Clough Evolution Lesson 6
Creation of Man
Now we come to the second group of material underneath the problem of the creation of man. We have dealt with the doctrine of man created in the image of God, we’ve considered the divine viewpoint and the human viewpoint alternative, and now we come to the literal Adam, the literal Adam. I want to clarify something that many Christians feel is unimportant and that is the question, was Adam really a single individual or was Adam merely a symbol of the first men, plural. Was there ever such a thing as a literal single Adam?
There are five references in the New Testament that prove that Jesus and the apostles accepted a literal Adam. It was their interpretation of the Genesis narrative, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their life, that tells us the correct interpretation of Genesis, i.e. that Adam is a literal person. These five references of the New Testament are: Matthew 19:4; Romans 5:12-14; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; 1 Timothy 2:13-14. The verses which I have given you are abbreviated; if you will look these verses up and check the context, then you will find that in the context…in the context you will also find more material. For example, I gave you a reference, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 but if we turn to 1 Corinthians 15 you will find even more material in the immediate context. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:45, same chapter, Paul says, “And so it is written, the first man, Adam, was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a life-giving spirit,” or energizing spirit. Now the point of verse 45 in 1 Corinthians 15 is Paul’s designation, “The first man,” (comma) “Adam,” (comma); in other words, Paul took the title, Adam, as referring to the name of one single individual.
I make mention of this because I have before me a recent article taken from our local newspaper by the Associated Press coming out of New York in which it is titled: Theologians Commence Viewing Doctrine of Original Sin in New Ways, and I will refer to this article later on in connection with another item but one of the points in this article is that the professor quoted Dr. Herman Haag, a Catholic Bible scholar from Germany, says that the Bible does not teach that Adam was a real man, he points out that in the Hebrew the language in which the Old Testament was written, the term “Adam” always means, not a single individual, but mankind as a species. Now that is not true; that is absolutely untrue.
For example, you can turn to the standard Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament, which was put out by Frances Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs out of Oxford University, it’s a standard Lexicon of the Hebrew language, and you look up Adam and you find there are several meanings of the word “Adam,” four are listed. One of those meanings, meaning numbers three given in the book is: it is a proper name of Adam, the first man. And various references are given for this, so that it shows you that Hebrew scholars down through the centuries have viewed Adam as an individual, as the name of a single individual.
It is true, in many, many cases, in fact the majority of cases, it does refer to man species, but that is a simplified answer and Professor Haag is begging the question because he is saying that the word means only mankind as a species and therefore cannot refer to a literal Adam. But for him to do this, logically he’s already assumed the thing he was trying to prove, he’s assumed that Adam was not an individual, that Adam is simply the title of a race, then he says that the Hebrew word that refers to this is the title of a race, and then he concludes that it never referred to an individual. So it’s circular reasoning that begs the question at this point and I would say the necessary controls on the interpretation in the Old Testament, as is so frequently the case, is given to us in the New Testament, in particular the infallible opinion of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45 when he says, “The first man, Adam,” and this clearly teaches that Paul believed in Adam as a literal person.
Now why is it so important that we believe in a literal Adam? What is the issue here? Why is it that we insist upon believing in a literal Adam when it seems to generate so many problems? The first reason, and the most obvious reason is that is Genesis 1 and 2 really a factually true account of what’s going on? Is this a factually true narrative or is this an allegory. And one has to be clear on this; this is the only choice you have. Either Genesis 1 and 2 is an allegory or it is a factually true account. If Adam is a name that refers to mankind, then Genesis 1 and 2 is an allegory; if Adam is his name, which refers to man as an individual, then Genesis 1 and 2 is a true historical account. Why do I insist on this? Because of simply Genesis 2; in Genesis 2 it’s obviously talking about a man who God molds from the face of the earth, out of his side comes the woman and so on, there’s only one individual mentioned there. And you can see also and compare 1 Timothy 2:13-14 in this regard. So it would determine one’s view of Genesis 1 and 2 at this point; either it is an allegory or a factually true narrative.
