Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

[Job 33:6]

So that's the problem. . .parables are not symbols, and symbols are not parables.

Distinction doesn’t weaken the point being made: both are non-literal forms of communication used in Scripture to convey truth. Neither parables nor symbols require historical facticity to be theologically powerful or effective.

So when we say something may be symbolic (e.g., the figure of Adam or the structure of Genesis 1), we’re not equating it with a parable, we’re simply recognizing that God can communicate real truth through figurative or literary forms, not just through literal history.

Jesus used both parables and symbols, and no one would accuse Him of being untruthful because His parables weren’t historical events. The same principle can apply to earlier Scripture as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

So that's the problem. . .parables are not symbols, and symbols are not parables.

Also,
Romans 5 definitely draws a parallel between Adam and Christ. But your conclusion assumes that imputation only works if Adam is a specific historical individual. That’s not required by the text.

The key idea in Romans 5 is representation, not biology. Adam functions as a theological archetype, a pattern of humanity's fallenness. Paul even says as much: “Adam, who is a type of the one to come” (Rom 5:14). The comparison is symbolic and theological. It’s about how sin and grace operate in the human condition, not necessarily how genetics or literal ancestry work.

If Adam is a representative figure of humanity's capacity to rebel, and Christ is the representative figure of God's grace and obedience, the logic of Romans still holds. The power of the comparison lies in what Adam represents, not in how many chromosomes he had or whether he lived 6,000 years ago.

We don't say that Christ’s imputation of righteousness only works if he’s the genetic opposite of a literal Adam, we say it works because Christ entered our condition and offered redemption. Likewise, Adam’s “sin” can be understood as describing the human condition, not a historical chain of transmission.

In fact, insisting on a literal Adam as the sole mechanism for imputed sin risks reducing a rich theological truth to a biology problem. The gospel isn’t contingent on ancient DNA, it’s about God's remedy for a condition we all share.

So no, a non-literal Adam doesn’t eliminate the need for Christ’s righteousness, it explains why everyone needs it.

 

[HBP]

You haven't heard "original sin" from me, but you have heard the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 14-16, 18-19) from me.

Adam's sin is imputed to all (Ro 5:17, 14-16, 18-19) and damns all.

All mankind is born condemned (Jn 3:18) by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17), which condemnation is removed by faith in Jesus Christ (Jn 3:18).
Baptism does not change that.
The doctrine of election answers your question regarding infants (Eph 1:4-5), as in the case of Jacob and Esau, where Jacob was elected before either one was born and had done anything good or bad (Ro 9:11).
Election is by sovereign choice of the Holy Spirit only (depending on nothing but his will to do so, Jn 3:6-8).

There we go: Everyone who dies as an infant was among the non-elect anyway, so no big deal. Every ghastly disease or accident that takes an infant's life is just water over the dam because the kid was destined for hell anyway. The elect, on the other hand, ALWAYS, without fail, live at least long enough to turn to Christ. God arranges things so only non-elect infants die in mass disasters - nice. This, then, is the comforting answer to every parent who loses an infant, including parents who are devout and faithful believers: Stiff upper lip, folks, your kid was non-elect and destined for hell even if he'd lived to be 94. I somehow expected a better tap dance than that, but if that's your position I guess we'll live with it.

 

[Clare73]

There we go: Everyone who dies as an infant was among the non-elect anyway, so no big deal. Every ghastly disease or accident that takes an infant's life is just water over the dam because the kid was destined for hell anyway. The elect, on the other hand, ALWAYS, without fail, live at least long enough to turn to Christ. God arranges things so only non-elect infants die in mass disasters - nice. This, then, is the comforting answer to every parent who loses an infant, including parents who are devout and faithful believers: Stiff upper lip, folks, your kid was non-elect and destined for hell even if he'd lived to be 94. I somehow expected a better tap dance than that, but if that's your position I guess we'll live with it.

Your standard for the truth of Scriputre is based on its comfort level?

 

[Clare73]

Also,
Romans 5 definitely draws a parallel between Adam and Christ. But your conclusion assumes that imputation only works if Adam is a specific historical individual. That’s not required by the text.

