THE NEW EVANGELICAL PROTOLOGY AND ITS IMPACT ON ESCHATOLOGY

Erick Mendieta
IAD, Antillan Adventist University

ABSTRACT: "The center of the evolution debate has shifted from asking whether we came from earlier
animals to whether we could have come from one man and one woman." 1 A new trend within the
evolution and creation debate has produced significant changes to the way some prominent evangelical
scholars read and understand the function of the first chapters of Genesis and consider the traditional
historical identity of Adam. One trend that has become evident among a faction of Evangelical scholars
in recent times is an effort to effect an accommodation between the Bible and worldviews of non-
Evangelicals. This radical shift in the Evangelical protology has profound implications for the gospel
proclamation as defined in the New Testament, and for the understanding of eschatology as described in
the last chapters of the Bible.
_______________________

Adam in the Origins Debate

"The center of the evolution debate has shifted from asking whether we came from earlier
animals to whether we could have come from one man and one woman." 2 This is how Richard N.
Ostling's title from his Christianity Today's article rightly summaries a new trend since 2011 within the
evolution and creation debate that have produce significant changes to the way some prominent
evangelical scholars read and understand the function of the first chapters of Genesis and consider the
traditional historical identity of Adam.
A particular event is presented from members of both sides of the debate and also within the
evangelical community that can be identified as playing a major role for this new shifting, the Human
Genome Project (HGP). 3 According to Peter Enns, this research has "shown beyond any reasonable

1 Richard N. Ostling, "The search for the historical Adam: the center of the evolution debate has shifted from whether

we came from earlier animals to whether we could have come from one man and one woman," Christianity Today 55, no. 6
(2011).
2 Ibid.
3 Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam : What the Bible does and doesn't say about human origins (Grand Rapids, MI:

Brazos Press, 2012), ix. According to Enns evolutionary theory has been around for generations, but in recent years two factors
are bringing the issue back into the public eye. The first is the relentless, articulate, and popular attacks on Christianity by the
New Atheists. Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and others have aggressively promoted evolution and argued that

3
scientific doubt that humans and primates share common ancestry." 4 Likewise, Randall Isaac, executive
director of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) commenting on the scientific challenges presented
to the Adam account in Genesis stated "there was a lot of wiggle room in the past. The human genome
sequencing took that wiggle room away." 5
Among the lead researchers of the HGP is the atheist-turned-Evangelical Christian Francis S.
Collins who holds to both a creationist and Darwinian perspectives and considers that God as Creator
oversaw the process of natural selection, therefore becoming a strong promoter of "theistic evolution"
through the BioLogos Foundation as well as the BioLogos blog. 6
Collins argues that the scientific results of the HGP indicate that today's humans emerged
anatomically from primate ancestors somewhere around 100,000 to 150,000 years ago, from a basic
population of 10,000 individuals instead of two individuals named Adam and Eve. 7
On the other hand, Walter Kaiser observes that affirming to the historic Christian confession of
Adam and Eve has been much easier to do before Collins's work and conversion. 8 Kaiser also considers
that this research presented a "huge paradigm shift for theologians and biblical exegetes to address,
especially in light of the confessional creeds of the Christian Church." 9 As a result of the HGP and its
theological implications, Kaiser observes that, all of a sudden emerged a number of new challenges to
the biblical record that has profound impact on biblical concepts and doctrines such as: Anthropology,
Creation, Soteriology. 10

evolution has destroyed the possibility of religious faith, especially a faith like Christianity, whose sacred writings contain the
story of Adam, the first man created out of dust several thousand years ago. The second factor has been well-publicized advances
in our understanding of evolution, particularly genetics. The Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. See also Walter C.
Kaiser, Jr., "A Literal and Historical Adam and Eve?: Reflections on the work of Peter Enns," Criswell Theological Review 10, no. 2
(2013): 75-76. Dennis R. Venema and Scot McKnight, Adam and the Genome : Reading Scripture after Genetic Science (Grand
Rapids: Brazos Press, 2017). McKnigth makes the following questions involving the HGP. What happens when evolutionary
theory and the Human Genome Project encounter the Bible’s creation narratives? What happens then when we are told that the
best of science today teaches that the DNA characteristic of modern humans could not have come from less than approximately
10,000 hominins? What happens when we are told there were pre-Adamite humans? What about those two humans in Genesis
1– 3? Tim Stafford, The Adam Quest : Eleven scientists who held on to a strong faith while wrestling with the mystery of human
origins, ed. Tim Stafford (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2013), 44,45. In the presentation of Todd Wood, a creationist, the following
comments are presented from Wood: "The launch of BioLogos, a Christian organization begun by the Human Genome Project's
Francis Collins, has changed the terms of the debate among Christians." Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Who was Adam? : A creation
model approach to the origin of man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005), 59. According to this book new insight into human
origins and genetic diversity comes from the Human Genome Project.
4 Enns, The Evolution of Adam : What the Bible does and doesn't say about human origins, ix.
5 Ostling, "The search for the historical Adam: the center of the evolution debate has shifted from whether we came