Second, and more importantly in considering the question of a literal Adam, is the question of the origin of sin, death and despair, as it is given to us in Scripture. And to see this more clearly I go back to this newspaper article that originated from New York in March 1969, where Herman Haag who is a Catholic Bible scholar of Germany has denied the idea of original sin. And it’s not a mistake or an accident that he also denies the literalness of Adam. The doctrine of original, the transmission of the sin nature, the collective responsibility of the human race at the point of Genesis 3 and so on, all this doctrine stands or falls upon a literal Adam. If Adam was not literal then we have no explanation for the sin nature of man, absolutely no explanation. Paul takes careful pains in Romans 5:12-14 to show that sin came into mankind through an act of disobedience, a single act of disobedience, sin came upon all men for all sinned. And he makes the analogy with the single act of obedience with Jesus Christ.
I don’t see how you can honestly go through these New Testament passages without believing and seeing the obvious connection the Apostle Paul is deriving, the entire doctrine of the sin nature of man on the position that Adam is a literal man, that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the entire human race. If they are not the progenitors of the entire human race, then the human race, if it has a sin nature, the sin nature is not due to disobedience, the sin nature is due to an inherent feature built into man by God and God therefore becomes the creator of evil. Or, man really doesn’t have a sin nature and what we’ve identified as sin is simply the foibles of creature hood.
Those of you who remember the three axioms of modern unbelief, remember the third axiom, that sin, death and despair are inherent features of creation—inherent features of creation! If they are not inherent features of creation, they were introduced at a later point in time by man’s fall. This is the only alternative; either they are inherent features of creation and if this is true then God cannot be good God because He made a suffering creation. So if you deny the literalness of Adam it would seem to me that you have to also deny, logically, because of its interconnection, logically with the position, if you deny the literalness of Adam then you must also deny the goodness of God. For if you deny the literalness of Adam you deny the Biblical explanation for the origin of evil, suffering, and death, which leaves you with evil, suffering and death in the world that has been created by God, thus God becomes the creator of good and evil, thus God becomes not good. And so it would seem to me that the goodness of God stands or falls with the literalness of Adam.
We notice this in this newspaper article about Dr. Haag, for he says, besides making a few other remarks to show that he is thinking in terms of human viewpoint of the unbelief, he says that: “no man enters the world as a sinner at birth, but rather as the creature image of God surrounded by God’s love. A man becomes a sinner only through his own individual and responsible action.” Now this is Dr. Haag’s desperate attempt to get around the logical implications of denying the literalness of Adam. See, if Dr. Haag wants to protect the goodness of God, he has to invent an explanation for the origin of sin and evil, and thus each one of us has our own individual fall. And thus Adam’s fall is totally insignificant, and each one of us falls as we come into this world. And the answer to this, not only does this violate Romans 5, not only does it violate 1 Corinthians 15, not only does it violate 1 Timothy 2 but it also violates the concept that Adam, as the head of the human race, was the one responsible and thus was the one through whom we receive the imputation of sin.
And when one denies this, one wonders, then what happens with the imputation of the righteousness of Christ at the point of salvation. If you deny the literalness of Adam, I would like to ask Professor Haag, for example, how he deals with the imputation of Christ. Would he therefore have to say that as no man enters the world as a sinner but surrounded by God’s love and man becomes a sinner only through his own individual responsible action, the corollary to that would be that man becomes a saint only through his only individual responsible action which would deny God’s grace. The plan of salvation is symmetrical at this point. And if you study Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 carefully you’ll see the symmetry, that as Adam, so Christ. As we are related to Adam so we are related to Christ. There is a symmetry here and you break one half of the symmetry you destroy the other half of the symmetry.
So the second section of material would deal with the literalness of Adam. And I want to impress upon you the necessity of the teaching that there was an original human couple, that man did not originate with several couples and that man originated from one couple. And this is the teaching of Genesis and also the teaching of the Apostle Paul, so that if you deny this you might as well throw out the entire New Testament. The New Testament becomes a book of cultural myths and therefore unauthoritative.
