Rejecting a literal, historical Adam—or some of the details about him and Eve— undermines the authority of Scripture and has enormous theological and moral implications. The historical last Adam came to solve the real, historical problem caused by the historical first Adam.  

In recent years, in an effort to harmonize the evolutionary story and timeline with Scripture, a growing number of professing evangelicals have been doubting or denying Adam’s existence or at least denying some of the details about Adam in Genesis. Some would even seek to cast Genesis 1–11 as a poetic myth that does not accord with historical reality. But do these attempted harmonizations work, and does it matter what we believe about Adam?

The Historicity of Adam

Genesis 1–11 is inerrant history, not poetry, historical fiction, or mythology.^[1] There are several reasons to conclude this. The Hebrew word toledoth (translated as history, account, or generations) occurs 13 times in Genesis (See Gen. 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 10:32, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:13, 25:19, 36:1, 26:9 and 37:2). This ties the book together as a unified whole covering the time from creation week to the beginning of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt. The waw-consecutive verb form dominates Hebrew historical narrative, and it does so right from the beginning of Genesis 1.^[2]

The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 connect Adam to Abraham, and all evangelical scholars treat Abraham as historical. First Chronicles 1–8 confirms the genealogical history in Genesis 1–11 and the rest of Genesis and then provides more genealogies. This shows that the Jews (and God who inspired the text) were very concerned to preserve this historical record of real people: certain Israelites from David back to Abraham and then the patriarchs back to Adam.

In their gospels, Matthew and Luke continue this concern for genealogical history. Luke takes us from Jesus all the way back to Adam, who (like Jesus) had a supernatural origin with no physical father (Luke 3:23–38). All the men in these genealogies that end with Adam are undoubtedly real historical people. Adam (and the details about him) must therefore be historical, or these men are descended from a myth.^[3]

When the New Testament authors refer to Genesis 1–11, they always take the details in Genesis as literally accurate history. Paul affirmed that Adam was the first man (1 Cor. 15:45 and 47), that Eve was made after, from, and for Adam (1 Cor. 11:8–9; 1 Tim. 2:13), and that Eve was deceived (1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3). Given how much Paul refers explicitly or implicitly to Satan (2 Cor. 2:11, 4:3–4, 11:13–15, Eph. 6:11, and 2 Thess. 2:8–9), and given that he would have believed Revelation 12:9, it is certain that Paul believed that Satan spoke through that crafty serpent, just as God spoke through Balaam’s donkey (Num. 22:28).^[4] Paul also affirmed that as descendants of Adam we are all blood relatives in the one human race, regardless of skin shades or ethnicity (Acts 17:26).^[5]

Peter believed the detail that only eight people were saved from the Flood (1 Pet. 3:20, 2 Peter 2:5) just as he did the detail that Sodom and Gomorrah were burned to ashes (2 Pet. 2:6). Peter also believed the Flood was a global watery judgment, just as the judgment by fire at the return of Christ will also be global (2 Pet. 3:3–7). And both Peter and Paul made it very clear that they knew the difference between truth and myth.^[6]

Therefore, we should take Genesis 1–11 as literally as we do the accounts of the virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. So, what do they teach us about the origin of man and his relationship to the rest of creation?

Read More