from earlier animals to whether we could have come from one man and one woman," 24.
6 Kaiser, "A Literal and Historical Adam and Eve?: Reflections on the work of Peter Enns," 76.
7 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God : A scientist presents evidence for belief (New York: Free Press, 2006).
8 Kaiser, "A Literal and Historical Adam and Eve?: Reflections on the work of Peter Enns," 75.
9 Ibid., 76.
10 Ibid.

4
 John Walton's Adam

Old Testament Evangelical scholars of standing such as Tremper Longman III, Bruce Waltke and
John Walton have suggested their openness and the need for a reevaluation of the traditional
understanding of the historical identity of Adam. 11 Among them, John Walton has written extensively
on reading the early chapter of Genesis in their Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context. 12Walton's main
concern in his discussions of Genesis is to show that there is no real contradiction or tension between
science and the Bible because, adds Walton, Christianity affirms the importance of both special
revelation (in the Bible and in Jesus) and general revelation (in the world that God has created and that
science help us understand). However, Walton considers that a perception of conflict between the two is
not uncommon. 13
Yet, Walton attempts to resolve this tension, particularly, his book on The Lost World of Adam
and Eve, by showing that there are "faithful readings of Scripture," which may differ from traditional
readings of the past, but find support in the text and are compatible with its ANE context as well with
some of the more recent scientific discoveries, HGP been one of them.
According to Walton, the HGP is perhaps the most recent advance in science that provides a
basis for investigating what can we learn about human origins. Walton also considers that the perceived
threat posed by the current consensus about human origins is overblown.
Walton's main theses are:
1. There is no material creation on Genesis 1-2; creation has to do with establishing functions
alone.
2. Adam and Eve are Archetypes not Prototypes that mean that they are historical persons but
not the biological progenitors of the human race.

11 Ostling, "The search for the historical Adam: the center of the evolution debate has shifted from whether we came

from earlier animals to whether we could have come from one man and one woman," 26.
12 John H. Walton, Genesis : from biblical text ... to contemporary life, The NIV application commentary (Grand Rapids,

Mich: Zondervan, 2001). See also Idem, The lost world of Genesis One : ancient cosmology and the origins debate (Downers Grove,
Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009). Idem, Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011). Idem, "Human origins
and the Bible," Zygon 47, no. 4 (2012). Matthew Barrett, Four views on the historical Adam, Counterpoints: Bible and theology
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013). John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve : Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate
(Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2015). "THE LOST WORLD OF ADAM & EVE: OLD TESTAMENT SCHOLAR JOHN
WALTON AFFIRMS A HISTORICAL ADAM-BUT SAYS THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT DIMENSIONS TO GENESIS,"
Christianity Today 59, no. 2 (2015).
13 Idem, The Lost World of Adam and Eve : Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate, 13.

5
 Material Origins in ANE and the Bible

Among Walton's main proposals is the argument that the ANE people are not interested in
material origins but in the proper arraignment of the material within an orderly cosmos. As a result of
this, Walton also considers in light of this background that the ancient Israelites would have not
expected a story on material origins either. However, Richard Averbeck strongly disagrees with Walton
and considers that both the ANE and the Bible are concern with material origins. 14 Averbeck also argues
that Walton "goes beyond the limits of the text and speaks in contradiction to explicit statements in it" 15
Nonetheless, Walton's comparison and contrast between the ANE and the Bible creation
accounts received a mix response between those who consider it a good introduction and understanding
of the ANE material relationship with the Bible 16 and others who argue that while it is, also considers
that some of Walton's conclusions and observations concerning the influence of ANE materials on the
Bible accounts of origins, especially those dealing with material creation are not warranted by the
biblical text. 17
Gordon Wenhan rightly states one of the major drawbacks of Walton's analysis of the ANE and
the Bible. He states, "Walton is so concerned to convince his readers that Genesis is an ancient creation
myth that he overemphasizes its similarity to Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts, so that Genesis'
originality is downplayed." 18 Likewise, Trevor Craigen, ask if "no revelation was given to the Israelites

