Book Summary of Four Views on the Historical Adam
Emma Perry
OBST 651 Creation, Cosmology, and Genesis
November 14, 2024
ii
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1 (Evolutionary Creation View) ................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 (Archetypal Creation View) ....................................................................................... 3
Chapter 3 (Old-Earth Creation View) ........................................................................................ 5
Chapter 4 (Young-Earth Creation View) ................................................................................... 6
Pastoral Reflection (Gregory A. Boyd) ....................................................................................... 8
Pastoral Reflection (Philip G. Ryken) ......................................................................................... 8
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 9
1
Introduction
This book summary of Matthew Barrett and Ardel B. Caneday’s book Four Views on the
Historical Adam will follow the same layout as the text by breaking the sections into four
chapters and two pastoral reflections by different authors. The introduction begins by discussing
why it is important for a modern-day Christian to have an advanced understanding of Adam’s
historicity. While this shows conflict between scholars, each view will shed light on the truth.
Barrett and Caneday give historical reflections on creation from different worldviews.
Martin Luther and John Calvin both believed that the world was created in six twenty-four-hour
days. In contrast, other scientific naturalists such as Darwin and Thomas Huxley believed in
evolution. Because of this conflict, arguments arose about the origin of Adam and his role in
creation. While evangelists can agree that God did create the universe, they still disagree about
the how and when.1 Next, the authors give an in-depth look at the main topic and provide the
reasoning for each side of these arguments. Following these historical sections, Barrett and
Caneday preview the four views that will be discussed and provide a series of questions each
scholar will use to guide their discussion.
Chapter One (Evolutionary Creation View)
The first view, written by Denis O. Lamoureux, claims that Adam never existed, and this
should not impact the core Christian beliefs or offend any believers.2 In his introduction, he
references an article published in Christianity Today that says the discussion of a real “Adam” is
doubted by those who believe in biblical evolution. His perspective is that of the biblical
1 Matthew Barrett and Ardel B. Caneday, Four Views on the Historical Adam (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2013), 20.
2 Ibid., 37.
2
evolutionist who does not believe in Adam, so he reiterates that he is still a Christian and gives
background on his personal faith and its relation to science. He is both an unapologetic
evangelical theologian and evolutionary biologist.3
The term “evolutionary creationist” has a lengthy description but is focused more on the
second word than the first. “Scientific concordism” is when Christians assume that the facts of
science align with the Bible and that God revealed to biblical writers scientific theories that had
not yet been discovered.4 It is easy to insert modern ideas into the Bible to make the text more
relatable, but this is not the correct way to interpret scripture.5 Lamoureux summarizes his
answer to the proposed question, “To conclude, we can now return to the question posed in the
title of this section, ‘Is scientific concordism true?’ My answer is ‘no.’ The structure and origin
of the universe presented in the Bible do not align with the scientific facts.”6 The idea that Adam
does not exist originates in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 demonstrates how deeply God cares for
humankind but also that Adam could not have existed due to the concept of ancient
conceptualization of human origins.7 Lamoureux ends his chapter with a discussion of how
human evolution relates to Christians today and why one should not be discouraged by the view
that Adam did not exist.
John H Walton disagrees with most points due to leaps in logic and the emphasis on the
treatment of the New Testament and genealogies.8 C John Collins mostly disagrees with how
