Adam: Man or Myth?
The origin of man is a hotly debated subject. Ever since Charles Darwin published his work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859, atheists have had an intellectual argument for their position. With evolutionary theory’s widespread acceptance in academic circles, many Christians have sought to reconcile evolutionary theory with the creation account in Genesis 1-11.
Image via Wikipedia
Debate between the traditionally held belief – that God created a literal Adam and Eve, and that all other people came from them – and a view that seeks to marry evolution and mainstream Christianity, has hotted up in recent years. This largely due to the rise in prominence of theistic evolution. Some of the leading proponents of theistic evolution have written posts for the Biologos blog. The Editor of this blog notes in a post entitled Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary? that, “BioLogos takes a firm stand on the fact that Adam and Eve could not have been the sole biological progenitors of all humans, [but] science does not rule out the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve…” In this blog post, Daniel Harrell, writes, “If they are literal people, then the trove of evolutionary and DNA evidence can’t be right. It’s impossible for the human race to trace back to a single pair of parents (and this without mentioning a talking snake and God creating Adam out of the dirt and Eve from his rib).”
Is a belief in a literal Adam and Eve necessary for Christians? Conservative evangelicals argue that it is imperative. The reason for this is not petty, trivial or harping on a secondary or side issue. The Christian faith hinges on a salvation story that has its roots and foundation in Genesis 1-3. The gospel has four major themes: creation, fall, redemption and restoration. If there was no literal Fall when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, then there is no need for redemption through Jesus’ death on the cross. If the world as we know it simply evolved (with or without God being some type of an absent clockmaker) then it was never a utopia to start with. Paradise was never lost, death didn’t result from rebellion against God, man is not born with original sin, and Jesus’ death on the cross was noble but of no effect. By removing the Fall from the gospel, evangelical Christianity’s primary teaching, the Doctrine of Salvation, changes completely.
Image by jrundruud via Flickr
If we are to interpret the Bible correctly we must join the dots. We must trace the cycle of creation to the Fall, the Fall to the redemption that God Himself provided in the person of Jesus Christ, and the hope of complete restoration at the consummation of time. If Adam and Eve didn’t sin against God, then disease and death were there from the beginning. The dots that we must join must also extend to the teachings of Jesus and the apostle Paul, who referred to Adam and Eve as being real people (e.g. Mark 10:3-9; Romans 5:12-14,19). Adam is also frequently referred to in genealogies in the Scriptures (e.g. Luke 3:38).
Without the bad news of the Fall (and man’s resultant negative standing before God), there cannot be any good news of salvation. The word ‘gospel’ simply means ‘good news’. This is the message that Christians are called to proclaim to the world: That God created a perfect world, and although mankind (represented by Adam and Eve) turned their back on God and sinned (which affected the whole of the created realm), God provided a means of reconciliation with Himself. He sent His Son to die for the the sins of man, such that mankind could be justified before Him by faith. This is the great hope of the Christian faith. No Adam, no need for Jesus. No Jesus, no redemption. No redemption, no ultimate restoration. No restoration, no hope.
Read more on this topic in a recent article The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! by Robert Carter, and in blog posts by Albert Mohler entitled False Start? The Controversy Over Adam and Eve Heats Up and Adam and Eve: Clarifying Again What Is at Stake.
