The Historicity of Christ

Well, I have worked myself into a theological quandary recently. Allow me to explain with three points:

First, I am of the theological opinion that the “fall of man” as recorded in Genesis 2-3 is not a “historical” event in the sense that the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or John Kennedy is a historical event. Rather, I have been of the opinion that the Genesis 2-3 story is an “apocalyptic” event that refers to an event that occurs in each individual’s life, each day, when they disobey God and fall from the image of God. Adam, then, is a typological figure that represents all men and each man in their relation to God, evil, and their environment. This is not an unknown idea in Scripture, particularly in apocalyptic literature. In Daniel 7, the Son of Man represents the elected people of Israel who will be given dominion and glory and a kingdom on the earth. Jesus takes up this term and applies it to Himself as the true Israel whose body is made up of elected believers.
The Genesis story’s original purpose then is to answer questions such as “Why do humans suffer?” and “Why is man separated from God?”. While this has been my understanding of the Edenic event, I have been arguing with those opposed to this interpretation that whether or not one agrees or disagrees with this interpretation, i.e. whether or not you take the story as literal-historical or symbolic-apocalyptic, the meaning of the story does not change; certainly the meaning of the story to us does not change. So far I have not had any challenge to this position that the meaning of the story doesn’t alter if the events are not historical or not. Whether or not Adam really existed as an individual, historic figure does not matter in terms of the meaning of the story to contemporary believers.

Second, I believe that there definitely was an individual, historic figure of Abraham. I think that the nature of the story in Genesis points to a historical narrative. But there is an older, out dated view that maintains that Abraham is not really a historical figure but rather a symbolic representation for the whole of the “tribe of Israel” during the Patriarchal times. In a moderated form, this is not an unknown idea. While the characters of Samson and Jonah are undoubtedly historical figures, the writers of their respective books use these figures to represent the whole of Israel. While the events of the figures lives as recorded in the Scriptures is historically true, the writer has arranged the story to point out the character of Israel. Now I do not hold to the view that Abraham is not a historical, individual figure but I currently do not think that the absence of such a belief is inherently important to the Christian life. I certainly do not think that it invalidates one’s faith. What is important is not whether one believes that Abraham actually existed as a historical, individual figure or rather was a symbolic representation of an elected tribal group; it is the meaning of the story and its effect upon us that is ultimately important.

But third - and this is the quandary - I have made the statement that I do not believe in Adam as a historical figure and it does not matter. I have made the statement that I do believe in Abraham as a historical figure but it does not matter. Now - and this is the crux of the matter - I believe in Christ as a historical figure (and no one doubts that he was) but would it matter to faith if we did not believe He was a historical figure but a symbolic representation of the God-Incarnate figure? I immediately say that it does matter most definitely, but why does it matter? Or does it? And, in light of my previous points, have I thought my way into a theological box?

Now at this point many of my dear friends who support Counter Reformation more commonly known as the conservative resurgence are thinking, “See! This is the slippery slope that we were talking about and battling against.” If you have read the latest work from a prominent resurgent leader on the issue of the slippery slope, you would notice that he states that the convention and its agencies were not liberal but leaning toward liberalism; they were not to the left but drifting in that direction. I won’t comment directly on this analysis but only say that my first two points and the inherent problem of the third point of my reasoning might at least validate the suspicions of those who were concerned of a slippery slope toward liberalism; i.e., the argument being, if you do not believe in a historic Adam then you’ll soon not believe in a historic Christ.

I am going to attempt to analyze this problem I have constructed for myself in the coming weeks. There are three possible conclusions that I could draw from this inquiry:

1) Believing in the historicity of both Adam and Christ is essential. You cannot have one without the other. The loss of belief in the historical Adam inevitable leads to a drift toward not believing in the historical Christ which is very essential.

2) Believing in the historicity of Christ is not as important as the existential encounter of Christ one receives from reading the Scriptures and hearing the Word. One does not have to believe in Christ’s historicity in order to have faith in God.

3) Believing in the historicity of Adam and the historicity of Christ is like comparing apples and oranges. The two are not analogous and no theological problem exists.

I hope to draw on many resources and arguments to prove or disprove the three above conclusions. I will be reading Kierkegaard, Moody, Tillich, Cullman, Bultmann and one of my current professors whose insights are extraordinary. Thankfully he is tenured and his insights cannot get him into any trouble.

Any thoughts on this subject?