The giant of Old Princeton, B. B. Warfield, outspokenly condemned the racism and rigid segregation of American society of his day. His views were remarkably ahead of his time with regard to an understanding of the evil of racism and even somewhat prophetic with regard to the further evil that would result from it. His convictions were explicitly grounded in an understanding and faithful application of the unity of the human race in Adam and the unity and equal standing of believers in Christ. This brief essay surveys Warfield’s arguments within the context of his day.

“Are we today to reverse the inspired declaration that in Christ Jesus there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman?” (B. B. Warfield, 1887)

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851–1921) of Old Princeton earned international reputation as the vigorous defender of the historic Christian faith—particularly in its Reformed expression—and it was in the traditional categories of biblical and theological studies that his publishing energies were almost exclusively spent. Social causes crop up only very seldom in his works, but one social cause stands out as one holding his particular interest: the cause of the American blacks. His literary output here was not extensive, to be sure, but it was pointed, revealing a deep sense of urgency about the issue. And though Warfield seldom became involved in any organized efforts outside the seminary, this was the exception—and this even though the position he took was unpopular (to say the least!) both in society and in the church, and even in his own Princeton Seminary. To Warfield, the “wicked caste” society that America then was constituted a moral and theological evil that, if not reversed, would bring only further harm to our nation.

The theological foundation of Warfield’s opposition to racism was two-fold: 1) the unity of the human race created in Adam in God’s image, and 2) the unifying entailments of the gospel of Christ. In his 1911 “On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race”1 Warfield famously argued that the age of humanity is not a biblical question. The Bible doesn’t speak to the matter, he argued, and thus it is a question of no theological interest. We may take interest on scientific grounds, but not on biblical grounds. However, the unity of the human race, by contrast, is indeed a theological question and a very important one at that.

The unity of humanity was, in fact, commonly acknowledged by all sides in Warfield’s day. Evolution had removed the motive for denying a common origin to humanity and “rendered it natural to look upon the differences which exist among the various types of man as differentiations of a common stock.”2 He notes that in the past there were various opposing theories, such as co-Adamitism and Pre-Adamitism. And he notes that some early evolutionists had suggested multiple times and places of human origins. Racial pride continued to exist, to be sure, but virtually all sides acknowledged a unity to all humanity that is evident physically as well as psychologically (speech, common traditions, etc.). There were various factors employed in accounting for this unity, but the fact of a common humanity no longer required defense.

The importance of the unity of humanity, for Warfield, could scarcely be overstated, both biblically and theologically. The idea is built into the very structure of the Genesis account of man’s origin: God created a single pair from whom descended the whole race (Gen 1:26). Eve was so named “because she was the mother of all living” (Gen 3:20). Adam himself is so named (“man”) for the first place given him; Warfield notes this and points us accordingly to the biblical expressions “sons of Adam” or “man” as reflective of it. Moreover, at the flood all of humanity, save eight, were destroyed, and humanity begins again, via Shem, Ham, and Japheth, with Noah as their common father, and from Noah’s sons “the whole earth was overspread” (Gen 10:32). The differentiations of peoples, Warfield reminds us, is the result of rebellion and the dispersion following the tower of Babel (Gen 11). “What God had joined together men themselves pulled asunder.” Throughout the Scriptures, all mankind is treated as a unit, sharing “not only in a common nature but in a common sinfulness, not only in a common need but in a common redemption.” 3 The entire structure of biblical teaching regarding sin and salvation, Warfield insists, is built on the assumption of our common unity in Adam. Israel was given privilege, to be sure, but this was not due to anything about them; their privilege was due only to divine mercy. And in the Law’s provisions regarding slaves Israel was reminded of their common humanity. Indeed, Israel’s privileged status was only so designed that, through them, mercy would extend to the whole of humanity.

