Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Peter Enns


by 12 Comments

The panting sun

9780802866493

Peter Enns, Ecclesiastes (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary)

This week I’ve been reading one of my favorite books (if not my favorite) in the Hebrew Bible: Ecclesiastes. If you’ve never taken the time to read through the prologue (1:1-11) slowly you’re missing a real literary treat. Qohelet says, “Absolutely absurd! Everything is absurd!” (See Peter Enns, Ecclesiastes, 4, 31-32 for the logic behind this translation) Then the narrator goes on to use proofs/examples from creation: the sun rises, descends, and then goes “panting”(שׁואף)  back to its place to do it again (v. 5); the winds blow to the north and to the south without end (v. 6); the rivers bring water to the sea, but the sea is never satisfied (v. 7); our eyes can never see enough nor can our ears hear enough (v. 8). Qohelet tells us this to remind us that everything is circular. One generation appears on the scene as another leaves the stage (i.e., dies), and this is all there is to it, always (v. 3).

The narrator summarizes Qohelet’s message before Qohelet is introduced: it is all absurd. There is nothing new (vv. 9-10). One day you will die, you will be forgotten, and your children and grandchildren will go about doing the same cyclical things you did until it is their turn to die, be forgotten, and give way for the next generation (v. 11).

Yes, this is a bit pessimistic. Yes, it presents a worldview void of the resurrection of Jesus. Yet I think it is one of the most real, gritty, earthy, existential sections of Scripture. Much like the psalms of lament, so Qohelet (and his narrator) give us permission to have those days when we wonder if there is any meaning in it all. It seems like we wake up Monday, run until Friday, relax for a weekend (for those of us lucky enough to have a M-F job), then repeat, until we die. Sometimes it seems meaningless. Where is it all going? What is the point?!

running_with_sun_protection

The weary sun (click for source)

The image of the sun “panting” as it runs to move back into position to do it all over again makes me smile. It reminds me that we are part of this creation. We move in rhythm with nature and we share its plight. The earth was spinning around the sun before I was born and it will do the same when I decompose in my grave. In some sense this is freeing. Our insignificance should free us from having “messiah syndrome,” while allowing us to find surprising worth in the words of the psalmist (8:4) who wrote, “What is man (and woman!) that you are mindful of him (and her!)? and the son (and daughter!) of man (and woman!) that you care for him (and her!)? We are born, we live, we die, and this seems quite depressing….well, unless there is a resurrection from the dead, but that’s another topic for another time.

About these ads


by 9 Comments

Short Book Review: Peter Enns’ The Evolution of Adam

Enns, Peter, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2012). (Amazon.com)

The following is a short book review of Peter Enns’ The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins. For more thoughts on the book see my “Series of posts on the historicity of Adam”.

Message of the Book:

This book is written by a biblical scholar who is convinced that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for human origins. Peter Enns is a Christian. He affirms the Bible to be authoritative to his life. For many these three sentences are contradictory: How can one affirm evolution, find the Bible to be authoritative to their life, and claim to be a Christian?

Enns’ book has a limited audience. He writes:

“Let me begin by explaining whom I see as my primary audience. I make two assumptions about my readers. The first is that they consider themselves Christian, of whatever tradition or stripe, and so respect Scripture and recognize that what it says must be accounted for somehow. A significant subset of this group is an evangelical readership, particularly in an American context.” (Kindle Locations 144-147)

This should help the reader gain some understanding of Enns’ goal in writing this book. He wants to talk about human origins with evangelicals who refuse to reject the conclusions of scientist, but who don’t want to toss aside the Bible.

Summary of Content:

This book is divided into two main parts. Part 1: Genesis: An Ancient Story of Israelite Self-Definition and Part Two: Understanding Paul’s Adam. This should make one thing obvious: it is not an exhaustive study of all aspects of the conversation related to the historicity of Adam. Rather, Enns focuses on two areas most troubling to evangelicals: How to interpret Genesis and how to interpret Paul’s Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.

In Chapter 1: Genesis and the Challenges of the Nineteenth Century Enns explores the “three forces” that reshaped how we understand our history: natural science, biblical criticism, and biblical archaeology. Of course, these areas of study have questioned the traditional understanding of things like human origins, the Great Flood, the formation of the “Books of Moses” and much more. Many readers may be familiar with these areas of study, but if not, Enns’ survey proves helpful.

