By Angelos Kyriakides

In Evangelical circles today, it has become increasingly common to question whether the Adam and Eve of Genesis should be seen as the first historical couple or merely figurative representations of humanity. Arguments in favour of the former point to the comprehensive testimony of Scripture, while those who wish to re-interpret Adam typically believe that modern evolutionary science has disproved the existence of an original human pair; making it imperative that we see the Adam of Genesis through new lenses. Despite the many attempts to reconceptualize Adam through evolutionary thought, the formulations have been far from cogent and lead to serious theological difficulties. This paper we will explore the influential work of New Testament theologian Scot McKnight and biologist Dennis Venema. Their book, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, serves as a clear distillation of the arguments behind re-envisioning the historical Adam. In doing so we will find that attempts to recast the biblical Adam in terms that cohere with modern evolutionary science are neither warranted nor helpful.

A POPULATION, NOT PAIR

Venema tackles the scientific side of the book in the first half the book in chapters 1-4. His discussion sets the stage for the arguments that McKnight makes in the second half, chapters 5-8. The first two chapters are spent mounting a case for evolutionary theory while the third touches specifically upon whether Adam and Eve were in fact the first humans. Venema’s conclusion is that the data overwhelmingly point not to an original founding pair of humans, but rather a population that has never sunk below 10,000 individuals.[1] Venema states that the current level of genetic diversity among humans had to have been transmitted to us by a large ancestral population. Leaving theological questions aside, Venema then moves on to discuss certain claims of the intelligent design movement, i.e., that evolution is incapable of generating biological information or complex biological structures. Venema’s attempts at defending evolutionary science and his “no less than 10,000” population models are articulate but as we’ll see below, he has since faced heavy criticism for being much more dogmatic about the science than the data actually permit. For our present purposes it is important to note that McKnight uncritically assumes that Venema’s position is without error and continues to base his theological arguments off Venema’s conclusions.

Throughout the second half of the book, McKnight’s fundamental thesis is that the Adam of Genesis is not historical, but merely literary.[2] He describes the historical Adam as being characterized by a “biological, genetic and sin-nature” relation to all humanity.[3] This Adam, McKnight contends, costs too much plausibility to retain. Therefore, although our common intuition towards the Genesis narrative points to a historical Adam, we will be better served by understanding him as a literary figure that has become a genealogical one. Through this terminology, McKnight means that the archetypal Adam which Genesis presents, through successive literature, has been enshrined as the father of the human race although this may not in fact be historically true.

To make his case, McKnight traces discussions about Adam, or the first humans, through three stages: Ancient Near Eastern origin stories, Jewish Extra-Biblical sources, and Paul’s writings in the New Testament. After reviewing ancient near eastern origin stories, McKnight concludes that Genesis 1-3 is not so much about the biological origins of humanity as it is a prototypical story about Israel. In his words, “this text is far more about Adam and Eve as Israel than about the historical, biological, and genetic Adam and Eve.”[4] Following the work of Old Testament Scholar Peter Enns, McKnight says that Genesis 1-3 is best read as a template “between faith and culture” that highlights Israel’s special role among the nations.[5]

This literary reading of Genesis 1-3 is maintained as McKnight explores the extra-biblical Jewish context surrounding Adam. He examines the work of seven writers, ranging from historians like Josephus to philosophers like Philo of Alexandria. Like his previous conclusions, McKnight believes that by surveying the Jewish literature he has found an Adam that is morally archetypal but not necessarily biologically paternal to all humans. He again comments, “Adam is the paradigm, prototype or archetype of the choice between obedience and disobedience, the path of Torah observance and that of breaking the commandments, the path of Wisdom and Mind and Logos, and the path of sensory perceptions and pleasure and bodily desires.”[6] McKnight admits that these sources treat Adam as the first human and the first sinner “whose sin had an impact on those who followed him,”[7] but insists that they only do so because Adam is featured literarily in the book of Genesis. Instead, Adam’s prime significance is said to be found in his moral archetype.

