The Historicity Of Adam: The Biblical Evidence

By Norman L. Geisler (2014)

[Dr. Norman Geisler, Ph.D., is currently Chancellor and Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Santa Ana, CA. He also serves as a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary, which he co–founded in 1992. He previously served as a professor at some of the finest seminaries in the U.S., including Trinity Evangelical Seminary and Dallas Seminary. He has authored/coauthored almost 90 books and hundreds of articles.]

The challenge to a belief in a literal Adam comes from many quarters. Most often it is scientific, not biblical. Surprisingly, an increasing number of evangelicals are joining the ranks. A noted evangelical scientist, Francis Collins, Biologos advocate of theistic evolution, wrote, “Literalist readings of Genesis imply that God specially created Adam and Eve, and that all humans are descended from these original parents. Such readings, unfortunately, do not fit the evidence. . . . Recently acquired genetic evidence points to a population of several thousand people [Out of Africa Theory] whom all humans have descended, not just two.” He added, “. . . there is no process[1] by which an adult person can be made quickly from a rib. (Cloning would take thirty years and require technology that probably wasn’t available in the Garden of Eden!).”[2]

What difference does it make? Jack Collins, author of Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? insists that “the actual historicity of Adam and Eve is extremely important as a fundamental Christian doctrine. . . . Christian doctrine is best understood as the true story of who we are and how we got to be where we are. . . . It will all come apart if we don’t tell the story with the proper beginning.”[3] He adds, “If we take the idea of a purely natural process from molecules to mankind, then I think that is very difficult to square with the Bible. . . . It might even be impossible.”[4]

To say the least, there are serious theological implications as to whether Adam was created by God as the first human being. Adam’s nature, the origin of sin, the nature of salvation, and his unity are all wound up in this issue. As David John West of the Discovery Institute, a leader in the Intelligent Design movement, put it succinctly, if the first human beings were not created morally good, then “if you deny that then when you say Jesus is your Savior—Saving you from what? From His own botched creation!”[5] In brief, the doctrine of the historicity and creation of Adam bristles with theological significance.

The Biblical Arguments For A Literal Adam

Many evangelicals reject the denial of a literal Adam on biblical grounds and others do so on scientific grounds.[6] Many reasons are given in support of their view.

Genesis 1–2 Is Not Poetical In Form

First of all, the poetic mode, the linguistic conventions, and doxological tone of known ancient Near Eastern hymns are notably absent in Genesis 1–2. Further, it is not written in Hebrew poetic parallelism, but rather the normal prose structure (in contrast to parallelisms in Psalm 104). What is more, the events are presented in normal narrative form. In addition, it is noted that Genesis 1–11 has five times more narrative sequential markers than a comparably long poetic section. Finally, as will be shown below, the events are taken as literal by the New Testament.

In view of the literary evidence, noted Old Testament Scholar, Dr. Walter Kaiser concludes, “The decision is easy: Genesis 1–11 is prose and not poetry. The use of the waw consecutive with the verb to describe sequential acts, the frequent use of the direct object sign and the so–called relative pronoun, the stress on definitions, and the spreading out of these events in a sequential order indicates that we are in prose and not in poetry.”[7]

Genesis 1–11 Is A Narrative Genre

It has been noted that it begs the question to make an “upfront” genre decision about Genesis 1–2 using extra–biblical sources to demonstrate that it is not historical. This is eise–genre (reading genre into the text), not exe–genre (reading genre out of the text). Consider the following:

First of all, Genesis 12 begins with a waw–consecutive verb (“and he said”) which indicates that what follows is a continuation of what came before. Thus, Genesis 1–11 is considered historical, as Genesis 12–50 is.

Second, the structure of Genesis is connected by the phrase (“these are the generations [history] of . . .”) which occurs ten times. Each time this phrase occurs it narrows the focus to something that has previously been discussed, such as the heavens and the earth (2:4), Adam (5:1), Noah (6:9), Noah’s sons (10:1), Shem (11:10), Terah (11:27), Ishmael (25:12), Isaac (25:19), Esau (36:1), and Jacob (37:2)—all of which are historical.