The key idea in Romans 5 is representation,

The imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind (Ro 5:17, 14-16, 18-19) is not a fiction on which the imputation of Christ's righteousness is then based (Ro 5:18-19) ---> "just as. . .so also."
"So also" is equivalent to the "just as."
If there was no actual "just as," there is no actual "so also."

It ccouldn't be stated any clearer.

Please present what the Genesis statement should be if Adam and his sin were actual, and not just figurative.

 

[HBP]

Your standard for the truth of Scriputre is based on its comfort level?

No, my standard is whether an interpretation of scripture (1) makes any coherent, rational sense and (2) is at least reasonably consistent with what I believe a creator of the universe could possibly be like. A God who sends infants to hell and magically arranges the affairs of the world so that only non-elect infants die in mass disasters and wars? Uh, no.

 

[Job 33:6]

The imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind (Ro 5:17, 14-16, 18-19) is not a fiction on which the imputation of Christ's righteousness is then based (Ro 5:18-19) ---> "just as. . .so also."
"So also" is equivalent to the "just as."
If there was no actual "just as," there is no actual "so also."

It ccouldn't be stated any clearer.

Please present what the Genesis statement should be if the sin of Adam were actual, and not just figurative.

You're right that Paul uses the structure “just as… so also” to highlight the relationship between Adam’s trespass and Christ’s act of righteousness. But I’d like to offer a perspective that maintains the full weight of that theological truth, even if one doesn’t insist on a historical Adam in the modern sense.

The central idea in Romans 5 is not about shared biology, but about shared condition. All people sin. All people die. Adam serves as a theological archetype of humanity, he represents the human condition apart from God. Christ, in contrast, is the representative of what God offers humanity through grace and obedience. The pattern still holds: just as sin leads to death, so also grace leads to life.

This doesn’t reduce the imputation of righteousness to fiction. It affirms that Christ’s redemptive work addresses the real, universal human condition, something observable in every person’s life, whether we trace it back to a single historical figure or not.

Romans 5 can be faithfully interpreted as a deeply theological text using archetypal language. Paul’s point is about the certainty and scope of grace, not the genealogical transmission of guilt. The truth of the gospel does not rest on a particular scientific or historical view of Adam, it rests on the trustworthiness of God’s action in Christ, and our shared need for that redemption.

 

[Job 33:6]

Please present what the Genesis statement should be if Adam and his sin were actual, and not just figurative.

Well, Genesis could be written in a modern scientific context for starters. Not an ancient isrealite context.

Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science. The Catholic Church messed this up centuries ago with Galileo and people still haven't figured this one out.

 

[Clare73]

No, my standard is whether an interpretation of scripture (1) makes any coherent, rational sense and (2) is at least reasonably consistent with what I believe a creator of the universe could possibly be like.

So human reasoning is the standard. . .
And how does Ro 9:15-19 meet that human standard?

And what do you do with Dt 20:16-18, 1 Sa 15:3?

A God who sends infants to hell and magically arranges the affairs of the world so that only non-elect infants die in mass disasters and wars? Uh, no.

 

[Clare73]

You're right that Paul uses the structure “just as… so also” to highlight the relationship between Adam’s trespass and Christ’s act of righteousness. But I’d like to offer a perspective that maintains the full weight of that theological truth, even if one doesn’t insist on a historical Adam in the modern sense.
The central idea in Romans 5 is not about shared biology, but about shared condition. All people sin. All people die. Adam serves as a theological archetype of humanity, he represents the human condition apart from God. Christ, in contrast, is the representative of what God offers humanity through grace and obedience. The pattern still holds: just as sin leads to death, so also grace leads to life.
This doesn’t reduce the imputation of righteousness to fiction. It affirms that Christ’s redemptive work addresses the real, universal human condition, something observable in every person’s life, whether we trace it back to a single historical figure or not.
Romans 5 can be faithfully interpreted as a deeply theological text using archetypal language. Paul’s point is about the certainty and scope of grace, not the genealogical transmission of guilt.

Paul's point is the reality of the origin of sin in humanity and the reality of its remedy.

The truth of the gospel does not rest on a particular scientific or historical view of Adam, it rests on the trustworthiness of God’s action in Christ, and our shared need for that redemption.