Finally, McKnight moves on to Pauline discussion of Adam, which is the most crucial for our discussion about redemptive history. Here McKnight admittedly avoids any lengthy exegesis and commentary but instead focuses on two particular passages, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45-59, and Romans 5:12-21. He summarizes his discussion of these passages with five theses. The first three theses simply speak about Adam as literary, archetypal, and being filtered through Jewish interpretive history, which may still be reconciled with an understanding of Adam that is biological and historical. However, theses’ four and five constitute a major break with our traditional understanding of Adam. Thesis four states that “Adam and all his descendants are connected, but original sin understood as original guilt and damnation for all humans by birth is not found in Paul.” And thesis five states that “The Adam of Paul was not the historical Adam.” McKnight admits that Paul may have believed in various aspects of a historical Adam, but that “he could not have and therefore did not know better.”[8]

From this position McKnight explains that Adam’s sin is our sin not through hereditary transmission, but through similar experience. McKnight explains his thought the following way, “Humans somehow inherit something from Adam, but they die not because of that inheritance but because they sin … death spread because, like Adam, everyone sins.”[9] The corporate solidarity we share with Adam is not one of common nature but common morality. Like Adam, we all tend to sin and share the same fate that he bore as a literary figure. The “sin of Adam” therefore stands as a perpetual metaphor for human behaviour, hanging over our heads until we choose to actualize it. Conversely, when Paul talks about Jesus as the “second Adam,” it is likewise a matter of adopting a different example of trusting God. In this regard, one must choose which archetype one wants to follow, “Will we follow Adam or will we follow Christ?”[10]

ASSESSING THE NEW ADAM

Since McKnight’s theology is ultimately predicated by Venema’s science, it will be important to revisit that discussion. Although I am not a scientist, I will share what others in the scientific community have to say about Venema’s work. Venema claims that it is impossible for there to be an original pair of humans but it has become known that Venema has a tendency for exaggerating his claims, publishing false information and presenting a limited view of the current discussion surrounding origins.

One of Venema’s first articles on the feasibility of a historical Adam was published in 2010 by BioLogos, an organization that seeks to promote harmony between evolutionary science and Evangelical beliefs. This article created a controversy which was even featured in the popular publication Christianity Today. Venema references these events in Adam and the Genome when he begins to discuss why humans had to descend from a population instead of a pair.[11] What he fails to mention however, is that this initial article, which makes the same claims that are featured in his book, was deleted by BioLogos after other scientists, such as Joshua Swamidass and Richard Buggs, criticized Venema for making demonstrably false claims.[12] Both Swamidass and Buggs are evolutionary scientists themselves but they took issue with Venema’s dogmatic position that today’s humans could not have possibly originated from a single pair. Swamidass has also requested that BioLogos not delete the article but provide a formal retraction, which is proper scientific protocol. This would mean the article would be placed back on the website with an explanation as to why it’s claims were false. He says this,

The mistakes in this article should have been recognized at the time, back in 2010, when it was published. This was not just one mistake but several, and the scientific issues grow if we consider the subsequent efforts to defend the 2010 article’s faulty conclusions … Private acknowledgement is not enough, and this is why we never delete scientific articles. Instead, we leave them online, with a note explaining what we got wrong.[13]

BioLogos has yet to provide this formal retraction.

It’s also important to note that other influential scientists, such as Cornell geneticist John C. Sanford, have provided models that do account for the variability within the human genome while remaining consistent with a recent, founding pair of human parents.[14] All biologists, including Venema, admit that all humans came from one single mother, known as mitochondrial Eve, and one father, known as Y-chromosome Adam. This is because our mitochondria, which act as the “power plant” of the cells and is only passed down through the mother’s side, and the Y-chromosome, which is only passed down on the father’s side, both originate from a single point of uniformity, i.e. one person.[15] While this can theoretically be true from Venema’s vantage point, other geneticists who disagree with Venema point to original uniformity of mitochondria and Y-chromosomes, along with their mutational rates as clear evidence for a historical Adam and Eve.[16] As another biologist, Ransom H. Poythress of Houghton College,  says of Venema’s work in Adam and the Genome,

Throughout there is a fundamental failure to adequately examine alternative hypotheses and therefore a predilection instead to assert with premature presumption that his way is the only way … In the end, it would have been better for Venema to humbly acknowledge the multi- faceted nature of the current debate instead of prematurely declaring his conclusions so assuredly and definitively.[17]

Venema has been known for publishing false information about the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve. He also tends to be overly presumptuous and dogmatic in his presentation of the science behind the theistic evolution viewpoint. In light of this, one has to wonder why McKnight takes such an uncritical stance towards Venema’s thoughts and does not at least interact with the numerous other scientists and viewpoints involved in this discussion.