Third, since six of these phrases occur in Genesis 1–11 and four are in Genesis 12–50, it is clear that both sections should be understood in the same historical way.

Fourth, there is a waw–connective between both sections of Genesis, linking Abraham, Sarah, and Lot whose history begins at the end of Gen. 11:27–32 (the end of the Genesis 1–11 historical section) and continues in chapters 12–25.

Fifth, Genesis 12 makes little sense by itself without the preparatory genealogy given in chapters 1–11. What kind of hermeneutical gymnastics would take Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as historical, but not Adam, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth?

Sixth, as noted below, the NT cites indiscriminately from both sections as historical. Thus, to reject the historicity of Adam (Gen, 1–51–5) is to reject the historicity of Genesis 11–50. And to accept the historicity of the later chapters, is to accept the earlier chapters of Genesis which present a literal Adam.

Two Creation Accounts And The Historicity Of Genesis 1–2

Some critics have pointed to the alleged contradictory nature of the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts of creation as evidence against a literal Adam. However, closer analysis reveals that the two accounts are complementary, not contradictory. Consider the following comparison:

Genesis One	Genesis Two
Chronological	Topical
God (Creator)	LORD God (Covenant–Maker)
Outline	Detail
Creating Animals	Naming Animals

The only real tension is found in Gen. 2:19 which appears to say God created animals after humans, whereas Genesis 1 declares animals were created before humans. But this is correctly rendered by NIV and ESV: “The LORD God had formed [in the past] every beast . . . and brought them to the man . . . And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”

Noted Jewish Commentator Umberto Cassuto, late Professor of the Bible at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, rejects modern critical commentators who see a contradiction here, saying, “But the usual explanation given in modern commentaries, to wit, that we have here two contradictory accounts—according to the one the creatures were created before man, and according to the other they were formed after—is not as simple as it appears at first glance.”[8] He adds, “Hence, it seems that in the passage before us . . . we must understand the creation of the beast and the flying creatures in a similar sense to that of the growing of the trees in v. 9., to wit, that of all the species of beasts and flying creatures had already been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimen for the purpose of presenting them all before the man in the midst of the Garden.”[9]

The Biblical Evidence That The Genesis Record Is Historical

The cumulative biblical evidence for a literal Adam and Eve is very strong. (1) First of all, Genesis presents Adam and Eve as actual persons and even narrates events in their lives (their creation, naming animals, marriage, fall, and their expulsion from the Garden). (2) Further, they gave birth to real children who also had real children (Genesis 4–5). (3) Also, the phrase “This is the history of” (Gen. 2:4) is used of Adam (5:1) and later historical persons, such as Ishmael (25:12), Isaac (25:19), Esau (36:1), and Jacob (37:2). (4) What is more, Eve is the name of the first woman, and it notes her temptation by the devil (1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3). (5) Furthermore, their sons Cain and Abel are listed with other historical persons in Heb. 11:4. (6) Then too, Paul affirmed that “Adam was first formed, and then Eve” (in 1 Tim. 2:13–14). (7) And the Garden of Eden had real rivers still known (Euphrates and Tigris, Gen. 2:14). (8) In addition, the OT puts Adam at the beginning of the genealogy of real people (1 Chron. 1:1). (9) Also, Hosea 6:7 names “Adam” as the first person who broke God’s covenant. (10) And the NT places Adam at the beginning of Jesus’ genealogy of real people (Luke 3:38). (11) Indeed, Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as the first literal male and female united by God as the basis for a literal marriage (Matt. 19:4–5). (12) And the apostle Paul declared that literal death came upon all men because of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12–14). (13) Adam is compared with the literal person of Christ (in 1 Cor. 15:22).

