3: SAYING THAT GENESIS IS WRONG 41ing the historicity of Adam’s creation before Eve in Genesis 2 are three
steps on the path toward liberalism.
I published a critique of Webb’s treatment of the Genesis 2 narra-
tive in June of 2004.^14 Then Webb responded to my critique in a paper
read at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society,
November 17-19, 2004.^15 In his response Webb objected to my saying
that he denied the historicity “of the creation account” when in fact he
had only denied the historical accuracy of part of it. Although I believe
it was very clear from my original critique exactly what parts of Genesis
2 he said were not historically accurate,^16 I can now include here some
statements from his response to me. His response simply confirms that
he thinks several events reported in the Genesis 2 narrative did not actu-
ally happen. Here is what he says:
Grudem’s charge that Webb denies the historical accuracy of the cre-
ation account is yet another example of his blatant and inflammatory
misrepresentation. The misrepresentation develops in two ways. On
the one hand, to say that I deny the historicity of the creation account
without any qualification, significantly misrepresents what I was
doing with the two criteria in question (criteria #6 and #7). A closer
reading will reveal that I am only talking about certain specific com-
ponents of the creation account and not the creation account as a
whole....What I do affirm in criteria #6 and 7 on the creation narratives is that
certain components within the creation narratives are more apt than
others to be literary and/or time-displaced in nature. By saying that a
component is literary and/or time-displaced is not (!) saying that the
component(s) is historically inaccurate. This is nonsense. What it is(^14) Wayne Grudem, “Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic? An
Analysis of William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics
of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001),” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 47/2 (June, 2004), 299-346.
(^15) Webb’s response, “A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: Responding to Grudem’s
Concerns,” is available online at http://www.etsjets.org.
(^16) My original critique of Webb’s denial of the historicity of parts of Genesis 2 is reprinted in
Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 610-613, where I specify exactly what parts
of Genesis 2–3 Webb does not count as historically accurate. Only by lifting one of my state-
ments out of its context can he claim that I say that Webb denies the historicity of the creation
account “without qualification.” My qualifications are clearly there in the context. I did not
misrepresent him.