Pastors at play

Otagosh started it.  He referenced a post at Cyberbrethren titled "Why Believing in a Real, Actual Adam and Eve Matters" wherein a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) pastor had defended the historicity of Adam and Eve, and said: 

For our Lord Christ, the fact of the creation of Adam and Eve by God, and their union to one another, ordained by God, is the very foundation of marriage and all human sexuality.

Otagosh thinks it's bizarre that people can still hold such a view today.  Over the past 50 years, the number of people holding an "inerrant" view of the Bible has indeed declined rather sharply, all the way from about two-thirds of the people to about one-third.  That said, about a third still believe it.

As the quote from above indicates, Cyberbrethren apparently believes that Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were historical people.  This was a new one to me so I asked:  Is there anywhere in the four gospels where Jesus reflects on the historicity of Adam?  I requested a chapter and verse citation of any place in scripture where Jesus says anything about Adam and Eve being real historical persons.

"Adam," incidentally, is simply the Hebrew word for earth.  "Eve" is a word related to the Hebrew word for life.  Put "Adam" and "Eve" together and you have "living earth people."

The author of Cyberbrethren was not amused by my asking this question.  First, he tried to get by with snark.  When I asked "when?" and "where?" he responded:  "When?  Roughly AD 30-33.  Where?  Palestine.  You can find an account of this teaching in the Bible, specifically the Gospels."

I do not take condescension for a legitimate answer, so I asked again:  "Is there a chapter and verse in which Jesus asserts the historicity of Adam?"  He responded:  "What's always surprising to me is how some liberals, rather than simply being honest and coming out and simply asserting that Christ was wrong, or Paul was wrong, instead of trying to dance around the text and play little games to try to justify their denial of its (sic) assertions.  You are wasting my time and yours with such nonsense."

It is true, of course, that I am wasting my time.  I know full well that he cannot name a single passage in the New Testament where Jesus or Paul asserts the historicity of Adam, which I why I responded the way I did:  "You must be confused.  I don't think either Christ or Paul was wrong.  I think you are." 

Comments

[AuntieRobin57]

Wonder why he deleted some the comments you included above? It would have been a lot easier for him to simply cite chapter and verse and be done with it.

[Brother Bartimaeus]

I don't mean to sound like I'm taking you to task, as I lean towards mythologizing most of Genesis myself, but how do you interpret Matthew 19:4? Also Luke's genealogy goes back to Adam, doesn't that assert that Adam was real? Why complicate things saying that Jesus was the Son of God, while there was also this metaphoric/fictitious son of God who he's related to? I do realize that Philo clearly saw Adam and Eve as allegorical, but as a Gentile, I wonder what Luke's exposure to the Adam and Eve story would have been. Sorry, just musing...

[Gavin (Otagosh)]

Yup, I think it's completely bizarre. But then, I'm a New Zealander. In my neck of the woods you certainly wouldn't find one third of the population holding to an inerrant view of the scriptures. Or even one quarter. Or even...

[John Petty]

Hi Bart,

That whole section of Matthew is quite complicated, but none of it is about the historicity of Adam. If one cites a verse in Genesis, which we have all done many times, that does not mean that we believe Adam was an historical person.

Gavin,

If everyone were completely honest, everyone would have to admit that each one of us takes certain scripture "inerrantly," and each one of us takes certain scripture "metaphorically." Everybody does it, but only one side admits it.

[Bobby]

Mr. Petty,
I regularly read Cyberbrethren and was curious about the host's treatment of your questions, so I decided to follow your link thus arriving here.
You asked for chapter and verse of passages citing the historicity of Adam and so I will offer some in hopes of honest, respectful dialogue:
Matthew 19:4 (Mark 10:6) discusses marriage between two people not two ideas.
Luke 3:38 is in the context of a list of real people.
Rom. 5:14 indicates Adam is as historical as Moses.
1 Cor. 15:22 indicates Adam is as historical as Christ.
1 Cor. 15:45 speaks of Adam as a living soul (psuchen zosan).
Please do not just say that the above are "complicated" or begin with the assumption that no one in the Scriptures is historical.

[John Petty]

Bobby, thanks for your visit. I appreciate your comment and question. I don't read either Mark 10, or its parallel, Matthew 19, as being primarily about divorce. Rather, I see them as controversy stories whereby the pharisees attempt to "test" Jesus whereupon follows rabbinical style dialog in which Jesus winds up affirming gender equality (Mk 10:10-12).

Also, in the Pauline literature, it seems to me that "Adam" represents a metaphor of life lived in the context of the "old creation" and not the "new." I've done the same thing myself, i.e. referred to Genesis, or referred to the "old Adam." That does not necessarily mean that I believe in Adam's historicity.

Again, thanks for your visit. I appreciate the dialog.

[Bobby]

Rev. Petty,
Thank you for the prompt reply.

In the Gospel accounts cited, I agree that divorce is not the focus but marriage. My point is that if marriage is between two people (not two metaphors), then Jesus' citation of the Genesis account implies that the first marriage was between two people not two metaphors.

Secondly, Luke 3:38 (if we are taking the text at face value) is found in the context of historical figures including the figure at the beginning of the list in v. 23. Could one deny his historicity? Similarly, Paul compares Adam to two historical figures: Moses in Rom. 5:14 and Christ (again) in 1 Cor. 15:22.

I can appreciate Adam used as "metaphor" as Luther does in The Small Catechism (and Paul in Romans 5)to designate our fallen nature, but many (most?) metaphors rely on tangible objects to describe abstract concepts (e.g. love and a rose, "so much" and a red wheelbarrow with white chickens). Thus the abstract sinful nature is compared to the historical Adam. In the context of these actual texts, it seems that Jesus and Paul at least thought that Adam was historical.

[John Petty]

I would argue that the Markan (and Matthean) passages are about Jesus' undercutting the pharisaical assumptions about patriarchy. Jesus assumes equality in divorce--i.e. women should be able to get one as well as men.

Granted, this was not God's desire in creation. The citation from Genesis asserts gender equality--"male and female created he them." Jesus sets this against the Deuteronomy passage allowing divorce, which, Jesus says, God gave to Moses because of their "hardness of heart."

"Hardness of heart" is a serious charge. Pharoah had had his heart "hardened." I take their "hardness of heart" to be their patriarchal assumptions about male headship. I see nothing in there about the historicity of Adam.

In regard to Luke 3, the geneaology doesn't jibe with Matthew and appears to serve a different purpose. Where Matthew (1:1-17) highlights certain "irregularities" in his geneology--Bathsheba, Rahab, Ruth, etc.--Luke asserts Jesus' connection not only with Israel's past, but also that of the entire human race, represented by Adam.

Luke may indeed have thought Adam an historical person, but that is not the point of the geneaology. Adam is used as a symbolic figure. I would argue the same about Paul's uses as well.

Best wishes!