Finally, (14) Adam and Eve have possible archaeological confirmation in the Adam and Eve Seal found near the bottom of the Tepe Gawra Mound twelve miles from Nineveh in 1932 by Dr. E. A. Speiser, a noted Assyriologist at the University Museum of Pennsylvania. The seal depicts a naked man and woman walking downcast with an erect serpent behind. He estimated that the seal came from about 3500 B.C. The seal is about one inch in diameter, engraved on stone, and is now in the University Museum in Philadelphia. Speiser points out that the image is strongly suggestive of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis.

Similarity To Other Ancient Creation Accounts Does Not Support A Mythological View

Daniel Harlow believes Genesis is myth because of the similarities with the myth of Adapa, 3rd millennium BC.[10] Consider the following similarities:

Adam	Adapa
Means “man/human”	Means “man/human”
Special creation of Yahweh	Special creation of Ea
Commands about eating	Commands about eating
Missed out on immortality	Missed out on immortality
Clothed with garments	Clothed with garments
Driven out of Eden to die	Return from heaven to Eridu to die

However, a casual look at these similarities overlooks other explanations. First of all, the similarities can be due to the Adapa myth copying the Genesis account. Second, the similarities can result from two independent accounts of the same events. Finally, there are crucial differences in the two accounts: one is part of a polytheistic worldview, and the Genesis account is inseparably interwoven with a monotheist worldview. And a monotheistic worldview makes a world of difference in the meaning and significance of the events.

New Testament Evidence That Genesis 1–11 Is Historical

Perhaps one of the most important, and often overlooked evidence, for the historicity of the Genesis record of Adam and Eve is the NT references to these OT passages. In particular Adam (and Eve) are viewed by the NT writers as literal historical figures. To challenge their view is to undermine the authority given to them bu Jeus (John 14:26, 16:13). Consider the following texts:

The Creation Of The Universe (Genesis 1).

Mark 13:19: Jesus declared, “For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.” Not only does this NT text support the literal creation of the universe, but it is supported by other NT passages (cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16). Since the NT refers to creation (Genesis1) of the universe as a literal event and the creation of Adam is a part of that account, there is no reason not to believe in his literal creation too.

The Creation Of Adam And Eve (Genesis 1–2)

Indeed, the NT explicitly includes both Adam and Eve as part of the literal creation account. Mark 10:6 affirms, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’’’ (Mark 13:19 also refers to “the beginning of the creation God created.” 1 Tim. 2:13 even mention the order of creation, saying, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” 1 Cor. 11:8–9 adds: “For man was not made from women but woman from man. Neither was man created for women, but woman for man.” Likewise, 1 Cor. 15:45 refers to the “first man Adam that became a living being.”

The Marriage Of Adam And Eve (Genesis 2)

Matt. 19:4–6 affirms the historicity of the Genesis account of the marriage of a literal Adam and Eve: “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’” Mark 10:7–8 also confirms this marriage of two literal persons where a man “hold[s] fast to his wife, and the two shall become on flesh.” Even sexual relations with a harlot are described by the same Genesis phrase “becoming one flesh” (1 Cor. 6:16).

The Temptation Of Eve (Genesis 3)

Twice the NT refers to Eve’s temptation and fall into sin. 1 Tim. 2:14 declares that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” And 2 Cor. 11:3 refers to “the serpent [who] deceived Eve by his cunning.” Here too, they are speaking of a literal woman called “Eve,” the wife of Adam.

The Disobedience Of Adam (Genesis 3)

Since it was to the man that God gave the command not to eat of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:17), it is understandable that he was singled out for God’s judgment in some passages. In so doing, the existence of a literal individual name ‘Adam’ is unmistakably affirmed. Rom. 5:12, 14 reads, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death passed through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. . . . Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” The references to physical “death,” to “Moses,” and to Christ (v. 21) make it unmistakable that Paul s speaking of a literal Adam by which literal death came into the world and from which we can be saved by the literal Christ who was to come.

