The Evolution of Adam

Peter Enns makes a strong case for a singular aspect of a complex argument surrounding the question of Adam. That singular point is that the writers of the writers of the Bible wrote using the information and culture available to them at the time and this is no less true with Paul's treatment of Adam. The fact that Paul treats Adam as a literal historical figure is more a reflection of Paul's culture then it is of an inspired reality. Enns makes this argument by showing how Paul was using Adam more as a figure to illustrate the universal nature of Christ's work on the cross than as an explanation for the origins of sin. The origins of sin is secondary; Messiah is primary.

Enns spends a lot of time on background information, exploring other texts of the time period in order to set up his argument. Personally, while the background information was interesting, I felt for the size of the book he could have spent less time on background and more on exploring some of the other complexities of the Adam question. Which brings me to my biggest complaint.

While Enns makes a great argument for the narrow point I mentioned above, he makes no attempt at the various other questions evolution brings up in regard to Adam, such as: What then is the origin of sin? If God made all things good, where does death come in? etc.

Perhaps there are good answers to these questions. For now, I remain “open”.