3 Ibid., 39.
4 Ibid., 45.
5 Ibid., 47.
6 Ibid., 55.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., 66-69.
3
Lamoureux over-simplifies and poses questions with only two possibilities instead of looking
into other alternatives.9 William D. Barrick explains that the evolutionary view can be
destructive to young believers by showing doubt in part of scripture, which can cast doubt on the
whole Bible.10 Lamoureux responds by saying he appreciates the responses of Walton and
Collins but is upset by the remarks of Barrick.11
Chapter 2 (Archetypal Creation View)
John H. Walton authors the second chapter with his archetypal perspective, in which he
states his view, “My view is that Adam and Eve were real people in a real past; they were
individual persons who existed in history. The basis for this comes from the Old Testament
where Adam becomes part of a genealogy, and in the New Testament a real event featuring real
people is the clearest reading to explain the entrance of sin and death.”12 He believes that Adam
and Eve are archetypes, which means they represent humanity.13 Walton’s understanding of the
roles of humanity, Adam, and Eve as archetypes is evident in Genesis 1 and 2 and Ancient Near
East (ANE) archetypes.14 The image of God is represented through mankind, which differs from
ANE creation myths, and the name “Adam” is the Hebrew word for “humankind,” which shows
that this may not have been his actual name but more an archetypal representation of humans.15
9 Ibid., 72.
10 Ibid., 80.
11 Ibid., 87.
12 Ibid., 89.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., 90-99.
15 Ibid., 90.
4
Walton next discusses the New Testament and Adam and Eve's role. He focuses on each
passage that mentions these two humans and why it supports his archetypal view. He concludes
this section by explaining these roles cohesively, “Furthermore, the archetypal role of Jesus for
humanity does not require his biological descent or ancestry with each human. If Adam’s
archetypal role is comparable, we would see no need for it to be founded in biological descent.”16
Literary issues raise the question of whether Adam and Eve are the only humans on
earth.”17 Walton is showing that the second account of Adam and Eve may not be addressing the
Genesis account but instead is sequential, which concludes that the first account, seeing them as
the first or only people, is weakened.18 Walton summarizes his points, “Finally, this view offers a
path to integrating faith and science as it suggests through a close reading of Scripture as an
ancient text that the Bible may not be making the scientific claims that many have thought…”19
Denis O. Lamoureux responds to this with a clear respect and appreciation for Walton.
His appreciation for ancient science is evident, but overall, he disagrees with the idea that Adam
and Eve could be real people.20 C. John Collins also disagrees with Walton’s theory that while
Adam and Eve did exist, they were not necessarily the first humans or the start of humankind.21
William D. Barrick emphasizes that the literary elements in Genesis show that the author was
16 Ibid., 108.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., 112.
19 Ibid., 114-118.
20 Ibid., 125.
21 Ibid., 126.
5
trying to show a literal meaning behind the words.22 Walton responds to these accounts by saying
they are only pointing out differences in viewpoints, not refuting his own.23
Chapter Three (Old-Earth Creation View)
The author of chapter three, C. John Collins, shows appreciation for the literal
perspective of Genesis. This view is the traditional Christian view that most are familiar with and
have been taught for hundreds of years. What is “history” in terms of definition and relation to
Genesis accounts?24 Collins explains this with three meanings. A historical account does not
eliminate the use of imaginative details.25 Second, it does not mean that the account is free of any
bias, which would be impossible because a human wrote the words.26 Finally, it does not mean
that the account is written in sequential order.
The next point views Genesis 1-11 as a unit and transitional piece to the rest of the
book.27 ANE stories help solidify this point. Humankind is traced back to one source and is
written plainly for Christians to understand.28 Once this is established, the focus can be turned to
Adam and Eve for Collins’ third point. He summarizes the biblical storyline and then gives
examples from both the New Testament and Old Testament.
Collins brings science into the conversation, discussing DNA and attributes that are
unique to humans. God is evident in ancient art and philosophy, which can be linked to human
22 Ibid., 135.
23 Ibid., 139.
24 Ibid., 146.
25 Ibid., 148.
26 Ibid., 148.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., 153.
6
creation in God’s image.29 The fifth point Collins makes questions how much freedom and what
limitations humans have in interpreting the passages from a historical and a scientific approach.30
Collins sees humans as more than part of a natural process; Adam and Eve were real.31
The response from Denis Lamoureux shows that both he and Collins, while differing in
views on Adam, have agreement on the foundations of Christian formation, which is ultimately
the more important matter for Christians.32 The main differences between John H. Walton and
Collins are the focus on methodology in their theorizing and how ANE stories are used to further
prove their points.33 William D. Barrick finds the biggest disagreement in how he and Collins
date the creation account.34 In Collins’ final statements, he emphasizes the point that Genesis
does appear to trace back all humankind to one source.35
Chapter Four (Young-Earth Creation View)
The final view, presented by William D. Barrick is like the previous in many ways, but
deviates from science completely and instead sees the Holy Spirit as being the divine author of
Genesis.36 The perspective here, also referred to as the traditional view, rejects the idea of an
