descent [2] and thus would have never assumed that Adam was a real person and the father of all mankind. However, Paul didn't believe in the godless scientific theories of his day so why should we assume that he would believe the godless theories of our day?
Does that then violate the theological point that Paul is making of connecting Adam and Jesus? And more importantly, does the non-literalness of Adam affect the non-literalness of Jesus? There, I think, Christians would pretty much come down and say, "Absolutely not. The two are not connected in that way."
Here Dr, Enns asks the right questions but gives the wrong answer. He understands the dilemma produced by not believing in a real Adam, but he doesn't know how to solve it. He knows that Paul assumes a historical Adam, in a real garden, committing real sin by disobeying God, and receiving the real penalty for his sin, and thereby passing sin and its penalty on to all of his real descendants. Furthermore, Paul ties this real Adam to the real Second Adam, Christ. If Adam is just a mythical character, then he really didn't disobey God, he really didn't sin, he really didn't fall, and we really didn't inherit a sin nature from him. One can conclude then that Jesus, the Second Adam, need not have died for the redemption of fallen Adam's descendants if none of it really happened in the first place. Dr. Enns tries to make the dilemma go away by asserting that the two Adams aren't connected, but he fails to offer any proof of his assertion.
In Paul's mind there may be a more organic connection, but talking about, to use common terms, the non- historicity of Adam, a person of antiquity, a story of antiquity, that even in Paul's time was hundreds and maybe thousands of years old, and Jesus staring you in the face. How you handle this does not determine how you handle this.
Dr. Enns suggests that Paul may been mistaken in his belief in a historical Adam. This denies the inerrancy of Scripture and is a very low view of biblical inspiration. Apparently, Dr. Enns believes that Paul was mistaken and that the Holy Spirit allowed him to write error into Scripture.
More importantly, how Paul handles Adam does not determine modern scientific discoveries about the origin of humanity. Paul does not determine that issue for us. Paul is a first century man and what he says about Jesus and Adam has to be understood in that context.
This statement by Enns is most telling. He argues that the inspired Scripture written by Paul does not determine how we should understand the origin of humanity. Essentially, Enns believes that what an apostle of our Lord wrote under the superintending work of the Holy Spirit of God does not determine for us whether Adam was real or not! Well, if we can't trust Scripture to tell us the truth about the origin of humanity, then where do we turn? Dr. Enns turns to supposed "modern scientific discoveries". Pardon me Dr. Enns, but your eisegesis is showing!
Endnotes:
[1] Paul James-Griffiths, Evolution: an ancient pagan idea, http://creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-idea, accessed on November 20, 2014.
[2] Common descent is the idea that all life on Earth has descended from one common ancestor. Creation scientists disagree. See Chimp-human DNA Similarity: What Does It Really Mean?