The Conception And Birth Of Cain And Abel (Genesis 4)

The literal conception of Cain and Abel confirms the affirmation of a literal Adam and Eve. The Scriptures declare that “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain” (Gen. 4:1). And again, she bore his brother Abel” (4:2). These are the normal terms for physical (sexual) relations between literal person in that time period (cf. Gen. 4:25, 19:4).

The Sacrifices Of Abel And Cain (Genesis 4)—Heb. 11:4

According to Genesis 4, Adam and Eve had two literal sons, Cain and Abel. Heb. 11:4 asserts, “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts.” Again the narrative is natural and historical in nature.

The Murder Of Abel By Cain (Genesis 4)

The NT also confirms that Adam’s literal son Cain killed his other son Abel. Matt. 23:35 takes Adam and Eve’s first children (Genesis 4) as literal descendants of literal parents, affirming, “On you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.” 1 John 3:12 refers to Cain by name, insisting that “we should not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother [Abel]. Jude 11 also alludes to “Cain” by name as an individual upon whom God would send judgment.

The Comparison Of Adam And Christ

The NT also makes a strong comparison between a literal Adam and a literal Christ. Rom. 5:14 affirms that death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come (viz., Christ). This type and anti–type comparison strongly favours the conclusion that Adam was as literal and historical as was Christ. The same is true of 1 Cor. 15:45, which compares “the first man Adam” and the “last Adam” (Christ).

The fact that many of these citations were from Christ Himself makes it even more difficult to reject the historicity of Genesis without upsetting Christian doctrine. John Wenhem speaks against the view that Jesus was involved in “accommodation to the beliefs of his hearers.” Wenhem concludes, “Plausible though this is, it seems impossible to accept as being Christ’s real view.” For “in other respects he does not show himself unduly sensitive about undermining current beliefs. He is not slow to denounce Pharisaic traditionalism; in the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, he carefully distinguishes between divine law and later false deductions. . . .” Indeed, he is not slow to repudiate nationalistic conception of Messiahship. He is prepared to face the cross for defying current misconceptions. Surely he would have been prepared to explain clearly the mingling of divine and human error in the Bible if he had known such to exist. The notion that our Lord was fully aware that the view of Holy Scripture current in his day was erroneous, and that he deliberately accommodated his teaching to the beliefs of his hearers, will not square with the facts. In short, “His use of the Old Testament seems altogether too insistent and positive and extreme. What (according the Gospel records) he actually does say is that the ‘scripture cannot be broken’ (John. 10:35); ‘It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void’ (Luke 16:17)”[11]

A Literal Interpretation Of The Bible Supports A Literal Adam

The literal (historical–grammatical) interpretation of Scripture has been at the basis of orthodox theology down through the centuries. It is the interpretation behind the orthodox creeds and was used by the teachings of the orthodox theologians. Whatever use they made of the allegorical method was based on the literal interpretation of Scripture. St. Augustine is a prime example.[12] Those, like Origin, who used an allegorical method apart from the literal method were not orthodox in all their teachings. For example, the purely allegorical method led Origin to believe Adam was not literal and the resurrection body was not physical.[13]

The literal interpretation of the Bible is supported by many facts, including the following: (1) Adam was created from dust and he returned to dust (Gen. 2:7, 3:19; Job 34:15; Eccl. 3:20, 12:7; Dan. 12:2). (2) Eve was made from Adam’s rib (2:21–24 cf. 1 Cor. 11:8). (3) God created every living creature (1:21). (4) God created new forms of physical life (1:24). (5) Each form of life produced its own kind physically (1:21, 22, 24). (6) Even humans had the ability to reproduce their kind from the beginning (1:28).