In Chapter 2: When Was Genesis Written? Enns introduces readers to scholarly discussions regarding the formation of the Pentateuch and how that impacts the more conservative view that Moses wrote Genesis-Deuteronomy. He shows how these books were edited and evolved over time as a mean of Israel’s “self-definition” post-exile.

In Chapter 3: Stories of Origins from Israel’s Neighbors the reader is shown how Genesis fits into a particular ancient genre sharing ideas about primordial time with works like the Enuma Elish. The reader is shown that Genesis wasn’t written in a vacuum, but it provides a new monotheistic twist on old polytheistic ideas. The Great Flood as depicted in Genesis, Gilgamesh, and Atrahasis is discussed, so is the differences between the creation narrative of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Chapter 4: Israel and Primordial Time explores how Israel understood origins in the context of the ancient world. The reader will see how these works of literature explain Israel’s view of God. The story of Adam is read as Israel’s story in primordial time and Enns compares and contrast Adam and Israel (creation, land, law, rebellion, exile, etc). The idea of creation as a temple (see also John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One) is given some attention too.

Chapter 5: Paul’s Adam and the Old Testament begins section two. Paul’s Adam matters to Christian theology, so Enns gives Paul much attention. This means understanding Paul’s world and thought matrix. Enns examines Adam in the Wisdom tradition as a way of preparing the reader to think afresh about Adam then he moves into Chapter 6: Paul as an Ancient Interpret of the Old Testament. He shows that usually Christians do not struggle with the idea that Paul speaks truthfully through the lens of his own culture and worldview (e.g., his cosmology), but that this changes when it comes to the subject of human origins. He writes:

“It is my experience that Christians by and large have little trouble with what I am saying here in principle, but all bets are off when this logic is applied to Paul’s understanding of human origins—which is where his take on Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 comes into the picture.” (Kindle Locations 2281-2283)

Enns sets the table by looking at hermeneutics post-exile and the formation of Scripture during that period. Then he shows how various Jewish interpreters approached Adam and how Adam plays different roles for different people depending on their message. This is what Paul does as well, though Paul’s message is that Christ has been risen from the dead. Paul understands the story of Adam through the story of Jesus. Enns gives much attention in this chapter to how Paul interprets and applies Scripture using a variety of case studies. The overall conclusion is this:

“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.” (Kindle Locations 2456-2457)

In Chapter 7: Paul’s Adam he provides his reason for arguing that though Paul did see Adam as the first man, and though Paul did interpret Adam through Jesus, Adam’s historicity does not negate the realities of sin, evil, and death that we see every day, that the resurrection of Jesus is said to have conquered.

Enns explores Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 to exegete Paul’s theological message. Whether one accepts Enns’ overall argument depends on this chapter more than any other. It all hinges on whether we can say Paul was theologically correct about Jesus conquering sin, evil, and death, and that Paul uses his understanding of Adam to tell that story, but Adam’s historicity doesn’t determine the truthfulness of Paul’s understanding of what Christ accomplished.

In the Conclusion Enns sets forth nine thesis statements for the reader to consider.

“Thesis 1: Literalism is not an option.”

“Thesis 2: Scientific and biblical models of human origins are, strictly speaking, incompatible because they speak a different “language.” They cannot be reconciled, and there is no ‘Adam’ to be found in an evolutionary scheme.”

“Thesis 3: The Adam story in Genesis reflects its ancient Near Eastern setting and should be read that way.”

“Thesis 4: There are two creation stories in Genesis; the Adam story is probably the older and was subsumed under Genesis 1 after the exile in order to tell Israel’s story.”

“Thesis 5: The Israel-centered focus of the Adam story can also be seen in its similarity to Proverbs: the story of Adam is about failure to fear God and attain wise maturity.”

“Thesis 6: God’s solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expresses that fact in the biblical idiom available to him.”

“Thesis 7: A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors—whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment.”

“Thesis 8: The root of the conflict for many Christians is not scientific or even theological, group identity and fear of losing what it offers.”