29 Ibid., 166.
30 Ibid., 168.
31 Ibid., 171.
32 Ibid., 176.
33 Ibid., 184.
34 Ibid., 188.
35 Ibid., 194.
36 Ibid., 197.
7
earth that is billions of years old.37 Christians should believe what the biblical authors believed.38
Barrick explains that the first chapter of Genesis, when it refers to creation in terms of days, is a
literal representation of time passed.39 In Genesis 2, the Genesis author intended for Adam and
Eve to be viewed as the parents of all mankind and that they are the only two in existence until
they have children.40 Genesis 3 talks about the fall of man, which began with the first humans
early in their existence.41 In Genesis 4, the history of sin is continued into mankind’s rebellion,
and Genesis 5 includes a genealogy.42
The remainder of the Old Testament references Adam and his genealogy, the garden of
Eden, and the creation and fall of man. In the New Testament, there are many connections
between Adam and Christ, and the topic of sin is covered in depth. Barrick summarizes all this
evidence with a single implication, “Denial of the historicity of Adam, like denial of the
historicity of Christ’s resurrection, destroys the foundations of the Christian faith.”43
In response, Denis O. Lamoureux explains that even though he once thought in the sense
of young earth, even as he moved away from that, he did not go immediately to the evolutionary
view.44 John H. Walton lists ten categories in which he disagreed with Barrick’s methods and
37 Ibid., 199.
38 Ibid., 201.
39 Ibid., 205.
40 Ibid., 211.
41 Ibid., 213.
42 Ibid., 215.
43 Ibid., 223.
44 Ibid., 228.
8
rhetoric.45 C. John Collins explains that he agrees with the majority of Barrick’s argument but
does find that he oversimplifies the literal nature of the Bible.46 To conclude, Barrick reminds
readers that he does not have a view of concordism, “no concord exists between evolutionary
science and divine revelation. The cause for the lack of concord does not reside in the Bible’s
ancient understanding of science.”47
Pastoral Reflection (Gregory A. Boyd)
Gregory A. Boyd uses his personal experience and studies to indicate his view as one that
sees Adam as a historical figure.48 He also makes it clear that the historicity of Adam should not
impact the faith of a Christian because this argument is not essential to spiritual formation.49 To
effectively combine science and scripture, there must be a level of flexibility to allow readers to
remember that their faith is not dependent on answering these profound questions, which allows
us to welcome others into the fold of Christianity.50
Pastoral Reflection (Philip G. Ryken)
Philip G. Ryken shares the other author’s interests in the historicity of Adam and Eve,
“Adam is a real person of history, and therefore, the events of his life are causes that produce
genuine effects in the world. His story explains what happens because it tells us what
45 Ibid., 236.
46 Ibid., 244.
47 Ibid., 254.
48 Ibid., 255.
49 Ibid., 260.
50 Ibid., 266.
9
happened.”51 Scriptural evidence may support that Adam is a real person, but that should not stop
scholars from interpreting science alongside scripture.52 Ryken believes that the first book of the
Bible is crucial to one’s faith because it represents the historicity of Adam and is referenced late
in scripture numerous times.53 In closing, he explains how one’s faith is impacted by Adam,
“Since at many points denying Adam’s existence appears to be inconsistent with Christian
orthodoxy, those who hold this view have the burden to prove how it strengthens rather than
weakens an evangelical commitment to the universality of sin and guilt, the possibility of
justification, the hope of resurrection, and other necessary doctrines of the Christian faith.”54
51 Ibid., 268.
52 Ibid., 269.
53 Ibid., 270.
54 Ibid., 279.
10
Bibliography
Barrett, Matthew, and Ardel B. Caneday. Four Views on the Historical Adam. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2013.