The History Of Biblical Interpretation Supports Historical Adam

Not only does the Bible support a literal interpretation which, in turn, supports a literal Adam, but the history of interpretation favors a literal Adam. A brief summary of multiple evidence will suffice for our point here:

1. The Old Testament refers to a literal Adam from the beginning. Adam was created with a literal body. For “the LORD God formed the man of the dust from the ground . . .” (Gen. 2:7). He was able to and did generate physical offspring.
2. A literal Adam was listed at the top of the OT genealogical tables. Gen. 5:1–2 declares, “This is the book of the generations [history] of Adam. When God created man, he made them male and female in the likeness of God. Male and female he created. . . . When Adam had live 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness and after his image, and named him Seth. . . . When Seth had live 105 years, he fathered Enosh. . . .” Later, when listing descendants from the first to the time of return from Captivity, the list begins, “Adam, Seth, Enosh . . .” (1 Chron. 1:1–3). Even the later prophet Hosea lists as the first to transgress God’s command was “Adam,” claiming, “Like Adam they (Israel) transgressed the covenant . . .” (Hosea 6:7). Likewise, the NT genealogy begins with “. . . the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam . . .” (Luke 3:37–38).
3. The New Testament refers to Adam as a literal person (Rom. 5:12–14; 1 Cor. 15:20–21, 15:45; Matt. 19:4–5; 1 Tim. 2:13–14—all cited above).
4. Jesus referred to Adam as a literal person (Matt. 19:4–5; Mark 10:6–8—cited above).
5. The early church Fathers almost without exception viewed Adam as a literal person.
6. Orthodox Jews ancient and modern viewed Adam as a literal person.
7. Likewise, the Catholic Church and all Popes considered Adam to be a literal individual.
8. The Protestant Church (Luther, Calvin, et. al.) up to modern times believed that Adam was a literal person.
9. Most Evangelical to date considered Adam to be a literal individual. This includes the nearly 300 scholars who accepted the statements of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.
10. In short, belief in a literal Adam has been the standard view of Christendom for nearly 2000 years, except those influenced by modern anti-supernatural biblical criticism.

There Was Only One Historical Adam

Contrary to some contemporary views, Adam in the Bible was considered to be a single person, the progenitor (with Eve) of the whole human race. This is evident from the use of the singular of Adam beginning to the end of Scripture: (1) Gen. 1:27—God “made male and female” in His image. (2) Gen. 2:17–18—God “formed man form the dust of the earth.”(3) Gen. 5:1—“the book of the generation of Adam. When God created man.” (4) Eccl. 3:30—“All are from dust, and to dust all return.” (5) Hosea 6:7—“. . . like Adam, they transgressed the covenant.” (6) 1 Chron. 1:1—“Adam, Seth, Enosh,” and others.” (7) Luke 3:23–38—“Jesus…son of David . . . the son of Abraham . . . the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam. . . .” (8) Matt. 19:4—“He who created them . . . made the male and female. . . .” (9) Acts 17:26—“He made from one man every nation of mankind. . . .” (10) Rom. 5:12–14, 19–20—“Sin came into the world through one man. . . . Death reigned from Adam to Moses. . . .” (11) 1 Cor. 11:8–12—“Man was not made from woman but woman [was made] from man. . . .” (12) 1 Cor. 15:11–49—“The first man, Adam became a living being. . . .” (13) 1 Tim. 2:13–14—“For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”

In brief, virtually every reference to Adam in the Bible is in the singular.[14] There was one and only one Adam who was the first man created (or generated). All other humans are genetically related to him as his offspring.

Historical Adam As Basis For Basic Evangelical Doctrines

One of the strongest arguments for a historical literal Adam is that it is used by Jesus and the NT authors as a basis for many of the important evangelical doctrines. Thus, if there was not a literal historical Adam, then the vary basis of evangelical belief is undermined. Consider the following doctrines that are based on or associated with a historical Adam. The first three doctrines are crucial, if not essential, to the orthodox Christian Faith.