“Thesis 9: A true rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not simply adding evolution to existing theological formulations.”

(Kindle Location 3125-3326)

These are bold statement that aim to move our conversation forward. There is no doubt that many will reject Enns’ overall argument. I think he expects this. Our real question is whether or not the conversation is worth having at all. Do we maintain our traditional view of Adam in the face of modern science? Do we abandon the Bible’s authority in our lives because it does not align with science? Do we aim to create a third way that aligns the Bible and science? Where do we go from here?

Concluding Thoughts:

I finished this book with the conclusion that the Gospel does not depend on the historicity of Adam, but that doesn’t mean that this discussion is meaningless. A lot has to change for conservative Christians if they decide to abandon the historicity of Adam. Debates over everything from the nature of Scripture, to hermeneutics, to worldview, to gender roles, to eschatology can be impacted by one’s understanding of Adam (and Eve). If you are not satisfied with the “Bible v. Science” paradigm this book may be a useful tool in beginning to reassess how you think about a lot of things.


by 8 Comments

Series of posts on the historicity of Adam.

I spent several months reading and writing notes on John Collins’ Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care and Peter Enns’ The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins. It went far longer than I expected it to go! Let me emphasize that these posts are notes–nothing more, nothing less. I placed them on this blog so that readers could interact with me if desired. Reading these notes does not (1) give readers of this blog a sufficient picture of these books and (2) does not provide excuse for dismissing the arguments of these authors. What you have here are the thoughts of Brian LePort, not C. John Collins and not Peter Enns.

If you decide to read these books please feel free to come to my blog, leave your thoughts and reflections, and maybe we can discuss things further. I hope these post cause people to be interested in these books.

Pt. 1- Series Introduction

Pt. 2- Enns’ Introduction

Pt. 3- Collins’ Introduction

Pt. 4- Collins on Importance

Pt. 5- Enns on Christianity and Science

Pt. 6- Collins on Adam and Christian Worldview

Pt. 7- Collins on the Origins of Evil

Pt. 8- Enns on Interpreting Adam and Eve

Pt. 9- Enns on Modern Scholarship and Hermeneutics

Pt. 10- Enns on Adam and Israel’s Post-Exile Identity

Pt. 11- Collins on Adam in the Book of Genesis

Pt. 12- Collins on Adam in the Hebrew Bible

Pt. 13- Collins on Adam in Jewish Literature

Pt. 14- Collins on Adam in the Gospels

Pt. 15- Collins on Adam in the Pauline Epistles and NT in General

Pt. 16- Enns on Genesis and Other Creation Narratives

Pt. 17- Enns on Genesis and Other Creation Narratives (Cont.)

Pt. 18- Enns on Israel’s Second Creation Story

Pt. 19- Enns on Israel and Primordial Time

Pt. 20- Enns’ Final Thoughts on Adam and Genesis

Pt. 21- Enns on Paul’s Ancient Context

Pt. 22- Enns on Paul’s Interpretive Culture

Pt. 23- Enns on Various Adams of Jewish Interpreters

Pt. 24- Enns on Paul and His Bible

Pt. 25- Enns on Paul’s Adam


by 10 Comments

Collins and Enns on the “historicity” of Adam (Pt. 25): Paul’s Adam

Update: I realize that some may not have followed this series so there may be some confusion about the the aims of this book. I will be posting a short review in a couple of days but let me make this important point: Enns writes for evangelicals who (A) want to continue to affirm a high view of Scripture yet who (B) find no reason to reject the majority view of scientist studying human origins that there was no “first man and woman” as depicted in the Book of Genesis. One can reject these two ideals, but then one must realize that this book will likely disappoint because either (A) you’ll think Enns is trying to preserve the Bible when it should be cast aside or (B) you’ll think Enns gives too much credence to modern scientific views of human origins. For a good example of how some who affirm both (A) and (B) are trying to “move forward” in this discussion see David Williams’ post “Who Needs a Historical Adam?”

In Pt. 24 I shared some thoughts from Peter Enns on Paul as an interpreter of his Bible. Today’s post surveys Enns’ understanding of Paul’s understanding of Adam. 