McKnight’s theological presentation, although clearly thoughtful and heartfelt, runs into a number of problems itself. First, his survey of the Adamic literature does not do what he wants it to do, and in fact may do the opposite. Second, by defending a literary view of Adam, he appears to be following a road ultimately falls into serious theological error.

As was mentioned above, McKnight tries to build his case for a literary Adam by surveying the ancient near eastern literature, along with the Jewish and New Testament writings. And while he does do a good job of demonstrating how Adam may have been seen archetypally, the thrust of his argument is easily dismantled when one understands that there is nothing within these contexts that dismisses a historical Adam as well. In fact, the archetypal, or literary Adam, is built on the foundations of a historical one. As Poythress again notes, “… just because something is literary does not mean it is not historical. McKnight has it backwards—usually literary figures in the Bible are derived from historical ones. God puts historical figures to literary use because he is the Author of history.”[18]

Darrell Bock, another New Testament scholar, has retraced McKnight’s steps through some of the literary context he provides and found that far from being only literary or archetypal, it clearly speaks of Adam as being historical as well, “In these texts we see two clear patterns. First, in genealogies and in other listings involving the history of Israel, Adam is treated as a figure like others of its history, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even David and Solomon. Second, he is portrayed consistently as the first male human with Eve as the first female human.”[19] Why McKnight attempts to build the case for a strictly literary Adam using texts that, in some cases such as 4 Ezra 7:16-24, seem to explicitly denote a historical one as well is hard to understand.

The problem is no different in the biblical context. Throughout Scripture, Adam is presented as not merely an archetype, but as an archetype based on real history. McKnight focuses on two New Testament passages in particular but fails to provide a satisfactory look at certain texts that also point to the historical Adam.[20] Bock, who in his discussion does provide a more comprehensive survey of Scripture again comments,

The canon appears both internally consistent, as well as fitting the larger ancient background of the history of how the term Adam was applied to a figure. If we catch on to this consistent use, the listing of generations, and the remembering of specific events, then Adam is seen as a singular individual, at least from the standpoint of the canon and the Jewish milieu which reflected on this text. Appeals that this is the literary Adam versus a historical Adam divide what the material appears to present together.[21]

By dividing the historical from the literary Adam without provocation, we are left with a construct that remains disingenuous to the witness of Scripture. Despite his insistence that there is no historical Adam in the Bible, McKnight even admits that “The Bible really does make it look like Adam and Eve are humans from whom we descend.”[22] Again, it’s hard to understand how McKnight comes to his conclusions when even he acknowledges that Scripture may not agree. This is the kind of inconsistency one is drawn into while affirming belief in a literary but not historical Adam.

There is debate among scholars who affirm a historical Adam as to whether this issue is salvation related. Theistic evolutionists affirm that one can be born again and love Jesus even while denying Adam’s historicity.[23] Many on the opposing side agree with this statement but also believe that when this is done, significant damage is being done to the Church by compromising the truthfulness of Scripture.

There are others who believe that by denying the historicity of Adam, those who do so are touching upon a salvation related issue. By denying the historicity of Adam, we are also denying the innate sinfulness of human nature and the need for atonement. As one commentator says of the view that McKnight offers, “This understanding of sin and redemption is indisputably semi-Pelagian and arguably Pelagian.”[24] Pelagianism is the historical error condemned by Church Fathers in the fifth century that denies Original Sin and affirms the innate goodness of humanity. This seems to also be the inevitable outcome of compromising Adam’s historicity.

Semi-Pelagianism differs in that it affirms Adam’s sin brought a kind of “moral sickness” into the world, and that he transmitted this to all of humanity, but this only opens the door for potential sin to take place.[25] By denying the historical nature of the events of Genesis 3, and subscribing to McKnight’s view that we are connected to Adam merely by similar behavior,[26] there remains no reason not to affirm the original form of Pelagianism, in that sin becomes merely a result of human choice, not nature. If this is the case, then humans should have the capability to freely choose to do good and thus avoid God’s judgment. This would, in one fell swoop, remove the need for Christ’s atoning work on the cross which is why Pelagius’ error was condemned. Original sin, as transmitted by a historical Adam, is the necessary precursor to Christian atonement. As Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck notes, “Certainly this physical oneness of the whole humanity in Adam as such is of great importance for the explanation of original sin. It is its necessary presupposition and prerequisite.”[27] Without Adam having a changed nature that leads to death, and us all being descended from him, the new covenant seems to be superfluous.

