Pete Enns continued his series on creation in the Old Testament as cosmic battle for the BioLogos Foundation. The latest is titled Adam is Israel. Enns writes

But there is another way. Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins.

Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these readings of Genesis has more “explanatory power.” I (and other biblical scholars) come down on the second option for a number of reasons, some having to do with Genesis itself while others concern other issues in the Bible.

This piece comes on the heels of Tremper Longman’s video on the subject.  I struggle to see how one could subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms ex animo while holding to such a view.  It may be the case that Enns and Longman, both former professors at Westminster Theological Seminary, have experienced significant change in their views since departing from the seminary.  It may also be possible that both men differ from my understanding of what it means to “subscribe” to the standards. At present, I don’t see a third option.

The latter would be a troubling situation.  For me, the issue of subscription is central because the standards presume the historicity of Adam and the system of doctrine demands it.  The parallels Paul makes between the first man Adam and the last man Jesus Christ (Rom 5) form our understanding of much of this theology.  The Covenant of Works, the New Covenant, and the imputation of Adam’s sin to believers, the believer’s sin to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to believers are all predicated on Adam being an historical figure.  To deny the historicity of Adam is a much deeper issue than some suggest.