14 Richard E. Averbeck, "The Lost World of Adam and Eve: A Review Essay," Themelios 40, no. 2 (2015).
15 Ibid., 227.
16 Sean M. Cordry, "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate," Perspectives on Science

and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010). Hans-Christof Kraus, "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins
debate," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35, no. 5 (2011). Michael S. Heiser, "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient
cosmology and the origins debate," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53, no. 1 (2010). Barry A. Jones, "The lost world
of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate," Review & Expositor 107, no. 2 (2010). Ernest Lucas, "The lost world of
Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate," Science and Christian Belief 23, no. 1 (2011).
17 Scott A. Ashmon, "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate," Concordia Theological

Quarterly 77, no. 1-2 (2013): 187. Ashmon considers that Walton's view of Genesis 1 goes too far by denying that the ANE is not
concerned with material origins and argues that the ANE cosmogony was concerned with material and functional (and nominal)
origins. See also Douglas J. Becker, "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate," Themelios 34, no.
3 (2009): 358, 359. Becker observes that one possible weakness in Walton's argument is his insistence on reading Gen 1 in purely
functional terms. Becker considers that maybe Genesis is concernened with both material existence and function, perhaps with
emphasis on the latter? Richard S. Hess, "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate," Bulletin for
Biblical Research 20, no. 3 (2010): 435. Hess considers that Walton's argument for functionality in Gen 1 needs further support to
establish his case. Hess also wonders if the functional element is truly central in this text. Brian L. Webster, "The lost world of
Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate," Bibliotheca sacra 168, no. 671 (2011): 357. Webster makes two
important observations regarding Walton's function orientation. First, Walton sometimes overstates this idea to the point that it
sounds like he means that Gen 1 would have been understood as being about the abstract functions without being about material
origins at all. Second, Webster argues that, ANE creation texts may start with unformed substance that gets modified, but they
still have a pattern in which specific things were not there at first, and then were. Webster concludes then that the fact that these
ancient text describe the change of unformed matter into new things does not mean that on the surface they are primarily about
abstract functions rather that material origins.
18 Gordon J. Wenham, "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate," Science and Christian

Belief 25, no. 1 (2013): 73.

6
to change what they were already understanding of the cosmos. Were the words of Moses merely
echoing contemporary Israelite understanding? Or, did these words instruct the Israelites on what they
were to believe in contradistinction to other nations 'origins' literature?" 19

Adam as Archetype not Prototype

Walton's discussion of the historical Adam was also received with a mix response from scholars
with some of them considering his exegetical work on the topic illuminating, 20 "a convincing apologetic
for Christian and scientist to engage in greater dialogue regarding origins" 21 and others who argue that
while Walton has provided a creative and essentially cohesive interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but one
which offers a less-than-convincing case. Presenting only a 'possible' interpretation but not a probable
or better one. 22
However is it important to acknowledge that Walton recognizes that while ancient Israel share
broad ideological commonalities with ANE cosmologies they interact and develop in distinctive ways in
Genesis 1. 23 For example, according to Walton "when cosmologies include the creation of humanity as a
component, archetypal interests dominate." 24 Yet, the archetypal presentation in Genesis has a different
shape entirely. Genesis relates people to God only through his image, thereby receiving a ruling role in
the cosmos and views them as serving deity by caring for the sacred space. 25
Interestingly, while Walton observes, "Another distinctive is that Genesis develops the
archetype in part through a monogenesis perspective rather than a familiar polygenesis approach
observable in ancient Near Eastern texts." 26 He gives no further consideration to this distinctive feature
of the Genesis account.

19 Trevor Craigen, "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate," The Master's Seminary

Journal 21, no. 2 (2010): 261.

20 Daniel De Vries, "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins debate," Calvin Theological

Journal 51, no. 1 (2016): 143-145.

21 Andrea L. Robinson, "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins debate," Science and

Christian Belief 28, no. 1 (2016): 50.

22 Deane Galbraith, "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins debate," Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 58, no. 1 (2015): 168,169. Deane observes that Walton himself states that his concern is to offer a
way to make Genesis 1-3 acceptable for those who hold to modern scientific theories about material origins of the universe and
humanity. Deane also argues that the cumulative effect of so many inventive interpretations by Walton places a large shadow
over his functional emphasis. See also Robert P. Gordon, "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins
debate," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40, no. 5 (2016): 71.
23 Walton, Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, 194.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., 194, 195.
26 Ibid., 195. Walton defines as follows in a footnote: Monogenesis refers to the idea that all of humanity emerged from

a single human pair—ostensibly the general viewpoint in the Hebrew bible (cf. 1 Chronicles 1–9); polygenesis, reflected in the
rest of the ancient Near East, is the view that humans were created en mass—a logical procedure, since the gods desired slave
labor.

