(Part 1)

JBTM Book Reviews
115
a collection of essays which deliver a robust defense of a historic Adam and Eve and an understanding
of the fall and original sin which implicates all of humanity in the disobedience
of the original couple. Madueme is assistant professor of theological studies at Covenant
College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia. Reeves is theologian-at-large at Wales Evangelical
School of Theology in Bridgend, Wales. They attempt to address the three areas named in
the book’s title by interacting with related discussions concerning natural science and the
Bible, historical criticism of the Bible, and church tradition. They explain, “Our basic thesis
is that the traditional doctrine of original sin is not only orthodox but is also the most
theologically cogent synthesis of the biblical witness” (xii).
In part 1, the editors present three essays under the heading, “Adam in the Bible and
Science.” Drawing upon his previous work, 1 C. John Collins argues from the portrayal of the
first couple in Genesis 1–5, literary echoes throughout the canon, and Second Temple literature
for the “historical significance of Adam and Eve as the fountainhead of humanity and
as the doorway by which sin came into God’s world” (5). His essay explains that Genesis
3 shows rather than tells what is subsequently made explicit in the church’s interpretation
and formulation of the first couple, their fall, original sin, and humanity’s resulting need
for redemption. Also in part 1, Robert Yarborough surveys eight explicit New Testament
references to Adam, notes briefly some of the interpretations of those texts, then provides
a biblical-theological treatment of each of the texts. His comments on Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians
15, as expected, yield more information for the study than the other texts. For Yarborough,
Paul understands a historical Adam to be a central figure in soteriology, because
through his disobedience all of humanity is subject to the pattern of sin and death (42, 46).
Interestingly, the final essay in part 1 was contributed under a clever pseudonym, William
Stone. The paleontologist surveys the literature of his field, correlates it with the latest in
old earth creationist literature, then concludes that an affirmation of a historical Adam is
possible if Adam is located at the root of the genus Homo, 1.8 million years ago (80).
At five chapters and 101 pages, part 2 (“Original Sin in History”) is the largest section
of the book. Peter Sanlon’s chapter is titled “Original Sin in Patristic Theology,” but should
have carried the title “Augustine’s View of Original Sin,” because this was the only theologian
whose view was examined. The chapter would have been strengthened by including
other representatives from both the eastern and western church fathers. Admittedly,
Augustine’s influence has carried more significance than any other writer of the era. Even
so, those who affirm believer’s baptism should question whether their view of original sin
and forgiveness of sin is consistent at every point with the Augustinian view. Consider this
observation by Sanlon, “Baptizing infants evidenced an assumption that they had to be
forgiven something—if not actual sins, then the original sin contracted from Adam” (92).
¹C. John Collins, “Adam and Eve in the Old Testament,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15.1
(2011): 4–25, and Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2011).