In Chapter 7: Paul’s Adam Enns begins with this claim:

“If Adam had stayed within the confines of Genesis 2–5, there would be far less difficulty in synthesizing evolution and Christianity—a “historical Adam” would likely be no more crucial to Christian faith than a literal talking snake or a literal garden paradise. The symbolic nature of the garden story would be even clearer if we see Adam as a proto-Israel figure, not the first human…” (Kindle Locations 2774-2777)

BUT

“Paul…presents Adam as the first human and responsible for the problem of universal sin and death that Jesus came to eradicate. This is why the question of a historical Adam is understandably so important for many Christians and why digressing from a historical Adam can generate great concern.” (Kindle Locations 2777-2779)

I think Enns is correct. When I read Genesis 1-11 I read ancient Israelites explaining their place in this world through their own cosmology and mythology. It is a perfect precursor to Abraham–the real, important figure in the Book of Genesis. Yet Paul creates trouble!

Enns evaluates Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 44-49. Adam brings death and condemnation. He makes his descendants into sinners. He represents limited, physical, dying humans.

Enns does not side-step the reality that Paul thought of Adam as a real, historical person. He writes:

“At the outset we should admit that Adam is a vital theological and historical figure for Paul. Without question, Adam plays a significant theological role for Paul. But Adam’s theological significance cannot be distanced from Paul’s assumption that Adam was the first man created by God. To be sure, Adam is more than merely a historical figure for Paul, but one of penetrating theological significance.” (Kindle Locations 2788-2791)

So yes, Adam is theologically important, but that is because Paul affirms that he was a real person in history. In other words, his figurative representation doesn’t mean that Paul thought of him as merely a fictional character.

When interpreting Paul Enns cautions that we must remember that he (1) presumes a context that is shared with his readers but lost to us; (2) there are grammatical aspects of Paul’s letters that make it difficult to understand his point; and (3) he is a passionate, pastoral writer rather than a systematic thinker and he did not write with a focus on “…nonnative speakers two thousand years removed from his moment in time, hanging on his every syllable.” (Kindle Locations 2826-2827)

But what does appear clear is that Paul’s Adam was unique. This Adam shares a lot with the Adam of Genesis, and the Adam of other interpreters, but “…distinct portrayal of Adam reflects his Christ-centered handling of the Old Testament in general…In other words, Paul’s understanding of Adam is shaped by Jesus, not the other way around.” (Kindle Locations 2834-2837)

Paul interprets Adam Christocentrically.

Enns asks whether or not the denial of the historicity of Adam ruins Paul’s argument about Christ. Enns says, “no”. He states that, “The way forward, I believe, is to recognize the profound historical (not simply symbolic) truths in Paul’s words that remain despite his view of human origins.”  (Kindle Locations 2847-2848)

Can we discuss sin and death without a real Adam?

Death remains universal, even if the symbol of Adam never existed. So Paul’s concern about death remains grounded. Enns writes:

“Admitting the historical and scientific problems with Paul’s Adam does not mean in the least that the gospel message is therefore undermined. A literal Adam may not be the first man and cause of sin and death, as Paul understood it, but what remains of Paul’s theology are three core elements of the gospel:

“The universal and self-evident problem of death

“The universal and self-evident problem of sin

“The historical event of the death and resurrection of Christ”

(Kindle Locations 2863-2869)

According to Enns all that we really lose is “Paul’s culturally assumed explanation for what a primordial man had to do with causing the reign of death and sin in the world.” (Kindle Locations 2870-2871) Death and sin remain whether or not Adam existed. Resurrection happened if Jesus rose from the dead whether or not Adam existed.

What does this do to the doctrine of “original sin”? Enns appeals to Lutheran theologian G.L. Murphy who explained that we may have different understandings of original sin, but we can observe the “sin of origin”–that every human is born into a world tainted by human evil: “Murphy and others counsel that we must remain open on the ultimate origins of why all humans are born in sin (original sin) while resting content in the observation that all humans are born in sin (sin of origin).” (Kindle Locations 2892-2893)

There is much more to this final chapter, but for my purposes (thinking about the historical or non-historical Adam) I think it is time to close this series. What I will do is provide a short book review on both Enns’ and Collins’ works. Then I recommend that if you were provoked by my (excessive) series of posts you go purchase and read these books.


by 3 Comments

Collins and Enns on the “historicity” of Adam (Pt. 24): Paul and his Bible.