7
 Walton's main arguments for his perspective on Adam in his The Lost World of Adam and Eve
begins by a discussion on the occurrences of ʾādām in Genesis 1-5. 27 Walton also argues that because of
the language use in the creation or forming accounts of Adam and Eve, "forming from dust" and "build
from rib", they should be understood as archetypally rater than an explanation of how these two unique
individuals were uniquely formed. 28 Furthermore Walton argues that the ANE accounts on the forming
of humans are archetypical as well and could be reason why this idea is not uncommon to the Israelites
and perhaps the source of it. 29 Additionally, Walton contends that the NT is more interested in Adam
and Eve as archetypes than as biological progenitors. 30 Finally, Walton recognizes that in the NT Adam
and Eve are presented in different ways: Archetypal, illustrative and historical. 31 Therefore, according
to Walton, to contend that some treatment of Adam is archetypal in Genesis is not to suggest that he is
not historical. 32 However it is important to notice that this does not mean that by asserting the
historicity of Adam Walton is considering that Adam is the first human, but the first significant one.
According to Walton only the textual element of the genealogies and the theological element of
sin and redemption argue strongly for a historical Adam and Eve. 33 However, Walton observes that for
them to play these historical roles does not necessarily require them to be the first human beings or the
universal ancestors of all human beings (biologically/genetically). 34 Walton considers that the question
of the historical Adam has more to do with sin's origins that with material human origins. These
distinctions have not been separated in the past, observes Walton, perhaps because there has been no
impetus to do so. But, he concludes that in light of the HGP is has become more important to ask
whether these two distinctions always track together. 35 Therefore, Walton's suggestion is to accept the
historical Adam without making a decision on material human origins. According to him, this has the
advantage of separating scientific elements (material human origins) from exegetical/theological
elements with the result of reducing the conflict between the claims of science and those of Scripture
without compromise. 36

Alternative Evangelicals Proposals for Adam

27 Idem, The Lost World of Adam and Eve : Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate, 58-61.
28 Ibid., 70-81.
29 Ibid., 82-91.
30 Ibid., 92-95.
31 Ibid., 96.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid., 103.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.

8
 Walton's proposal represents a paradigm shifting perspective that moves further from the
conservative evangelical interpretations of Genesis and Adam in particular. Andrew Steinmann
considers Walton's work as evidence of one trend that has become evident among a faction of
Evangelical scholars in recent times to effect an accommodation between the Bible and worldviews of
non-Evangelicas. 37 Particularly in the topic of creation, these scholars, argues Steinmann, "offer
interpretations of Scriptures that allow a more congenial alignment of Genesis and other parts of the
Bible with current scientific consensus." 38 Steinmann observes also, "these scholars want to move
Evangelical views of the meaning of Scripture toward an interpretation of Genesis and other biblical
passages that is comfortable with current evolutionary theory while simultaneously seeking to maintain
a high view of Scriptural authority." 39
Terry Roberson observes a good example of this trend on his comments about the 2013 debate
book by Zondervan Four Views on the Historical Adam. He notices, "All six contributors are professing
evangelicals who claim to believe in inerrancy. Denis Lamoureux believes Adam is a myth and Gregory
Boyd is open to than possibility. John Walton, C. John Collins and Philip Ryken hold to a historical Adam,
but have different views about how many of the details of Genesis 1-3 are literally true. William Barrick
argues for the literal truth and is the only young-earth creationist among the six." 40
Additionally two more authors whom are engage with the Evangelical discussion of origins and
of the Historical Adam are worth of mentioning: Peter Enns and Scot McKnight. Peter Enns considers
that the literary evidence from the ANE supports the notion that the creation stories were not written as
historical accounts. Enns also argues that the Adam story suggest that is not about universal human
origins but Israel's origin and if we understand Adam as proto-Israel some tensions between the Genesis
and evolution are lessened. After all, according to Enns, for ancient Israelites, as well as any other ANE
peoples, origin stories are focused on telling their own story, not everyone else's. These stories are
about self-definition. Therefore, concludes Enns, it is questionable whether the Adam story is even
relevant to the modern question of human origins.
However Enns acknowledges that the greatest Scriptural challenge to the conversation between
Christianity and evolution comes from the prominent role that Adam plays in two of Paul's letters,

37 Andrew Steinmann, "Lost World of Genesis One: John H. Walton, American Evangelicals and Creation," Lutheran

Education Journal, (2012). See also William D. Barrick, "Old Testament Evidence for a Literal, Historical Adam and Eve," in
Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth about Humans Origins (ed. Terry Mortenson; Master Books, 2016). Kindle location 257-
261 Barrick presents the following historical development of for the originis of the Universe debate. He considers that the
debate over the origins of the universe, the earth, and humankind has subtly shifted in recent years. From the 1920s until the
1960s, the origins debate between biblicists and non-biblicists4 focused on evolution vs. creation. From the 1960s until 2000, the
origins debate focused on Noah’s Flood, the length of the creation days, and the age of the creation. From 2000 until the present,
the debate rages on whether the biblical Adam is the historical and genetic parent of all human beings.
38 Steinmann, "Lost World of Genesis One: John H. Walton, American Evangelicals and Creation."
39 Ibid.
40 Terry Mortenson, "Introduction," in Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth about Humans Origins (ed. Terry

Mortenson; Master Books, 2016). Kindle locations 60-64.