1. Doctrine of the essential unity of the human race (Acts 17:26). “He made from one man every nation of mankind.” Without this unity in Adam, Paul teaching on the universality of the Fall (next) makes no real sense.
2. Doctrine of the Fall of mankind (Rom. 5:12–14). “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come [Christ].” The unity and universality of depravity makes no sense apart from a literal Adam from whom all other Adamites are born in sin.
3. Doctrine of Redemption (1 Cor. 15:45). “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam [Christ] became a life-giving spirit.” The last three doctrines, associated with a literal Adam are important, if not crucial to the truth of Christianity. Together, they show the crucial relation of a literal Adam with the truth of the Christian Faith.
4. Doctrine of the essential equality of men and women. Both are in “God’s image” (Gen. 1:27) and “as woman came from man, so man is now born of women” (1 Cor. 11:7–12).
5. Doctrine of marriage (Matt. 19:4–6). “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife. . . .’”
6. Doctrine of human mortality (Gen. 2:7, 17, 3:19 cf. Job 34:15; Eccl. 3:20, 12:7; Dan. 12:2): “From dust you are and to dust you shall return.” This too makes best sense in terms of the creation of a literal Adam from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7).

The International Council On Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) And The Historical Adam [15]

Between 1978 and 1982 a council initiated with some 300 scholars from across the United States and from other countries formulated four basic documents on the inerrancy of Scripture.[16] Two are formal statements on inerrancy and two are official commentaries on these two statements. In 2006 the 3000 member Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) accepted the ICBI interpretation of inerrancy as the official guide to the much shorter ETS statement on the matter. The following citations from the ICBI statements touch on the question of a historical Adam in two ways: first, by explaining what the literal historical-grammatical method of interpretation means and second, by direct reference to the historicity of biblical narratives and to Adam in particular.

The Meaning Of The Historical—Grammatical Hermeneutic

It is generally granted that the traditional historical–grammatical method of interpreting Genesis 1–11, and particularly 1–3, yields a historical Adam. In brief, the so-called literal hermeneutic yields a literal Adam. An examination of the ICBI statements on the matter supports this claim. Consider the following citations:

ICBI Hermeneutics Article XV: We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.[17] 

We deny the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. 

Commentary on Hermeneutics Article XV: The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical–historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed. 

The denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII, and XIV). 

Hermeneutics Article XIII: We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual. 

Hermeneutics Article XIV: We affirm that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact. We deny that any such event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated. 

ICBI Commentary on Hermeneutics Article III: In view of the focus of Scripture on Christ, the denial stresses a hermeneutical obligation to make this Christocentric message clear in the expounding of Scripture. As other articles (cf. Article XV) emphasize the “literal” interpretation of Scripture, this article is no license for allegorization and unwarranted typology which see Christ portrayed in every detail of Old Testament proclamation. The article simply points to the centrality of Christ’s mission in the unfolding of God’s revelation to man. 

ICBI Article XVIII: We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship. 

Commentary of ICBI Article XVIII: The second principle of the affirmation is that we are to take account of the literary forms and devices that are found within the Scriptures themselves. This goes back to principles of interpretation espoused by Luther and the Reformers. A verb is to be interpreted as a verb; a noun as a noun, a parable as a parable, didactic literature as didactic literature, narrative history as narrative history, poetry as poetry, and the like. To turn narrative history into poetry, or poetry into narrative history would be to violate the intended meaning of the text. 

Hermeneutics Article XX: We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations. 

We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it. 

ICBI Hermeneutics Article XXII: We affirm that Genesis 1–11 is factual, as is the rest of the book. 

We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1–11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation. 

Inerrancy Commentary on Article XII: Questions of the extent of the flood or the literary genre of Genesis 1–11 are not answered by this Statement.[18] Questions of biblical interpretation that touch on the field of hermeneutics remain for further investigation and discussion. What the Scriptures actually teach about creation and the flood is not spelled out by this article; but it does spell out that whatever the Bible teaches about creation and the flood cannot be negated by secular theories. 

Inerrancy Article XII: We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. 

Commentary on Article XII: Though the Bible is indeed redemptive history, it is also redemptive history, and this means that the acts of salvation wrought by God actually occurred in the space–time world. The denial explicitly rejects the tendency of some to limit infallibility and inerrancy to specific segments of the biblical message, such as spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, excluding assertions from the fields of history or science. 

Commentary on Inerrancy Article XIII: By biblical standards of truth and error is meant the view used both in the Bible and in everyday life, viz., a correspondence view of truth. This part of the article is directed toward those who would redefine truth to relate merely to redemptive intent, the purely personal or the like, rather than to mean that which corresponds with reality. For example, when Jesus affirmed that Jonah was in “the belly of the great fish” this statement is true, not simply because of the redemptive significance the story of Jonah has, but also because it is literally and historically true. The same may be said of the New Testament assertions about Adam, Moses, David and other Old Testament persons as well as about Old Testament events. 

Commentary on Hermeneutics Article XIII: The denial is directed at an illegitimate use of genre criticism by some who deny the truth of passages which are presented as factual. Some, for instance, take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person. Others take Jonah to be an allegory when he is presented as a historical person and so referred to by Christ (Matt. 12:40–42). This denial is an appropriate and timely warning not to use genre criticism as a cloak for rejecting the truth of Scripture. 

Hermeneutics Article XIX: We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it. We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism. 

Commentary on Article XII: On the other hand, this does not give one license arbitrarily to reinterpret Scripture to force it into conformity to secular theories of origins or the like. For example, if the secular community asserts that the origin of humanity is the result of a cosmic accident or the product of blind, impersonal forces, such a view cannot possibly be reconciled with the biblical view of the purposive act of God’s creation of mankind without doing radical violence to the Bible itself. 

ICBI Commentary on Hermeneutics Article XXII: Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the “literal” hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space–time events which actually happened as reported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV). The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term “creation” was meant to exclude the belief in macro–evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.

In an attempt to avoid these interpretations, some have challenged the accuracy of the ICBI commentaries by citing a comment from the Foreword by Roger Nicole to one of the commentaries which reads, “Obviously, those who have signed the [ICBI] Articles will not necessarily concur in every interpretation advocated by the commentary. Not even the members of the Draft Committee are bound by this, and perhaps not even Dr. Sproul, since his text underwent certain editorial revisions.”[19]

A Response To An Objection

In response, we note several crucial facts. First, these were “official” commentaries endorsed by ICBI. Second, they were written by founders and framers of ICBI and its statements. Third, no evidence has been offered for their alleged inaccuracies. Fourth, we should not accept private views of some critics rather than the official view of those who wrote them. Fourth, the statement by Nicole was part of a “Foreword” and not an official part of the ICBI commentary. Thus, it merely expresses his opinion, not an official ICBI stance. Finally, when read in its proper context the Nicole statement fully supports the accurate and official role of the ICBI commentary for it affirms: (1) “Dr. Sproul is well qualified to write such a commentary. He prepared the first draft of the Nineteen Articles, and although this underwent considerable change in the editing process, Dr. Sproul was closely related to all discussions conducted by the Draft Committee” (all emphasis added). (2) Further, “the present, more extensive text will make clear…exactly what is meant to be affirmed and denied.” (3) Further, “this commentary does represent an effort at making clear the precise position of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy as a whole.” (4) What is more, Nicole affirms, “There is a remarkable unity of views among the members of the Council and the Board, and this should be reflected not only in the Articles in their original form but also in the present pamphlet.” (5) Finally, Nicole declared that “we hope in making this confession and presenting this commentary to dispel misunderstanding with which the doctrine of inerrancy has so frequently been burdened and to present with winsomeness and clarity this great tenet in witness to which we are gladly uniting.” As a framer of the statements, an author of one of the commentaries, and the general editor of the books commentaries, I was aware of all the discussion and background information that went into the statements and commentaries. Indeed, private opinions to the contrary, denying that the authors of the statements and commentaries had the wrong interpretation of them is akin to a contemporary Constitutional revisionists claiming that Washington, Adams, and Madison did not know what they meant by the First Amendment but that contemporary liberal revisionists do!