Still not understanding the need to understand Genesis any differently.

Well, Genesis could be written in a modern scientific context for starters. Not an ancient isrealite context.
Genesis describes ancient Israelite cosmology, not modern science. The Catholic Church messed this up centuries ago with Galileo and people still haven't figured this one out.

Which modern science has no proof of the origin of man which contradicts either the Genesis account or the gospel of Luke (Lk 3:23-37).

 

[Aseyesee]

God set an advent (inside Adam) as in their name was called) in motion when he said "thou shalt not eat" ... whether the tree was literal or not ... we are Adam and our soul our wife who gives us to eat ...

 

[Job 33:6]

Paul's point is the reality of the origin of sin in humanity and the reality of its remedy.

The question we're exploring is how that truth is conveyed. Does it require Adam to be a literal, historical individual in a modern genealogical sense? Or can Paul be using Adam as a representative figure—an archetype—through whom the universal human condition is expressed?

The reality of sin doesn’t hinge on the mechanics of its origin, but on the fact that we all participate in it. And likewise, the reality of redemption doesn't lose power if Paul is using typology or figurative parallels to explain our condition and its cure. In fact, the parallel between Adam and Christ becomes even more powerful when viewed through that lens—Christ enters into the full scope of our human condition to heal it from the inside.

So yes, Paul is absolutely dealing with something real. But how that reality is communicated—whether in symbolic or literal terms—is something worth thinking about carefully, especially when Scripture often teaches through metaphor, narrative, and theological typology.

Still not understanding the need to understand Genesis any differently.

If you're a literalist, and take the earth to be geocentric, resting on pillars, with a solid dome in the sky, you might want to consider alternatives.

Which modern science has no proof of the origin of man which contradicts the Genesis account.

 

[Clare73]

The question we're exploring is how that truth is conveyed. Does it require Adam to be a literal, historical individual in a modern genealogical sense? Or can Paul be using Adam as a representative figure—an archetype—through whom the universal human condition is expressed?

Nice looking guy. . .is that you?
Reveals so-o-o much about you.

Please present modern science's proof of the origin of man which contradicts the Genesis account.

 

[Job 33:6]

Paul presents neither Adam nor Christ as simply representation in Ro 5:18-19, nor anywhere else in his writings.
He presents the actuality of Adam just as he presents the actuality of Christ.

Your issue is with Paul, not me.
I am content to understand it as Paul does.

I understand your concern: you believe that if Adam isn't a literal, historical individual, then Paul's argument in Romans 5 falls apart. But that concern assumes Paul is making a biological or historical one-to-one comparison between Adam and Christ. That’s not actually required by the text, nor by the theology Paul is articulating.

Romans 5:18–19 is about the universal scope of sin and the universal availability of grace, not the mechanics of genealogical descent. Paul is drawing a theological parallel: Adam represents the entrance of sin into the human condition, and Christ represents the remedy. “Just as… so also…” is a rhetorical device used to draw a meaningful comparison, not necessarily a one-to-one historical correspondence.

To insist that the power of Christ’s righteousness depends on the historicity of Adam as a literal individual is to subordinate theology to historicity, ironically the same kind of reasoning that skeptics use to reject Scripture altogether. The truth of the gospel doesn't depend on whether sin entered the world through mitochondrial DNA. It depends on whether Christ's life, death, and resurrection overcome the sin that defines the human experience, and that is emphatically what Paul is saying.

Christ’s redemptive work is real and effective because God acted decisively in history, not because Adam must function like a historical spreadsheet entry. The strength of Paul's argument lies in its theological coherence, not in genetic literalism. If the gospel only works because of a biologically traceable Adam, then we’ve turned grace into bookkeeping. But Paul is offering something far deeper: the assurance that Christ undoes what sin has done, however and whenever sin entered.

 

[HBP]

So human reasoning is the standard. . .
And how does Ro 9:15-19 meet that human standard?

And what do you do with Dt 20:16-18, 1 Sa 15:3?

Human reasoning is ALWAYS the standard. It is my standard; it is your standard. We reason differently about what the Bible is and what it says. Vast numbers of believers, including many of the best theologians, Bible scholars and Christian leaders disagree with what you think it so clearly says. Their REASONING is different from your REASONING.

