1 As we’ve seen, Peter Enns (and others)
acknowledge that Paul (and others—Jesus, Luke) believed in the historicity of
Adam. For Enns this is not determinative. Paul is a man of his time and the
understanding of his time. Enns
seems to think that on this issue Paul was simply another second-temple Judaism
interpreter who is bounded by the same constraints as any other first-century
person.
With respect
to the Adam story, Paul was hardly the first Jewish interpreter to try to come
to terms with it, and there was considerable diversity in how the story was
read…When viewed in the context of the larger Jewish world of which Paul was a
part, his interpretation is one among several, with nothing to commend it as
being necessarily more faithful to the original.[1]
Mark D. Thompson affirms Paul’s
authority in an important essay: Mark D. Thompson “The Missionary Apostle and
Modern Systematic Affirmation” in The
Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission edited by Peter Bolt
and Mark D. Thompson (IVP, 2000). Although Thompson is not directly dealing with the historicity of Adam his comments have relevance. Thompson's remarks are especially important in answering those who would seek to drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul--no matter what the issue.
Paul’s
apostolic commission demands that we recognize that his letters derive
ultimately from the risen Lord and are thus eschatologically positioned, not
just historically located. As Paul
wrote or dictated his epistles, he was doing much more than simply sharing his
experiences or even using the Old Testament to construct ‘an argument in
support of what on the basis of his missionary experience he thought was
right’. He was fulfilling his
commission as a spokesman for the risen Christ, conveying the address of God to
men and women in the last days.
His epistles to individuals and congregations caught up in the great
eschatological ingathering of the nations are part of the final act of divine
self-revelation before the end.
This is why, for all the incidental and occasional remarks, his words, arguments,
and overall theological perspective cannot be confined to the immediate
situations he faced in the mid-first century Mediterranean region. The continuing relevance and authority
of Paul’s epistles are tied to his particular role in the purposes of God.[2]
It is
Paul’s apostolic commission which sets his epistles apart from other letters in
the first century. As letters of
an apostle, indeed the apostle to the nations, they are placed alongside the
other apostolic documents and continue to exercise a unique and normative role
in the church of Jesus Christ. The
Pauline epistles should not be viewed as simply as some of the earliest
‘unchallengeable instances’ of gospel-speaking. In and through their undoubted particularity the risen
Christ continues to address his people.[3]
What is
more, Paul himself did not see a qualitative difference between his personal
teaching ministry and his letters (2 Thess. 2:15). His words, whether spoken or written, carry the authority of
the one who had commissioned him, an authority that later theological
reflection does not share. Paul’s
letters have an eschatological context and not simply an historical one. These are the words by which the
divinely appointed apostle to the nations addresses men and women in the last
days concerning the gospel and its implications. Whatever other particularity may attach to them, they have a
unique role in the eschatological ingathering of the nations.
Herein
lies a second inadequacy in modern theologies. They frequently fail to realize that Paul writes to our
situation. We too are people of
the last days, and our common eschatological position with his first readers
underlines the truth that these words of Paul are the word of God to us. Of course, the twenty-first century is
significantly different from the first.
The cultural and intellectual challenges to the gospel in our own time
comes from quarters our forbears could hardly have imagined. Conversely, the earliest Christians
faced particular struggles that were later resolved in one way or another. Nevertheless, in the later terms of
God’s eternal purposes we, like they, stand between the ascension and the
promised return of the Lord. The
context of our Christian thought and life is similarly the eschatological
ingathering of the nations. Among
other things this means we must test our proclamation of the gospel, our
reflection upon its implications, and our lives lived as gospel people against
a responsible reading of the words of Scripture, not least among them the words
of Christ’s apostle.[4]
The
apostle Paul did not see himself as providing merely human commentary on the
events of Jesus’ life in the light of the Hebrew Scriptures. Nor was this the understanding of the
other apostles who have contributed to the New Testament (2 Peter 3:14-16; 1
John 4:4-6). Their unique
commission invested their writing—as is did their preaching—with a particular
authority tied to their distinctive role in the eternal purposes of God. In fact, their writing even enabled the
Old Testament to be seen in its proper light as preparation for and predictive
of the Christ who has now been identified as Jesus of Nazareth. The eschatological framework into which
both Testaments are now properly set ensures that the genuine particularity of
each component is respected without insisting that the relevance of each part
of Scripture be confined to its original audience. Furthermore, such a perspective will not allow the
Scriptures to be treated as simply one early voice among many others.[5]