9
especially in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-58. In these passages, admits Enns, Paul seems to
regard Adam as the first human being and ancestor of everyone who ever lived and who is theologically
necessary to exist in human history to be personally responsible for alienating humanity from God. Yet,
Enns considers that Paul's motivation for his unique rendering of Adam is to explain how Christ's
Crucifixion and resurrection put all humanity on the same footing and subject of the same universal
dilemma, sin and death which requires the same Savior. But in doing so, argues Enns, Paul assigns to
Adam a largely unique role from other uses in ancient Jewish interpretations of him and it moves well
beyond what Genesis and the Old Testament have to say. Therefore Enns considers that what Paul
assumed about Adam has to be understood in Paul's historical context. Paul was a first-century Jew, and
his approach to biblical interpretation reflects the assumptions and conventions held by other Jewish
interpreters at that time. According to Enns, in Paul's use of the Old Testament one point is virtually
uncontested: Paul does not feel bound by the original meaning of the Old Testament passage he is citing,
especially as he seeks to make a vital theological point about the gospel. If we understand this, argues
Enns, we will see that, whatever Paul says of Adam, that does not settle what Adams means in Genesis
itself, and most certainly no the question of human origins as debated in the modern world.
On the other hand, Scot McKnight who confesses to a prima scriptura approach to truth
considers that Scripture has a context and that part of Scripture reading is to discern the dialogue at
work in the Bible between revelation and culture. 41 Therefore according to McKnight the reader is
challenged to let the Bible be the Bible in its interactive relationship with the ANE. Interestingly,
McKnight does not assume that the author of Genesis 1-3 knew the ANE creation stories or read them, or
was consciously interacting with them but McKnight considers that "these texts express the kinds of ideas
'in the air' when Genesis 1 and 2 were drafted."
According to McKnight a contextual approach to reading Gen 1-3 "immediately establishes that
the Adam and Eve of the Bible are a literary Adam and Eve." But what does McKnight mean by using this
terminology? He states, "Adam and Eve are part of a narrative designed to speak into a world that had
similar and dissimilar narratives." However Mcknight clarifies that making use of this approach does
not mean Adam and Eve are "fictional" and neither they are "historical." Hence, the purpose of this
narrative is to reveal how God wants his people to understand whom humans are and what they are
called to do in God's creation.
McKnight argues that when someone considers Adam and Eve "historical" they imply these
seven characteristics: 1. Two actual persons named Adam and Eve existed suddenly as a result of God's
creation. 2. Those two persons have a biological relationship to all humans beings that are alive today.
3. Their DNA is our DNA. 4. Those two sinned, died and brought death into the world. 5. Those two

41 Venema and McKnight, Adam and the Genome : Reading Scripture after Genetic Science.

10
passed on their sin natures to all human beings. 6. Without their sinning and passing of that nature to all
humans beings, not all humans beings would be in need of salvation. 7. Therefore, if one denies the
historical Adam, one denies the gospel of Salvation.
McKnight proposes his readers that instead of fighting a concordist approach to the historical
Adam they should discover the literary, image-of-God Adam and Eve whom shed light on humans and
human history but not in a historical, biological or genetic sense as modern sciences and history
demands rather they come from the world of ANE and early Judaism. However, McKnight observes, that
an honest reading of the Bible also leads to what he calls "the genealogical Adam" who is rooted in the
literary portrait of Adam of Genesis, from where all Jewish genealogies that take us back to the origins
will take us back to Adam and Eve, Adam as the first man and Eve as the first woman. So, says McKnight,
the literary Adam of Genesis became the genealogical Adam in the biblical story. Yet, again he warns to
not confuse the genealogical Adam with the historical Adam because the "literary-genealogical Adam is a
man with a wax body who can be molded and formed into a variety of Adams."
The next feature added to Adam through the Jewish traditions, according to McKnight, is related
to the role that Adam plays as the paradigm or prototype or archetype of the human choice between
obedience and disobedience. Adam, adds McKnight, is depicted very much as the moral Adam. As a
result, he is not just the first human being (the literary-geneaological Adam) but also the first sinner,
whose sin had an impact on those who followed him.
Finally McKnight observes that he supports the idea together with Joseph Fitzmyer that "Paul
treats Adam as a historical human being, humanity's first parent, and contrast him with the historical
Jesus Christ. So Paul has historicized the symbolic Adam of Genesis." Thus, argues McKnight, if we are
to read the Bible in its context and let the Bible be prima scriptura the readers need to give the more
attention to the various kinds of Adams and Eves the Jewish world knew. However, what is clear to
McKnight is that the Adam that Paul knew is not the historical Adam and Eve known today but the
literary, genealogical, moral, exemplary, and archetypal.
Apart from these important contributors to the Adam's debate there is the recent Dictionary of
Christianity and Science from Zondervan, which claims that virtually all of his contributors are
evangelical Christians, this reference work is presented as a contemporary investigation of the
interaction between Christian faith and science. Two entries in the dictionary deal with Adam and Eve,
the first is titled Adam and Eve (First-Couple View) by Todd S. Beal, which sustains that "the evidence
throughout the Scripture is that Adam and Eve are historical persons created uniquely by God as the
universal ancestors of mankind." 42 It also argues that "the data from the Human Genome Project does
not contradict that: the starting pool of 10,000 humans is an inference from the data— an inference

