Book Review: N.T. Wright’s “Surprised by Scripture”: Ch. 2–Do we need a historical Adam?

The second chapter in N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Scripture tackles a subject that tends to be an extremely hot-button issue within American Evangelicalism today: the historicity of Adam. Now, the fact that it is even a hot-button issue might surprise some people. Ironically, some people’s response is basically, “How can there not be a historical Adam?” while others will undoubtedly response with, “How can anything still think that there could be a historical Adam?”

Now, that topic alone, with all the scholarly ink that has been spilled on it, could fill a book all by itself—and if you check Amazon.com, you’ll find that there are, in fact, many books on that topic. N.T. Wright, though, takes a rather different approach to the question—one that I appreciate.

He first points out that too often that in many western, Protestant/Evangelical traditions, even though they claim to be rooted in scripture, in fact “have by and large developed long-lasting and subtle strategies for not listening to what the Bible is in fact saying.” Translation? We Christian in modern western civilization often completely neglect even attempt to find out what any given biblical passage said to its original audience, and we simply assume that the Bible speaks directly to our 21^st century questions and concerns.

Biblical Authority
If we want to truly let the Bible speak to us today, we first must make sure we understand the questions, answers, and worldview that the Bible was putting forth in its original context. Unfortunately, because we don’t often do this, what ends up happening is that well-meaning Christians simply rip completely de-contextualized verses out the Bible to that “support” their particular political or social views, and then claim that they are basing their political and social views on the “authority of Scripture.” In reality they aren’t.  They’re using the “authority of Scripture” as a way to mask their own agenda, and their cherry-picking of verses. This sort of thing happens all across the political and social spectrum.

In any case, Wright makes an incredibly important point when it comes to biblical authority: If we really value the authority of Scripture, we need to understand the original context. We need to make sure we are understanding the authoritative message that God and the inspired authors originally intended. Why? Because the “authority” of the Bible doesn’t rest in the Bible itself—it rests in the authority that was given to Jesus by the Father, and that he in turn bestowed on his followers. Therefore Wright points out that the phrase “authority of scripture” really is simply shorthand for “the authority of God in Jesus, mediated through scripture.”

The next thing Wright points out is a question: “What is God’s authority in the Bible there for?” Well, it’s not simply to give a lot of true information…even though the Bible certain does. Wright points out that the authority of God in the Bible has a purpose, and that purpose is to redeem His creation through an obedient humanity. Or as Wright says, “The Bible is then the God-given equipment through which the followers of Jesus are themselves equipped to be obedient stewards, the royal priesthood, bringing that saving rule of God in Christ to the world.” So what is the Bible “there for”? The very thing Wright just said.

Before he goes on to address the topic of Adam, though, Wright briefly mentions the value and role of the traditional Church creeds. I’ll make it simple: the creeds are indeed useful, but they are really just “Cliff Notes” to the much deeper truths of the Christian faith. The creeds are essentially guard rails that make sure you don’t get off track in your Christian faith. But if all you do is constantly inspect the guard rails, and never take off on the journey of faith, the guard rails won’t do you much good.

Paul, Adam, and the Next Testament
With all that in mind, Wright then sets out to illuminate his readers on the intended biblical message concerning Adam. He starts by addressing the common claim in ultra-conservative circles that “If you don’t believe Adam was a real human being, then you can’t believe anything else in the Bible.” Wright’s reply is a basic, “No, that’s not true. You need to first ask, ‘What is the intent of the talk about Adam in the Bible?’” Particularly, if you look at Romans 5, what was Paul’s purpose when he was referring to Adam? Was his purpose to make a historical argument?

Wright’s answer is, “No.” Paul’s point in not only Romans 5, but in Romans 1-8 as a whole, was to emphasize what the human vocation is. In other words, he’s not primarily focused on explaining how one gets saved (that would make little sense, given the fact he’s writing to Christians who are already saved!); rather, he’s explaining the goal and purpose of redeemed humanity that salvation has made possible.

For Paul, God’s holy land now is no longer just the “holy land” of Israel. Because of Christ, the entire world is God’s holy land, and through Christ and his followers, He is going to redeem all of creation, and thus bring the Kingdom of God to all of creation. If you understand that’s the complete “end game” that one’s individual salvation in Christ becomes a part of, then you’ll be in a better position to understand Paul’s use of Adam in Romans 5.