In Pt. 23 (yes, I know this series has become obnoxiously long) I shared Enns’ survey of Jewish interpretations of Adam. This provided a thought matrix within which we can place Paul. But we can’t understand Paul by studying his contemporaries alone. We must ask how Paul himself approached studying Scripture.

In The Evolution of Adam Enns makes the following points about Paul as an interpreter of Scripture:

(1) Paul is not “bound” to the original meaning of a text, “especially as he seeks to make a vital theological point about the gospel.” (Kindle Locations 2456-2457)

(2) “Paul was an ancient interpreter, schooled in the ways of Second Temple Judaism (Phil. 3:4–6; Acts 22:3). How he handles his Bible is a reflection of the interpretive conventions of his day.” (Kindle Locations 2459-2461)

(3) “Paul’s use of the Old Testament is also driven by his conviction that now, in the risen Messiah, God has spoken the final word in his plan to save humanity. This final word in Christ is understood by Paul as the necessary concluding chapter to Israel’s story.”  (Kindle Locations 2468-2470)

So Paul reads Scripture not as a modern exegete but as an ancient interpreter who affirms the Gospel as a presuppositional lens through which he understands the text.

Enns provides several case studies in this chapter: Isaiah 49:8 in 2 Corinthians 6:2; Abraham’s “seed” in Galatians 3:16, 19; Habakkuk 2:4 in Galatians 3:11; Isaiah 59:20 in Romans 11:26-27; and Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4. I will let you read those text for yourself (and Enns’ commentary if you have the book), but I think Enns makes an obvious point: Paul didn’t use the “historical-grammatical/critical” hermeneutic advocated by moderns. That should be widely accepted.

Enns ends this chapter with a discussion on how we have the Bible and the “interpreted Bible”. Often we convolute our interpretations or readings of the Bible with what the text says. This is true of ancients as well. Traditions find there way into our understanding of the text (Enns provides examples like 2 Timothy 3:8; Galatians 3:19; 1 Corinthians 10:3-4. Paul was part of a tradition and this leads Enns’ to state:

“It is clear to biblical scholars that Paul’s understanding of the Old Testament reflects his Jewish cultural context. What makes Paul so interesting, and sometimes difficult to read, is that his use of the Old Testament is informed both by the ancient conventions we are looking at here and his conviction that the crucified and risen Jesus requires Israel’s story to be reinterpreted. Rather than a modern academic giving a neutral interpretation of the Old Testament, when we read Paul we must learn to expect from him an interpretive challenge. Our task as modern Christian readers is to understand Paul’s ways.” (Kindle Locations 2749-2754)

Now let’s see how Enns applies this to Paul’s understanding of Adam. That’s what I will share in tomorrow’s second to last post!


by 6 Comments

Collins and Enns on the ‘historicity’ of Adam (Pt. 23): Various Adams of Jewish interpreters.

In Pt. 22 I shared Enns’ thoughts on Paul’s interpretive culture. In this post we survey the various “Adams” of Jewish interpreters as presented by Enns.

Wisdom of Solomon:

According to Enns this Adam is “delivered from his transgressions,” unlike Paul’s Adam who appears to be punished for them. Death is the fault of Satan, not Adam. Enns writes:

According to 2:23–24, death entered the world “through the devil’s envy,” not through Adam’s disobedience. (Equating the serpent with the devil is itself an interpretive move, since in Genesis the serpent is simply a cunning creature.)” (Kindle Locations 2374-2375)

Life of Adam and Eve:

Adam is created in the image of God and Michael commands the angels to worship him. Satan rebels against this idea attacking Adam, but God aims to protect him.

Sirach:

Enns writes:

“This author portrays Adam not as a victim or the font of human misery but the most exalted figure in all of creation, yet as one who also lacks wisdom, is mortal, comes from the earth, and returns there. Sirach places no blame on Adam for the misery of humanity. Rather, this author blames Eve for death: “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die” (25:24) (Kindle Locations 2385-2387).”