42 Todd S. Beall, "Adam and Eve (First-Couple View)," in Dictionary of Christianity and Science, ed. Paul Copan et al.

(Grand Rapids: Mich: Zondervan, 2017).

11
made using the evolutionary assumptions of common ancestry, gradual change over long periods of
time, and natural selection." 43
However, the second article titled Adam and Eve (Representative-Couple View) by Tremper
Longman III expresses his view of Adam and Eve in an ambiguous way allowing different possibilities.
There are two ways of thinking about them, says Longman: "perhaps they are a representative couple in
the original population (or even a representative couple tens of thousands of years after the original
population), or perhaps Adam and Eve simply stand for original humanity." 44 Thus Genesis 3 teaches us,
argues Longman, that original humanity (perhaps first the representative couple, perhaps the entirety of
original humanity) then rebelled against God. Longmans argues that this couple represented "what all
humans would do (and actually do do) in their place but also so affected the social system that it is ever
after impossible not to sin." 45 Longman concludes his comments suggesting a revision of our
understanding of the relationship between Christian theology, soteriology in particular, and the
historical Adam and on other hand a renew appreciation for the role that science has to help us
understand the truth claims of the Bible better.46
The inner struggle in Evangelical circles concerning the historical Adam today should be a
cautionary tale for Lutherans argues Andrew Steinmann 47, and perhaps to Seventh-day Adventist I may
add, who may naively assume that all Evangelicals are "on our side" when the topic of God's creation of
the world is brought to the fore. 48

Reactions and Responses to the New Evangelical Perspective on Adam

From this brief survey of the recent Evangelical proposals to understand the historical Adam it
is possible to observe the following common traits:
1. Consider a stronger influence of ANE creation stories to the Biblical account of creation
emphasizing the similarities but ignoring or dismissing their distinctive differences, particularly
Monotheism and Monogenesis. Also, as in the case of John Walton, ignoring or contradicting the textual
evidence from the ANE and the Bible on Material origins in order to pursue their argument for
Functional origins.

43 Ibid.
44 Tremper Longman III, "Adam and Eve (Representative-Couple View)," in Dictionary of Christianity and Science, ed.
Paul Copan et al. (Grand Rapids: Mich: Zondervan, 2017).
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Andrew Steinmann is a Lutheran theologian from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The Lutheran Church-

Missouri Synod has publically declared its belief that God created the world as narrated in Genesis.
48 Steinmann, "Lost World of Genesis One: John H. Walton, American Evangelicals and Creation."

12
 2. Propose a "genre calibration" for the Genesis account, which implies not to consider it as an
historical narrative but a "symbolic" or "metaphorical" text or perhaps just a narrative with important
theological concepts that is neither "fictional" nor "historical." Or to identify and understand it as an
"ancient cosmology" or "ancient biology," which is right in its own terms and context, but not in our
present understanding of science. However, particularly Genesis 2 with his "toledot" 49 feature and the
historical markers that this chapter uses are indicators that "we have entered in true time human
history in time and space." 50
3. Reinterpret, revise or reject the NT use of the historical Adam, particularly Paul that allows his
soteriological framework to remain without the need of an actual historical Adam but alternative ones:
literary, genealogical, archetypical.
4. Reframe the understanding of theological concepts such as Inerrancy, prima Scriptura and
Sola Scriptura that would admit a new understanding of Genesis's nature and function in order to
facilitate the conversation between Scripture and science
5. Affirm a stronger reliability on scientific discoveries, such as the HGP, than Scriptures taking a
harmonizing position favoring science before the Bible. The benefit of the doubt is for science not
Scriptures.
6. Impose a ministerial, missiological and ecclesiological concerns to the need of revising
Christianity's position on the historical Adam that will allow Christians to engage better within the
scientific communities and improve their evangelistic opportunities and remain in the Church.