Warfield surveys the biblical evidence quickly but somewhat comprehensively. He notes, importantly, that Jesus affirmed the origin of humanity in a single pair (Matt 19:4). And he cites the apostle Paul’s plain pronouncement on the subject in Acts 17:26. Mankind’s unity is so obvious in Scripture that it scarcely requires defense: “the whole New Testament is instinct with the brotherhood of mankind as one in origin and in nature, one in need and one in the provision of redemption.”4

The fact of racial sin is basal to the whole Pauline system (Rom. 5:12 ff.; 1 Cor. 15:21 f.), and beneath the fact of racial sin lies the fact of racial unity. It is only because all men were in Adam as their first head that all men share in Adam’s sin and with his sin in his punishment. And it is only because the sin of man is thus one in origin and therefore of the same nature and quality, that the redemption which is suitable and may be made available for one is equally suitable and may be made available for all. It is because the race is one and its need one, Jew and Gentile are alike under sin, that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the matter of salvation either, but as the same God is Lord of all, so He is rich in Christ Jesus unto all that call upon Him, and will justify the uncircumcision through faith alone, even as He justifies the circumcision only by faith (Rom. 9:22–24, 28 ff.; 10:12). Jesus Christ therefore, as the last Adam, is the Saviour not of the Jews only but of the world (John 4:42; 1 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 4:14), having been given to this His great work only by the love of the Father for the world (John 3:16). The unity of the human race is therefore made in Scripture not merely the basis of a demand that we shall recognize the dignity of humanity in all its representatives, of however lowly estate or family, since all bear alike the image of God in which man was created and the image of God is deeper than sin and cannot be eradicated by sin (Gen. 5:3; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Heb. 2:5 ff.); but the basis also of the entire scheme of restoration devised by the divine love for the salvation of a lost race.5

The unity of the human race in Adam is not only biblically evident, Warfield insisted—it is of central importance to Christian theology and to Christianity itself.

Moreover, a recognition of our common humanity carries with it a corresponding ethical obligation. Warfield writes,

The unity of the human race is therefore made in Scripture not merely the basis of a demand that we shall recognize the dignity of humanity in all its representatives, of however lowly estate or family, since all bear alike the image of God in which man was created and the image of God is deeper than sin and cannot be eradicated by sin (Gen 5:3; 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Heb 2:5ff.); but the basis also of the entire scheme of restoration devised by the divine love for the salvation of a lost race.6

That is to say, our understanding of the essential unity of humanity in Adam carries a moral significance; it is not a question of merely abstract theological interest. Nor did Warfield leave this issue to mere theological discussion, and in his condemning of racial pride Warfield was generations ahead of his time.

Both of Warfield’s parents had come from families of outspoken abolitionists and with important connections to the cause of emancipation. In one letter he seems to boast of it:

John C. Young, the drawer of the resolutions of the Ky. Synod of 1835 was the husband of my mother’s first cousin. My Grandfather R. J. Breckinridge ran on an emancipation ticket in 1849 – at the peril of his life. Cassius M. Clay was the husband of my father’s first cousin. My Mother-in-law was an abolitionist of the Garrison type. My grandparents, parents & the parents of my wife sought in every way to do their duty to those whom they felt themselves sinners to hold in bondage.7

Ironically, Warfield’s family and the families of the grandparents all owned slaves—even with a bad conscience for it, it seems. But (rightly or wrongly) they considered the slaves ill-prepared for life on the outside, and the slaves were evidently treated respectfully and well, and generously so in the family wills.8

However, the post-civil war—even post-reconstruction—society was still deeply segregated, even if the slaves had been freed. Race antagonism was not gone, and in this decidedly segregated society blacks were given little room for self- or social advancement. The plight of the freedmen and their children as Warfield presents it—as “virtually subjects and not citizens, peasants instead of freedmen,”9 though seven million of America’s then fifty million souls10—is disturbingly revealing. “Wicked caste” was not at all overstating the case, Warfield insisted, and when he took up this cause he must have seemed a voice virtually alone.

In 1885 Warfield became a member of the Presbyterian Board of Missions to Freedmen and worked for their betterment. As noted above, Warfield was not given to social activism, and he was not disposed to serve on committees. But this was the exception, and his passion for the cause is evident.

Read More