Jubilees:

Enns argues that Adam is presented as a priest and that the narrative is shaped by “Israel’s cultic life.”

Philo:

Adam is created perfect, but each subsequent generation brings decline. There is no “Fall,” but when Eve is created Adam seeks “pleasure” and therefore his relationship with God declines.

2 Esdras:

Enns says that this book comes close to the view of Paul. He writes:

This book addresses the present and future status of Israel by explaining the predicament they find themselves in presently: subject to the Romans, with the Jerusalem temple lying in ruins. The answer is found in what happened to the first man, Adam. His transgression affected all of humanity by introducing death, although individuals are still responsible for their own moral path (3:4–27). Among all the nations, this author tells his readers, God has chosen Israel eventually to reestablish the dominion that would have been conferred on all humanity if Adam had not transgressed (6:53–59). Israel is true humanity (Kindle Locations 2415-2419).”

2 Baruch:

This book shares views similar to Paul’s as well. Enns writes:

“This author sees Adam as the cause of everyone’s “corruption” (= death; 23:4; 48:42–43), but Adam is not the cause of anyone else’s sin. Humans imitate Adam when they sin and so have personal moral responsibility to decide whether to follow in Adam’s footsteps (Kindle Locations 2433-2435).”

What do these various and mixed interpretations of Adam say about Paul?

“Paul may not make Adam into a priestly figure, but he too is driven in his exegesis by what he has experienced as fundamental to the new phase in God’s plan: God’s purposes are now fully revealed in the crucified and risen Messiah. Paul’s point is central to Christianity, but that does not mean his use of Adam stands alone as a straight reading of the story. Ancient interpreters were not neutral observers of the text—which is often considered to be a model of biblical interpretation in the modern world (Kindle Locations 2397-2401).”

And:

“Paul’s Adam is a vehicle by which he articulates the gospel message, but his Adam is still the product of a creative handling of the story. In that sense, Paul’s handling of Adam is hermeneutically no different from what others were doing at the time: appropriating an ancient story to address pressing concerns of the moment. That has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the gospel  (Kindle Locations 2447-2450).”

In my next post I will finish these preliminary discussions by surveying how Enns views Paul as an interpreter of Scripture then we can get to Enns’ interpretation of Paul.

 


by 3 Comments

Collins and Enns on the “historicity” of Adam (Pt. 21): Paul’s ancient context

It is time for me to resume my juxtaposition of C. John Collins’ Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care and Peter Enns’  The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins. I paused for a while, but the previous twenty (!) posts can be accessed through this portal here.

In parts 12 and 13 I surveyed Collins’ reading of Second Temple Jewish literature as it discusses Adam. Now it is time to do the same with Enns. Collins seems to be convinced that Adam’s appearance in this literature is further support that Paul believed something like the traditional view of Adam and therefore we ought to do the same. Enns comes from a different angle. He seeks to show how the worldview and hermeneutics of that time are different from our own. Paul is different from us and he lived in their world, not ours. Other Jewish interpretations of Adam don’t establish his historicity. Rather, they establish Paul’s context. As Enns writes: “However much he was guided by the Spirit of God to proclaim his gospel, as Christians confess, he was guided by the Spirit not as an empty vessel but as a first-century Jew (Kindle Locations 2254-2255).” Also, “Paul engaged his Scripture against the backdrop of hermeneutical conventions of his day, not ours, and we must understand Paul in that context  (Kindle Locations 2296-2297).”

Enns discusses the Jewish worldview and where Paul fits, including ideas like a threefold heavenly realm and other aspects of ancient cosmology. Paul is an ancient and he views the universe as an ancient. Therefore, we should not expect scientific accuracy from Paul regarding matters of science, human origins, cosmology, and so forth.

Enns writes, “It is my experience that Christians by and large have little trouble with what I am saying here in principle, but all bets are off when this logic is applied to Paul’s understanding of human origins—which is where his take on Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 comes into the picture (Kindle Locations 2281-2283).”

This is true: we are OK with Paul telling us the truth through a fallible cosmology, but Christians tend to be more reserved when it is suggested that he did the same through a fallible anthropology.

Next, I will share Enns description of Jewish hermeneutics post exile and Paul’s interpretive paradigm.