Now the third block of material under the creation of man deals with the supposed two accounts of Genesis 1 and 2. I don’t think I’ve ever been on the college campus or even in a high classroom, particularly biology or social studies, where the issue of Genesis 1 and 2 hasn’t come up. It always comes up; somebody is always saying the Bible, there are two accounts of creation, there’s one account in Genesis 1 and there’s another account of creation in Genesis 2. Now they usually say that in Genesis 1 we have six day of creation, animals are created first, then man but in Genesis 2 we have a dry earth, instead of the wet earth of Genesis 1, we have man created first and then we have animals and then plants. And it seems like Genesis 2, therefore, is backwards. And Genesis 1 is one way; Genesis 2 is another way, there are two accounts of creation and therefore the Bible contains contradictory accounts.
Now this whole idea has been explained again and again and again and again by conservative Old Testament scholars. And I don’t understand why a modern person, educated in the 20th century, could possibly have this absurd objection to the Bible. Conservative scholars in the last hundred years have answered this question again and again and again. And so if you hear a high school teacher or if you hear a college professor iterating this argument about there supposedly two accounts between Genesis 1 and 2 you are listening to a person who is half educated, a person who has never been exposed to the conservative position; a person that is just sounding off something that he’s probably heard from somewhere else and therefore very unauthoritative and therefore I think if I were a student I would feel obligated to challenge the person in class. This is God’s Word at stake and it should not be allowed to go, there should be some conflict, there should be a confrontation, and such a teacher should be challenged to state the conservative answer if he knows it, and if he doesn’t know it he should keep his big mouth shut.
Actually this observation of the two accounts of Genesis dates back several centuries to some of the earliest Old Testament scholars who took this as evidence that Moses compiled, Genesis, from several prior accounts, which may indeed be true, but that still does not make excuse for them being inconsistencies. We don’t believe there are inconsistencies in the Word of God and the philosophy behind this answer, that there are no inconsistencies in the Word of God derives directly from the sovereignty of God. If God is sovereign, then God controls history; if God controls history, then God controls language and culture. If God controls language and culture, then he is not limited by language and culture in revealing things to man. Therefore there is no need for contradictions to arise because of language and culture.
A second reason behind this answer is the doctrine of the image of God in man. If God created man a rational creature, God also created man knowing full well that man would need verbal revelation down through the ages of history, therefore it would seem likely God created man with the capability of knowing verbal revelation, and therefore there should not be any difficulty experienced by man in the concept of verbal revelation. And since God is rational, since He’s immutable, God would not contradict himself, therefore again we find that there need not be any contradiction in Scripture.
So thus our doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture proceeds directly from the doctrine of God taught in Scripture as well as classical references, such as 2 Timothy 3:16 and so on, and such as the whole underlying motif of the mode in which the apostles and Jesus quoted Scripture in their behalf.
But the idea there being two supposed accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, thus a contradiction in Scripture is part of what is known as the doublet idea. The doublet idea says that there are certain doublets, that is, certain portions of Scripture that are repetitious of the same event but they look at that event in different contradictory ways. And during the 19th century especially, in Biblical criticism, this idea attained ascendancy. In the 19th century men like Velhousen [sp?] and others erected a tremendous edifice of Biblical criticism on the doublet idea, that there were contradicttory doublets in Scripture. Another doublet would be seen in the flood of Noah and other doublets would be seen. But now in the 20th century it seems this is a very archaic way of looking at Scripture because of the fact that now we have studies on Ancient Near Eastern literature in Egypt, in Babylon; in other words, literature written at the time the Bible was written and we find that the doublets are inherent features of such literature. But the doublets are not contradictory accounts of the same event; the doublets are the same account, non-contradictory accounts of the same event and can be shown by studies in other Ancient Near Eastern literature.