Protology and its Implications

Conversely, William VanDoodewaard observes that through the first eighteen centuries of
Christian church history exegetes and theologians had a nearly monolithic commitment to a literal
understanding of human origins. 51 According to VanDoodewaard "nearly the entirety of Christendom
held to an Adam and Eve who were the first human pair, without ancestry or contemporaries at their
point of origin." 52 Moreover, VanDoodewaard states that almost every Christian theologian "understood
Adam and Eve as literally created in the manner described in Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:21-22." 53 Even

49 Averbeck, "The Lost World of Adam and Eve: A Review Essay," 237, 238.
50 Ibid., 238. See also
51 William VanDoodewaard, The Quest for the Historical Adam : Genesis, Hermeneutics, and Human Origins (Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2015). Kindle Location 7118

52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.

13
Walton agrees with this historical portrayal when he states, "even very early interpreters undoubtedly
considered Adam and Eve to be the progenitors of the entire human race." 54
Furthermore, as observed by R. Albert Mohler Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary in his preface for VanDoodewaard's book, the theological challenge for this generation of
evangelicals is the question of beginnings. He states, "in terms of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the most
urgent question related to beginnings has to do with the existence of Adam and Eve as the first parents
to all humanity and to the reality of the fall as the explanation for human sinfulness and all that comes
with sin." 55 Yet, others resent that the "question of cosmic and human origins has become completely
muddled with the soteriological question as to whether an "original Adam" is necessary for the biblical
doctrine of salvation." 56 However it is difficult not to work with this assumption if one reads the NT,
especially Paul, and the Church Fathers.

Protology and Eschatology

Even more, VanDoodewaard observes that issues related to protology, such as the quest for the
historical Adam and how it is pursued, impacts a wide range of doctrinal topics, which includes
eschatology. 57
The relationship between the first and last chapters of the Bible is evident. Rightly, Alexander
Desmond observes that for John "this exceptional city is the goal toward which everything in creation is
moving. It is the fulfillment of what God initiated in Genesis 1." 58
Therefore is not an inappropriate idea to think that changes in the understanding of the
traditional Evangelical protology could have effects in their understanding of the eschatology presented
in the last chapters of Revelation. However, what seems to be the logical outcome of denying the
supernatural events of creation and thus those related to same concepts in the new creation as is
presented in the last chapters of revelation is absent in the analysis of those questioning the historicity
of Genesis but affirming their faith in the reality of heaven.

54 Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve : Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate, 181. Walton quotes second-

century B.C. Tobit 8:6, "those two were parents of all humans."
55 VanDoodewaard, The Quest for the Historical Adam : Genesis, Hermeneutics, and Human Origins. Kindle location 148.

See Also Steinmann, "Lost World of Genesis One: John H. Walton, American Evangelicals and Creation." Steinmann argues that
the accomodation of Genesis with evolutinary theory will have unintended consequences for Christian doctrine, especially the
Gospel. This, according to Steinmann, is a question that is often ignored or minimized.
56 August H. Konkel, "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins debate," Perspectives on

Science and Christian Faith 68, no. 1 (2016): 68.

57 VanDoodewaard, The Quest for the Historical Adam : Genesis, Hermeneutics, and Human Origins, Kindle Location

7633-7644.
58 T. Desmond Alexander, "From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch," (Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 132.

14
 For example, Scot McKnight, whose position in the historical Adam has previously been
discussed, argues in his 2015 book The Heaven Promise that "the first nonnegotiable feature of the
Heaven Promise has to do with God. In Heaven, God will be God." 59Among the indicators of this new
reality, McKnight argues that God will be the sustenance for all. 60 As proof for this, McKnight mentions,
"the water of life and the tree of life that sustains the life of kingdom people are 'flowing from the throne
of God and of the Lamb.'" 61 Here, McKnight offers no scientific challenge or any interpretational
proposal is presented to understand these declarations as non-literal or non-historical.
It seems that the new Evangelical protology has not reach yet its logical and consistent outcome
to the soteriological and eschatological ramifications that would impose denying the historicity of
Creation and the historical Adam. However, its interpretational inconsistency provides evidence of a
new trend in theological attitudes among evangelicals that could have an enormous impact on the
historical understanding of the Christian Eschatology as presented in the last chapters of Revelation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, T. Desmond. "From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch." 133.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.
Ashmon, Scott A. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Concordia
Theological Quarterly 77, no. 1-2 (2013): 185-188.
Averbeck, Richard E. "The Lost World of Adam and Eve: A Review Essay." Themelios 40, no. 2 (2015):
226-239.
Barrett, Matthew. Four views on the historical Adam Counterpoints: Bible and theology. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2013.
Barrick, William D. "Old Testament Evidence for a Literal, Historical Adam and Eve." In Searching for
Adam: Genesis & the Truth about Humans Origins, edited by Terry Mortenson: Master Books,
2016.
Beall, Todd S. "Adam and Eve (First-Couple View)." In Dictionary of Christianity and Science, edited by
Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher L. Reese and Michael G. Strauss. Grand Rapids:
Mich: Zondervan, 2017.
Becker, Douglas J. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Themelios
34, no. 3 (2009): 358-359.
Collins, Francis S. The Language of God : A scientist presents evidence for belief. New York: Free Press,
2006.
Cordry, Sean M. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): 227-228.

