Ten Reasons to Believe In an Historical Adam

Last week’s blog looked at the “new” theory of theistic evolution. The theory states that God did not create Adam in a special moment of time. Rather Adam came into existence through the process of evolution. This theory desires to merge science and theology into a reasonable explanation of man’s origin, even though there is no evidence that the evolution of one species into another has ever happened.

 Now, both theologians and scientists make mistakes, change their minds, and occasionally make misleading statements. Sometimes we argue not from evidence but from an “a priori” position. Can science and religion ever meld to give us a definitive answer about Adam and Eve?  I don’t know.

 But, here is the heart of the issue: why should we care whether or not Adam and Eve came into existence the way the Bible says they did? We should care because it is foundational to the Bible’s veracity and the concept of sin and redemption. I know Richard Dawkins said “we are distant cousins of bananas and turnips”. But here are ten thoughtful reasons why we, as Christians, should believe the biblical account of our first parents.

 1.      We are told in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction.” Doctrine is what we should believe, reproof challenges our errors in thinking, and of course correction gets us back on track. The Bible presents Adam and Eve not as a fable or legend, but as real people.

2.      If all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, if it’s His Word to us, we should take Him at His Word. Does God mean what He says or not? The creation record in Genesis is pretty straight forward and easy to understand.

3.      The biblical story of creation is meant to dethrone other ancient stories of creation. Moses wrote the creation narrative not in imitation of pagan myths but to explain to God’s people how things really began.

 4.      The opening chapters of Genesis are stylized, but they show no signs of being hyperbolic poetry. Compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104 and you’ll see the difference. And even if Genesis 1and 2 are poetic why would this alone make it less accurate historically?

 5.      There is a straight line of history from Adam in Genesis 2 to Abraham in Genesis 12. You can’t arbitrarily set Genesis chapters 1 through 11 aside as fantasy and then say that Abraham is historical. Moses connects Abraham to Adam and all the history in between deliberately.

 6.      The important genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as historical.

 7.      In the New Testament, Paul presents us with an historical Adam and compares him with Christ (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45-49).

 8.      Without a common descent from Adam and Eve we lose any foundation for believing that all races of people have the same nature, the same inherent dignity, the same problem of sin, and that despite our tribal mentalities we are all a part of the same human family. And we lose the truth that there is one God who is drawing the whole world to Himself through Jesus Christ (Acts 17:22-31).

 9.      Without an historical Adam the biblical doctrine of the imputation of sin from Adam and righteousness from Christ cannot stand (Romans 5:12-19).

 10. Without an historical Adam the biblical teaching of Jesus as the “last Adam” and that as in Adam all die so in Christ all shall be made alive, has no solid basis (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, 45).

There is a lot resting on the truthfulness of Scripture concerning Adam and Eve. May I suggest that we hold on to what Scripture says?  It was once assumed by experts that many of the cities and people named in the Bible never existed. Archeology has proved the Bible right and the earlier “experts” wrong. Just this past week archeological evidence was discovered that provides the first historical reference outside of Scripture that the town of Bethlehem existed.  Perhaps in time science will catch up to the biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve.