Anabaptistica
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 56, No. 2 – Spring 2014
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
By Peter Enns. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2012. 172 pages. Paperback. 2012. $17.99.
In his intriguing work The Evolution of Adam, Peter Enns offers a contribution to the faith and science literature. In it, Enns is specifically interested in one particular question within that debate, namely, reconciling the biblical account of human origins with the scientific or evolutionary account of human origins. More accurately, he is not offering a reconciliatory treatment of the two views, but offering an alternative reading of the biblical account that he argues has greater support than a more literal reading of the Bible on origins.
Enns begins his treatment with a briefing on the subject of evolution and a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative (Introduction). He argues that a literal reading gives us a picture that Adam and Eve are created instantaneously, which is in contrast to the evolutionary picture given to us in modern science which states that humans gradually come into existence through adaptation and natural selection (xiv). In fact, in one place, he states, “If evolution is correction, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word “historical,” the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis, specifically 1:26-31 and 2:7, 22 (xiv).” The reality is that this does not follow from what he previously states and what he proceeds to argue. This claim may be too strong even if it does entail tensions. He proceeds on the view that a literal reading with modern science is incompatible unless one is willing to make serious adjustments to the biblical story. He offers that there are four ways to handle the problem. One can either accept evolution and reject Christianity, accept Paul and reject evolution and modern science, reconcile the two, or rethink Genesis and Paul (xvii-xviii). He proceeds to argue that given the creation narrative context, we ought not read it literally as offering an answer to the question of where humans came from and how they came, for this is the job of science, but it offers a “story” on where we came from in terms of social identity (chapters 2-4). In the second section of the book, Enns engages with Paul. He and others consider “Paul’s view of Adam” a more serious problem, but he offers a solution whereby one should read Adam as a metaphor in Paul and see the Adam-story as part and parcel of the real Christ. Enns argues against the notion that Paul communicates the reality that Adam was a real and literal historical figure. Adam, for Enns, should be read as a metaphor or a representation for a “people” not necessarily a single person.
The highlights of Enns treatment on the subject are clear. First, there is no other serious evangelical treatment of the issue. Second, he offers some interesting constructive readings of both Genesis and Paul that comprise what he considers essential theological matters. Three, he offers an interesting proposal as to why the motivation exists behind the affirmation of a literal historical Adam and Eve. He argues that it is based upon the desire to maintain our social or group identity (145). Having said this, there are several criticisms of the book.
Enns lacks a metaphysical ground and mechanism for explaining the foundations for Christian redemption. It would have been nice if Enns put forward a brief explanation on how humans are related theologically and how his view of origins accounts for the nature of original sin. While he does seek to exalt Christ and re- demption, he lacks the foundation for understanding this redemption (i.e. What are we being redeemed from and to? Why?). A literal or natural reading of Scripture on Adam is reflected in ecclesiastical tradition (or so it seems) and that is that a first pair actually transmits sin in some form or fashion. Furthermore, it is unclear that direct creation of man is not compatible with evolution. If humans are souls, then it is not incompatible to say that God creates humans directly and immediately at some point in evolution. Enns raises this possibility but dismisses it rather quickly (xv).
All in all, this book will serve the evangelical community and offers a novel contribution to the evangelical literature on the science and faith debate. Enns offers a way of reading the Bible that is commensurate with what he considers the entailments of evolutionary thought given to us in modern science. While many evangelicals will not be convinced by his constructive proposal, it will serve individuals by way of raising the sorts of questions that need to be raised. Many who affirm a stronger form of biblical authority and inerrancy will not be satisfied with the conclusions. Yet, the debate on Adam continues.