59 Scot McKnight, The heaven promise : engaging the Bible's truth about life to come, First Edition. ed. (Colorado Springs,

Colorado: WaterBrook Press, 2015), 59.

60 Ibid., 64.
61 Ibid.

15
Craigen, Trevor. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." The Master's
Seminary Journal 21, no. 2 (2010): 259-261.
De Vries, Daniel. "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins debate." Calvin
Theological Journal 51, no. 1 (2016): 143-145.
Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam : What the Bible does and doesn't say about human origins. Grand
Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2012.
Galbraith, Deane. "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins debate." Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 58, no. 1 (2015): 167-169.
Gordon, Robert P. "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins debate." Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 40, no. 5 (2016): 71-72.
Heiser, Michael S. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 53, no. 1 (2010): 160-161.
Hess, Richard S. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Bulletin for
Biblical Research 20, no. 3 (2010): 433-436.
III, Tremper Longman. "Adam and Eve (Representative-Couple View)." In Dictionary of Christianity and
Science, edited by Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher L. Reese and Michael G.
Strauss. Grand Rapids: Mich: Zondervan, 2017.
Jones, Barry A. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Review &
Expositor 107, no. 2 (2010): 267-268.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "A Literal and Historical Adam and Eve?: Reflections on the work of Peter Enns."
Criswell Theological Review 10, no. 2 (2013): 75-82.
Konkel, August H. "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins debate."
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 68, no. 1 (2016): 67-68.
Kraus, Hans-Christof. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 35, no. 5 (2011): 157-158.
"THE LOST WORLD OF ADAM & EVE: OLD TESTAMENT SCHOLAR JOHN WALTON AFFIRMS A
HISTORICAL ADAM-BUT SAYS THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT DIMENSIONS TO GENESIS."
Christianity Today 59, no. 2 (2015): 42-46.
Lucas, Ernest. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Science and
Christian Belief 23, no. 1 (2011): 84-86.
McKnight, Scot. The heaven promise : engaging the Bible's truth about life to come. First Edition. ed.
Colorado Springs, Colorado: WaterBrook Press, 2015.
Mortenson, Terry. "Introduction." In Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth about Humans Origins,
edited by Terry Mortenson: Master Books, 2016.
Ostling, Richard N. "The search for the historical Adam: the center of the evolution debate has shifted
from whether we came from earlier animals to whether we could have come from one man and
one woman." Christianity Today 55, no. 6 (2011): 22-27.
Rana, Fazale, and Hugh Ross. Who was Adam? : A creation model approach to the origin of man. Colorado
Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005.
Robinson, Andrea L. "The lost world of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the human origins debate."
Science and Christian Belief 28, no. 1 (2016): 48-50.
Stafford, Tim. The Adam Quest : Eleven scientists who held on to a strong faith while wrestling with the
mystery of human origins, Edited by Tim Stafford. Nashville: Nelson Books, 2013.
Steinmann, Andrew. "Lost World of Genesis One: John H. Walton, American Evangelicals and Creation."
Lutheran Education Journal, (2012).
VanDoodewaard, William. The Quest for the Historical Adam : Genesis, Hermeneutics, and Human Origins.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2015.
Venema, Dennis R., and Scot McKnight. Adam and the Genome : Reading Scripture after Genetic Science.
Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2017.
Walton, John H. Genesis : from biblical text ... to contemporary life The NIV application commentary.
Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

16
________. The lost world of Genesis One : ancient cosmology and the origins debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP
Academic, 2009.
________. Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
________. "Human origins and the Bible." Zygon 47, no. 4 (2012): 875-889.
________. The Lost World of Adam and Eve : Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate. Downers Grove,
Illinois: IVP Academic, 2015.
Webster, Brian L. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Bibliotheca
sacra 168, no. 671 (2011): 356-359.
Wenham, Gordon J. "The lost world of Genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate." Science
and Christian Belief 25, no. 1 (2013): 72-73.

17