My theology would, of course, shock your literalist sensibilities. What do I do with the verses you cite from Romans, Deuteronomy and 1 Samuel? Pretty much nothing, really.

God, of course, could have blessed us with a Bible of about 25 pages (maybe less) that clearly unequivocally stated his expectations, requirements and commands. He didn't, not by a long shot. He could have sent Jesus at a time when he could have been recorded and replayed for all to see, hear and understand. He didn't, not by a long shot. Some of the supposedly most essential (and divisive) doctrines are not clearly stated in the Bible at all or are found only in the most historically dubious books like the Gospel of John. I have to believe this points toward a God who EXPECTS us to use our reasoning and to struggle with What It's All About. This is why I call cocksure literalism Perpetual Vacation Bible School - I believe it completely misses the point, but YMMV.

 

[Clare73]

Human reasoning is ALWAYS the standard. It is my standard; it is your standard. We reason differently about what the Bible is and what it says. Vast numbers of believers, including many of the best theologians, Bible scholars and Christian leaders disagree with what you think it so clearly says. Their REASONING is different from your REASONING.

My theology would, of course, shock your literalist sensibilities. What do I do with the verses you cite from Romans, Deuteronomy and 1 Samuel? Pretty much nothing, really.

That explains a lot. . .

 

[Job 33:6]

I am not concerned. . .

you obviously have concerns about a non-literal Adam.

No, I believe that Paul got it right.

Which is exactly what I do regarding the existence of Jesus and the cross.

Again, there is a deeper assumption here.

I agree that Jesus and the cross are historical realities essential to Christian faith, but not every theological truth in Scripture requires the same kind of historical grounding. Parables and symbols, for instance, communicate deep theological meaning without referring to literal events. Paul’s use of Adam in Romans 5 functions theologically, showing the representative pattern of sin and redemption through Christ. Affirming that truth doesn’t require Adam to be a literal, biological forefather any more than the Prodigal Son must be a real person. The risk comes when we demand modern-style historicity from ancient texts written in different genres. Theology isn’t less true because it’s conveyed through symbol or archetype, it just means God is communicating on multiple levels, not just historical ones.

 

[Clare73]

you obviously have concerns about a non-literal Adam.
Again, there is a deeper assumption here.
I agree that Jesus and the cross are historical realities essential to Christian faith, but not every theological truth in Scripture requires the same kind of historical grounding. Parables and symbols, for instance, communicate deep theological meaning without referring to literal events. Paul’s use of Adam in Romans 5 functions theologically, showing the representative pattern of sin and redemption through Christ. Affirming that truth doesn’t require Adam to be a literal, biological forefather

It's not about what is required, its about what Paul actually meant.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's not about what is required, its about what Paul actually meant.

That’s true, what matters most is what Paul actually meant. But to determine that, we need to carefully consider Paul’s use of language, his theological aims, and the literary and cultural context he was writing within. Paul regularly draws on typology and representation (like Adam and Christ, or Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4), which suggests he’s often working with theological categories rather than making precise historical claims. His goal in Romans 5 isn’t to give a historical account of human origins but to explain the universality of sin and the universality of grace. That message holds whether Adam is read as a literal individual or as an archetypal representative of humanity. The key is not whether Adam lived 6,000 years ago, but whether Paul's point about sin, death, and redemption in Christ still holds true, which it does, powerfully, either way.

 

[Clare73]

That’s true, what matters most is what Paul actually meant. But to determine that, we need to carefully consider Paul’s use of language, his theological aims, and the literary and cultural context he was writing within. Paul regularly draws on typology and representation (like Adam and Christ, or Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4), which suggests he’s often working with theological categories rather than making precise historical claims. His goal in Romans 5 isn’t to give a historical account of human origins but to explain the universality of sin and the universality of grace. That message holds whether Adam is read as a literal individual or as an archetypal representative of humanity. The key is not whether Adam lived 6,000 years ago, but whether Paul's point about sin, death, and redemption in Christ still holds true, which it does, powerfully, either way.

None of which negates Paul's usage of Adam as actual. . .