Why so Literal?

In modern politics no line is probably more laughable and more revealing than the line spoken by former President Bill Clinton during his grand jury testimony in addressing the question of whether he had sexual relations with Paula Jones.  That infamous and oft quoted line is, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."  The line is revealing because it demonstrated the moral failures of a man who was willingly attempting to avoid honestly answering a question he understood.  The line is laughable because it assumes the very thing it asks: by using the word, "is" directly after saying that it depends upon what "is" means, Clinton reveals he knows what "is" means.  Unfortunately, what may be laughable and of limited political importance and duration can be serious and infinitely destructive in theology.

Let's take a look at a couple of examples and let me see if I can't shed a little light on what I mean.  Starting with Romans 5:12 Paul lays out an argument for the power of Christ's death as a deliverance from sin.  However, Paul's argument only works if there was a literal man, Adam, and if his sin inaugurated all other sin.  Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and on, Paul ties the actual historicity of Adam directly to the Gospel.  What Paul makes clear is that if there were no literal man, Adam, and there were no literal single event of sin entering the world, then the death of Christ is meaningless for us as Christians.

Why is the death of Christ meaningless without the existence of Adam?  Because Adam is our progenitor.  Not only physically is Adam the first man, he is also the first representative of man before God.  Adam was a type of Christ, so that if there is no literal Adam, then there is no type to which Christ refers.  What that means is that if Adam is only a literary construct, then we have no corporate representative in him bringing sin upon all men.  But, if we have no corporate representative in Adam, why should we assume we have a corporate representative in Christ?

The fact that Christ serves as a propitiation for the sins of all men is tied up in the fact that Adam serves as a corporate representative before God, a perfect man who sinned and thus introduced a sinful nature to his own.  We see this in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when we read, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."  If there is no man, Adam, in whom we have all died, then what hope have we that we shall be made alive in Christ?  Because Adam serves as our corporate representative, and because we have all partaken of a sin nature through Adam and Eve, so also we are able to partake of a spiritual nature because of the life of Christ, who is the spiritual representative before God for those of us who have faith in him.

But, some modern scholars would do away with a literal Adam.  Some scholars argue that Adam is a literary figure, Genesis is not to be taken literally up through chapter 11, everything preceding Abraham is allegorical, or a literary story written to illustrated God's power as the one who organizes and brings order to the world.  This is not a new argument, necessarily.  For instance Origin and Augustine both argued for an allegorical reading of Genesis 1.  Both of these church fathers argued that Genesis 1 could not be read as literal history because the idea of creation in seven days, or the idea of the days as literal periods of time, made no sense to them for different reasons.

My argument is not with those who would argue that Genesis 1 is allegorical, or that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be a story discussing how God ordered the earth and made man for the purpose of fellowship with him.  However, those who hold that all of Genesis 1-10 cannot be history, those who reject the literal existence of Adam and Eve, those who deny that there was a unique creation of man that resulted in one couple who sinned in that Garden of Eden and who were cast out by God, those individuals do massive theological harm to the gospel of Christ.  Those who deny the historicity of Adam and the way sin entered the world through a man are forced to do away with passages like Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13, and Jude 14.  All of these passages refer to a literal Adam, and all of them tie the existence of Adam directly the gospel.

It is here that theologians begin to undertake gymnastics to avoid dealing with the text as it exists.  Scholars argue that we can do away with Adam because it does not have any significant impact on the gospel.  After all, why do we need to have Adam in order for sin to have entered into men and have become part of our nature?  Why do we need to have Adam to recognize the power of the blood of Christ to forgive us our sins?  Adam is only a matter of secondary importance, and doing away with Adam does not effect the death of Christ on our behalf, or the efficacy of his blood for our redemption.

But, doing away with Adam does away with Paul.  For instance, Paul says that all of Scripture is inspired by God, specifically he says it is breathed out by God. (2 Timothy 3:16)  If Paul is wrong about there being a literal Adam then either God did not inspire him, or God got something wrong, or God allowed error on his part in what he inspired.  In any of those conditions we are now left with Scripture that is potentially full of errors, Scripture that we must analyze carefully, dissect and correct, so that we are able to determine what is true and what is false.  If that is the case then nothing in Scripture is safe from this examination, all of Scripture must be parsed and examined lest there be any historical error in it at all.  And, even if we are able to determine some parts are accurate, what do we do with those sections we cannot empirically test?

For instance, if Paul is wrong about there being an Adam, and if Paul is wrong about the importance of Adam to the gospel, then what else is Paul wrong about?  Obviously Paul's understanding of the gospel will no longer suffice, because his understanding relied upon an historical Adam.  So what understanding will we replace Paul with?  Who will become our teacher when we cannot trust Scripture to be accurate in what it teaches?

There are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to embrace the full criticism of Scripture that comes with removing Adam from the Bible.  But, why should any truly rational person who accepts that Adam did not exist stop only there?  Why shouldn't we question Paul?  Why shouldn't we question Chronicles, reject Hosea as a prophet, (he references Adam as a literal man) do away with Luke, and then even question the necessity of the death of Christ himself?

When we engage in biblical criticism that questions the very integrity of Scripture, it is both revealing and laughable to the watching world.  It is revealing to those who look on because they can see that we do not really trust our own holy book.  We think that our holy book, that which claims to be inspired by God, is need of correction, because it is incompatible with a modern world.  Our criticism is laughable because we still want to find some value in a set of stories written thousands of years ago, even though we don't think they are historically true or philosophically sound.  While attempting to defend our bible we make it into a joke, because we are not willing to make the full commitment to treating it either as a sacred text, or a near eastern fable.

We do not need to reject science or reason to be Christians.  Human genetics, modern technology, stem cells, antibiotics, gene therapy, microchips, and so much more has been discovered over the years, and none of these things contradict or contravene Scripture.  But, when we say that there cannot be an Adam because evolutionary theory does not allow it, or when we say that Genesis cannot give a factual account of the creation of the world because geology contradicts it, then we are not simply accepting science, we are worshiping science and reason.  I'm not saying that only those who accept a young earth are Christians, not at all; but those who reject the early chapters of Genesis or who mock Scripture based on what current scientific theory says, those people are a danger to the faith.  They are a danger to the faith because they have placed Scripture under another authority, they have set themselves up as judges over the word of God, and they have found it wanting; and what then is there to act as a corrective if their wisdom leads them to reject the claims of the gospel entirely?  When we accept those people who exalt science or human deliberation above the word of God, and place them in positions of authority, then we ought not be surprised when they dispute every doctrine and ridicule every portion of what we once though was sacred.

I know that what I have said will offend some.  My intent is not to offend, but to point out the logical inconsistency we engage in when we attempt to ignore the plain meaning of Scripture because we think modern history and science trump with Word of God.  Let us be consistent.  Elijah said, "If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if Baal is God then follow him."  Let us heed those words today: If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if human science and reason is greater than the God of the bible, then follow it.