As a member of the Drafting committee of the ICBI statements, I can testify to the official and accurate nature of the commentaries, despite some misunderstandings of it to the contrary. The disagreements of the Drafting Committee were about issues that were not expressed in the official Articles, such as the age of the universe and the extent of the Flood (see above). As for the final form of the ICBI Articles themselves, the Drafting Committee was in complete agreement. This, of course, does not mean that there will not be many divergent views on what the official ICBI Commentary says or did not say. However, this supposed disunity does not exist in what the framers meant by its official Articles. They know what I mean, and so did the official commentaries. If come contemporary scholars do not agree, then they should reject the ICBI statements and get 300 scholars together and draw up a new list. Copying another person’s statements and giving them new meaning is not honest. In fact, since many of these critics hold that meaning is to be judged by the intention of the author and since we know their intentions, three of them still being alive, then any dispute about the meaning of their statements should end right there. It is utterly presumptuous to carry the discussion any further.

Conclusion

A careful reading of these ICBI citations reveals both implicit and explicit support of a literal Adam. The doctrine of a literal Adam flows naturally from the “literal” hermeneutic that is embraced. Any denial of this “literal” historical–grammatical interpretation of Scripture undermines not only the doctrine of inerrancy but also Christian orthodoxy itself.

Taken as a whole, the evidence for the doctrine of a literal Adam places it beyond mere probability. It is based in the very authority of Christ and is a pillar of orthodox theology; it is at the basis of many important and even crucial orthodox teachings.

In short, without the doctrine of a literal Adam, orthodox Christianity, as it has been embraced in the creeds and great teachers of the Christian Church down through the centuries would crumble.

Notes

1. He should have said, there is no know “natural process” by which this could occur. After all, as a theist Collins believes in miracles (See his book The Language of God (NY: Free Press), 49.
2. See Francis Collins, The Language of Science and Faith (Dowers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012), 206.
3. Cited in World Magazine (November 29, 2014), 39.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., 38.
6. Space does not permit treating the scientific grounds for a literal Adam, but it includes a re–examination and redating of the evidence for a “mitrochondrial Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve.” (See Fuz Rana’s article in this issue of the Christian Apologetics Journal.) Logic demands that there had to be a first individual male and a first individual female to mate. Further, the fact that all humans on the plantet can intermarrry and produce human offspring is further evidence of a common human ancestry. Acts 17:26 declares, “He [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth. . . .”
7. Walt Kaiser, “Literary Form of Genesis 1-11, ” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), 59-60.
8. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Adam to Noah (Jerusalem: Magnus Press, 1989), 129.
9. Ibid.
10. Daniel Harlow, “After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (September 2010): 183-184.
11. John Wenhem, Christ and the Bible, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 20.
12. Although Augustine used allegory in many Scriptures, nonetheless, he wrote a literal commentary on Genesis: translated by John Hammond Taylor, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (New York: Newman Press, 1982).
13. See Origen, De Principiis 4.4.7.
14. The word “Adam” is also a generic term (like the term “man” in English) which means mankind and sometimes refers to both man and women (cf. Gen. 1:26—“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them [male and female] have dominion. . . .”).
15. Emphasis in all citations in this section is added.
16. All four of these documents are found together in one book titled Explaining Inerrancy at www.BastionBooks.com.
17. ICBI is opposed to using texts outside the Bible as hermeneutically determinative of biblical texts. It insists that Scripture must be used to interpret Scripture (See ICBI statement on inerrancy Articles XIII and XVIII).
18. This, of course, does not deny the main assertion of the article, namely, that Genesis 1-2 is “factual” and not “mythical.”
19. Roger Nicole, “Foreword,” Explaining Inerrancy. www.BastinBooks.com, 6.