IN CONCLUSION

By providing an in-depth review of Venema’s and McKnight’s highly influential work, Adam and the Genome, this paper has explored whether the Body of Christ should adopt a new stance towards the Biblical Adam in light of modern evolutionary science. What I hope to have shown is that both writers reveal serious flaws in their argumentation so accepting their invitation to adopt a literary Adam is both unnecessary and unfruitful. Not only is Venema’s scientific integrity in question, and the science around human genetics much more nuanced than the picture offered in the book, McKnight fails repeatedly to be consistent even within his own thoughts. He admits that the Bible treats Adam as a historical figure while arguing for the contrary, and uses literature to support his case that explicitly argues for a historical Adam at times. These errors are surprisingly glaring for a scholar of McKnight’s stature. Finally, the most important consequence for any Christian choosing to adopt a purely literary Adam, is that such a device inevitably leads to Pelagianism, or the heresy which compromises the need for Christ’s atoning work. This is a serious ramification for what’s often thought to be a harmless theological adjustment. Christians should be aware of such consequences and take time to examine this discussion from different vantage points before they are forced to be inconsistent with themselves and their Christian beliefs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bock, Darrell, “Thinking Backwards about Adam and History” Trinity Journal 2, Year: 2019, Volume: N.S.40, Issue: 2, Pages: 131-143

Jeanson, Nathaniel, P. Tomkins, Jeffrey P., “Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve” Searching for Adam, edited by Terry Mortenson, Green Forest: Masterbooks, 2016, Kindle.

Moreland, J.P., Meyer, Stephen C., Gauger, Ann K., Shaw, Christopher, Grudem Wayne, eds. “Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, Wheaton: Crossway, 2017.

McKnight, Scot and Venema, Dennis R., Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science (Grand Rapid: Brazos Press, 2017

POYTHRESS, RANSOM H. 2018. “Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science.” Westminster Theological Journal 80 (1): 189–92. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=asx&AN=131365525&site=eds-live

Sanford, John C., Wes Brewer, John Baumgardner, Robert W. Carter, Bruce Potter, John Potter. “Adam and Eve, Designed Diversity, and Allele Frequencies” The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 8, (2018): 200-216, https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol8/iss1/8/

Swamidass, Joshua “BioLogos Deletes an Article,” Peaceful Science, Last modified January 11, 2021, accessed October 28, 2021, https://peacefulscience.org/articles/biologos-stealth-deletes-an-article/

FOOTNOTES

[1] Scot McKnight and Dennis R. Venema, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science (Grand Rapid: Brazos Press, 2017), 44.

[2] McKnight, Adam and the Genome, 187.

[3] Ibid., 108.

[4] Ibid., 144.

[5] Ibid., 118, 144.

[6] Ibid., 169.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 189.

[9] Ibid., 185.

[10] Ibid., 188.

[11] Ibid., 44.

[12] Joshua Swamidass, “BioLogos Deletes an Article,” Peaceful Science, Last modified January 11, 2021, accessed October 28, 2021, https://peacefulscience.org/articles/biologos-stealth-deletes-an-article/

[13] Swamidass, “BioLogos.”

[14] John C. Sanford et al. “Adam and Eve, Designed Diversity, and Allele Frequencies” The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism 8, (2018), https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol8/iss1/8/

[15] McKnight, Adam and the Genome, 62.

[16] Nathaniel Jeanson, Jeffrey P. Tomkins, ““Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve” Searching for Adam, ed. Terry Mortenson (Green Forest: Masterbooks, 2016), Chapter 10, Kindle.

[17] Ransom H. Poythress, “Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science.” Westminster Theological Journal 80 (1): 190.  https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=asx&AN=131365525&site=eds-live

[18] Poythress, Adam, 192

[19] Darrell Bock, “Thinking Backwards About Adam and Eve,” Trinity Journal 2, no. 40, 135 (2019).

[20] See such passages as Acts 17:26, 1 Timothy 2:13, and Jesus’ discussion of divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:3-9.

[21] Bock, Thinking Backwards, 143

[22] McKnight, Adam and the Genome, 100.

[23] Wayne Grudem, “Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events and Several Crucial Christian Doctrines,” in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J.P. Moreland et al. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), 823.

[24] Guy Prentiss Waters, “Theistic Evolution is Incompatible with the Teachings of the New Testament” in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J.P. Moreland et al. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), 915.

[25] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 90.

[26] McKnight, Adam and the Genome, 184.

[27] Bavinck, Dogmatics, 102.