For Paul, the fundamental problem in creation is that, because of human sinfulness, “God’s project for the whole creation (that it should be run by obedient humans) was aborted and put on hold.” The answer to that problem, therefore, is found in Christ: through Christ, humanity can be redeemed, and thus become obedient stewards of God’s creation. Through Christ, human beings can become what Adam and Eve failed to be. In other words, the goal of salvation is not some individualistic “I get to go to heaven when I die” sort of thing; rather, it is, “I get to be part of a redeemed and obedient humanity (i.e. Christ, the second Adam), so that I can fulfill God’s purpose to have human beings care for His creation, where He will dwell with human beings.”

Does that sound a bit out there? Well, Wright points you to Romans 5:17 to prove it is true. Paul starts by saying, “If by the trespass of one, death reigned through the one (i.e. Adam)…” and then Wright says we expect Paul to then finish that thought with, “…how much more will life reign through the one” (i.e. Jesus).” If that was the case, then one could possibly argue that Jesus, a historical figure, is paralleled with Adam, who would then be also a historical figure.

But that’s not what Paul says. Instead, he ends with “…how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of covenant membership (i.e. righteousness) reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” Wright’s point is that the focus of Paul’s argument isn’t on whether or not Adam was a historical person, or whether or not “Adam” represents all humanity. Paul’s focus is on the vocation of humanity—to fulfill our calling as image-bearers of God to reign in life over His creation. Through Christ that has been made possible. In fact, as Wright says, that is what it means to be a royal priesthood: “looking after God’s creation is the royal bit; summing up creation’s praise is the priestly bit.”

Wright’s Conclusion
Wright’s point is that one cannot go to Romans 5 (or I Corinthians 15 as well), and argue that since Paul refers to Adam in his theological arguments, that he must have thought Adam was a historical person. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. Maybe Adam was a historical person, maybe the Adam in Genesis 3 is symbolic and archetypal for all humanity. The point is that that issue is not what is being addressed in Romans 5 or I Corinthians 15.

Wright further points out that when it comes to Genesis 1-3, that the Jews of Jesus and Paul’s day would have undoubtedly seen the story of their own nation in those chapters. Think about it: Adam is placed in a garden where God rests and reigns; Adam is to obey God’s commandment, or else suffer exile from the garden and ultimate death. Does that now sound much like the story of OT Israel as well?

Simply put, there is a whole lot more going on in Genesis 1-3, as well as the New Testament’s use of Genesis 1-3 than our modern “Was Adam a historical person?” debate. It certainly seems, Wright argues, that neither the Old or New Testament writers, not even Jesus himself, seemed all that concerned with “proving” this point. Their use of Genesis 1-3 often was to make other theological arguments, other than trying “prove” there was a literal Adam.

So what should this tell Christians? There might have been a literal Adam, there might not have been—it’s not spelled out in the Bible either way. Therefore, it is entirely okay to speculate on that “origins question,” as long as you keep in mind what the theological message of passages like Genesis 1-3, Romans 5, and I Corinthians 15 really is.

Some Christians view the Adam of Genesis 1-3 as a purely symbolic figure representing all of humanity, so that “Adam’s story” is “our story.” Some, like N.T. Wright speculate that at some point in the past, “God chose one pair from the rest of the early hominids for a special…vocation,” but that pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) failed in their task. Obviously, Wright has no problem with the theory of evolution explaining the gradual creation of human beings from lower life forms. Others, of course, think that the Adam and Eve of Genesis 2-3 were the first two people in history, specially created and distinct from every other creature.

Regardless of your particular opinion, you should be honest and admit that that particular issue is not spelled out in Scripture. The thing to remember is whether you hold to the “symbolic” view, Wright’s view, or the literalistic view—they are all speculation, and none of them really have any bearing on the truth and authority of Scripture and what it is teaching about mankind state in need of salvation, or mankind’s fulfillment of God’s vocation in Christ.

So here’s a question for you: what is your view of Adam and Eve? Do you think Wright’s comments hold any merit? What questions do you continue to have?