We find, for example, the best summary of this is Professor K. A. Kithen’s book, Ancient Orient and Old Testament produced by Intervarsity Press. And he discusses this very problem of the doublet of Genesis 1 and 2 on page 117 and following. On page 118, footnote 19, he deals with this problem and I would like to quote from Dr. Kithen’s footnote. He says: “In translating any ancient text,” and by the way, we must remember who Dr. Kithen is; Dr. Kithen is a lecturer in Egyptology at Liverpool University in England, a very capable and knowledgeable scholar on Ancient Near Eastern texts and for those of you who are interested in Biblical criticism I couldn’t recommend more highly his work, Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Kitchen goes on in footnote 19, “In translating any ancient text the first assumption is that the writer intended to make sense; a rendering or exegesis that imports a contradiction is unsatisfactory. The meaning of any waw consecutive imperfect must be settled on context,” and at this point I want to take you to Genesis 2:9 so that you will see what Dr. Kithen is talking about.
You see, in Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. [8] And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. [9] and out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food,” etc. etc. etc. Now the point that the critics make is that in Genesis 2 we have in verse 7 God making man; then in verses 8 and 9 we have God planting a garden, so therefore man precedes the plant kingdom. And then you go over to Genesis 2:19 and it says, “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;” and here we have the animal kingdom. So the sequence of Genesis 2 appears to be man, then plants, then animals, thus this sequence clashes with the sequence in Genesis 1 where we have plants, then animals, then man. How does one reconcile the supposed two contradictory accounts?
The first verse, Genesis 2:9 is very easy to reconcile and any person with a good translation can reconcile it immediately without any further discussion and the hint is given in verse 8, “And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. [9] And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food,” etc. etc. etc. In verses 8 and 9 it is true that this follows the creation of man but the point is that this is a garden, this is not referring to the plant kingdom all over thee earth and the words used in this narrative clearly show that these are cultivated plants; these are not all the wild plants, all the plants that grow on the face of the earth in Genesis 1; these are special cultivated plants. This is God planting a garden for man whom He has created. So thus the action of God creating the Garden does come after man, but it’s the creation of a garden, not the creation of the entire plant kingdom. And this is proved if you just refer to a concordance, look up the Hebrew words and you will see that the Hebrew words are different.
But in Genesis 2:19 we come to the problem, “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air…” and so on. Now not only does Genesis 2:19 give us a problem but it also provides an alternate solution to Genesis 2:9 that we just covered. It could also be said that in Genesis 2:9 God made the plant kingdom along with the time He planted the Garden in Eden. And one doesn’t have to say that God planted the Garden after the creation of man; one could say that He planted the Garden before the creation of man as one can say that He created animals before the creation of man in Genesis 2:19, and the whole thing hinges on a verb tense. In verse 19 one could translate, “And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field, had formed every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam.” In other words, it’s pluperfect tense, the action has gone on in the past, has stopped and has been in abeyance for some time, and this would be therefore looked upon as a summary statement. Verses 19 and 9 would be summary statements of what God had already done before made man. And one could say now isn’t this unusual? Isn’t this unusual for it to read…doesn’t that sound as though first God made man and then out of the ground He made animals and so on; isn’t it unusual, isn’t it unscientific to take this kind of a verb tense? Not at all, if you understand the way in which Ancient Near Eastern literature was written.
To see this I borrowed two illustrations that Kithen notes in his footnote. Now let’s return to the footnote. Kithen writes, “In translating any ancient text the first assumption is that the writer intended it to make sense.” Now this is used in all other Ancient Near Eastern texts but for some reason liberals don’t want to grant this assumption when they come to Scripture. “A rendering or exegesis that imports a contradiction is unsatisfactory. The meaning of any waw consecutive imperfect,” that’s just a name for this verb that you find in verse 19, “and out of the ground the LORD formed,” that’s what Kithen is talking about here. “the meaning [small blank spot] must be settled on context, not by appeal to abstract principles, although in form and origin misconstruction is continuative,” that is that it would normally follow verse 18, “yet as often in languages this was early and easily lost sight of, so that it could instead serve instead of a perfective form,” in other words, what Kithen is saying here is that this kind of a form does not have to be continuation, and to just arbitrarily read through here and say that it means continuation is a violation of the scientific way of the study of language. Language is not an automatic set of principles; you have to analytically derive the principles of syntax from the text of the Scripture that you’re studying.
Kithen gives many examples, I will cite two: Exodus 19:2, “For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.” Now Exodus 19:2 does not follow Exodus 19;1 for in Exodus 19:1 it says, “In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day they came into the wilderness of Sinai.” “…the same day they came into the wilderness of Sinai,” that is the third month; on the same day of the month that they came out of Egypt. But the point is that verse 2 does not pick up a continuation from verse 1. Rather, verse 2 of chapter 29 goes back to Exodus 17:1, for in Exodus 17:1 we read, “And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their journeys, according to the commandment of the LORD, and encamped in Rephidim; and there was no water for the people to drink.” So in Exodus 17:1 we have a listing of the sequence of their journeys. Then beginning from Exodus 17:2 we have various developments, the various experiences that they met along the journey and then finally in Exodus 19:2 we pick up the journey from where we left it in Exodus 17 and Exodus 19:2 therefore becomes something that refers back to action prior to verse 1. Thus here is a clear cut case, whereas in Genesis 2:19 we have a case of a pluperfect form, in Exodus 19:2 we could say “for they had departed from Rephidim;” “they had come to the desert of Sinai,” and “had encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mount.” You see, you can translate these pluperfects perfectly compatible…in fact, the only way you can understand the narrative in Exodus.
Now another sequence where we see the same thing operating is in Isaiah 37:5. In Isaiah 37:5 we have the statement, “So the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah.” Now does this immediately follow the action of verse 4? No, because in verse 3, “And they said unto him,” who are “they?” “They” are the servants; who is “him?” Isaiah. “So they said unto him, thus saith Hezekiah,” so in verses 3 and 4 the servants have already come to Isaiah, yet in verse 5 after they have come it says “the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah.” You see, so both these incidents are two of many, many incidents Kithen quotes and he gives you a reference where you can find even more of these, clearly showing that Genesis 2:19 can be translated “God had formed.”
Going back to Genesis 2:19 then, are there really two accounts between Genesis 1 and 2? No, the sequence of Genesis 2 perfectly matches that of Genesis 1, for in Genesis 2:19 it says, “And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field,” in other words, this goes back and picks up the work of the sixth day, and it simply says that God had formed these animals, and now this time, after having formed man, the animals that He created before He made man He now brought to man. And that’s perfectly acceptable and fits perfectly well with the known forms of Ancient Near Eastern writing.
Now Kithen points out, very interestingly, in his footnote that all of these examples were available and made available by Professor W. H. Greene, a professor of Old Testament at Princeton, University, in his book, Unity of the Book of Genesis, in 1895. And it just goes to show you that liberals are too lazy to understand the conservative position, for this book has been around now for 70 years; these examples have been available and yet liberals insist on mouthing off in the classroom about two contradictory events when, at least for seventy years, more than that, but at least for 70 years the conservatives had a perfectly satisfying explanation for the text and it just shows you that either, (1) liberals are intellectually dishonest, or (2) they are scholastically lazy in trying to understand the opponent’s position. And this is why, frankly, I have very little patience with, particularly college professors and high school teachers that would make these kind of statements in front of my child or any of the children in my flock. I would say that at this point they are violating the civil rights of my students and if I hear about it I would arrange to tell them immediately, face to face, what I thought of the policy and at least show them the position. And if this policy continued I’m afraid I would just have to take further action and withhold students from such a blasphemer and such a person who I have paid to teach my children and who was not teaching my children because he is not giving them a broad education; he’s giving them a narrow indoctrination of liberal dogma.
So we conclude now with the fourth problem of the Genesis account and evolution, and that is the problem of the creation of man. So reviewing now, we have gone through Genesis 1:1-3; we’ve gone through the problem of days; we’ve gone through Genesis 2:1-3; we’ve gone through man’s creation. Next time we will deal with the problem of the curse that God place upon the earth and the problem of the flood.