Remember my preference


Table of Contents


Chapter  1

Part I
Chapter  2
Chapter  3
Chapter  4
Chapter  5
Chapter  6
Chapter  7
Chapter  8
Chapter  9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12

Part II
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17

Chapter 18

Two Men Called Adam

Chapter 18

Conclusion: Cause and Effect

       "The true way in which to examine a spiritual movement is in its logical relations: logic is the great dynamic and the logical implications of any way of thinking are sooner or later certain to be worked out."
                                J. Gresham Machen *

     I am fully persuaded that an established fact is as sacred as a revealed truth. But is the creation of man "a revealed truth" or is it merely one possible interpretation of the Genesis account? And is human evolution an "established fact" or merely one possible way of interpreting the geological record? How do we decide? How does one distinguish interpretation of evidence from the truth itself? Is "truth," after all, not reality but only our interpretation, i.e., our perception of it? How are we to decide what is the correct interpretation of Genesis?

      I have in my own library over 350 commentaries on Genesis, going back to some published in the 1600's. In addition I have the works of the Church Fathers during the first few centuries of the Christian era, among which are many treatises on the book of Genesis in various forms. Besides these, taking us even further back in time, I have some of the earliest commentaries and paraphrases of Genesis written by the Jewish people themselves. Probably no other book of the Bible has been subjected to such scrutiny

* Machen, Gresham, quoted by J. I. Packer, Fundamentals of the Word of God, London, InterVarsity Press, 1958, p.26, 27.

     pg.1 of 17    

or studied so extensively, or argued about so assiduously. Why? Because beginnings are always important. If our Faith is a logical construct, here is its foundation. If the evolution of man is a truth, our foundation is in error. How can a Faith be defended if its foundation is destroyed?
     Of course, we still have to interpret the sacred record: and of course, this in large part accounts for the diversities of opinion in these commentaries since each commentator brings his own pair of spectacles to the task. Yet apart from works written in the past one hundred years or so, these commentaries almost without exception have held to the view that man was created by a direct and immediate act of God, not merely in spirit but in body also. If long-held biblically informed opinion counts for anything, then either the modern accommodation to evolution cannot carry the same weight or for almost 2000 years the Church of God has been misled in a basic tenet of its faith.
     This has indeed been the Faith of the Church for centuries, and so long as man's origin was understood in this light, his destiny was understood in the same light — as equally unique. Unlike the other animals whose bodies return to the earth and whose spirits are destined to do the same (Ecclesiastes 3:21 and 12:7), man's spirit goes upwards to God who gave it while his body awaits resurrection and re-union with it to reconstitute the individual in his entirety.
     The destinies of the animal and the human body are diametrically opposed and it would be reasonable therefore to assume that their origins are equally diverse. The Christian evolutionist accounts for the origin of man's body by a wholly natural process but must then allow it to have an entirely super-natural destiny — which seems a strange incongruity. Can such an incongruity be defended? Can a body with such a super-natural destiny as man's body is designed for, have had the same origin that evolution demands for the animal body?

     Evolution is also strictly a Faith because its presuppositions

     pg.2 of 17    

are, like all presuppositions, simply taken for granted. In the nature of the case, they are probably unproveable in strictly scientific terms. If man is merely an animal, then such a Faith entails a consonant view of his destiny. Each branch of science has its own canons of proof — in mathematics, logic: in astronomy, observation: and in the natural sciences, experiment. Because evolutionary theory claims to be a natural science, it ought to be subject to proof, but it isn't. It never can be, because what is past is past and cannot be repeated; and an essential of proof in any science is repeatability. We cannot step into the same river twice.
     Nor can we prove the great articles of our Faith, for we cannot even prove the existence of our God! "He that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is the key to understanding in such matters, not understanding the key to faith as we may prefer to think.
     It was Anselm (c. 1033—1109) who wrote: "I believe in order that I may understand," and Abelard (c.1079—1142) who, fifty years later, argued: "I seek to understand in order that I may believe."
(136) Anselm was right, because every world view starts with an act of faith and is intelligible only when that initial commitment has been made.
     Every "system" of thought, including evolution, begins with a premise that is an act of faith. We have to allow this: and if we deny an opponent's premise or he denies ours, we have no starting point for meaningful dialogue. When we insist on proof of the basic premise, we bring to a halt all useful discussion. A premise cannot be proved, for then it would become a conclusion and cease to be a starting point.
     Because the basic premise of the Christian Faith is completely opposed to the starting point of a strictly evolutionary world view, there is no real reconciliation possible except by abandoning any rigid adherence to logical extension. The Christian view allows forces and realities of a spiritual nature to be causal factors in the physical world. Evolution absolutely forbids them. The two positions are

135. Anselm and Abelard: quoted by John H. Randall, The Making of the Modern Mind, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1940, p.93.

     pg.3 of 17    

logically irreconcilable and thus it is hopeless to attempt a wedding of Christian theology and evolutionary theory. They are erected on different premises and can only be reconciled by the introduction of logical inconsistencies.
     If man derives his body from an animal source with nothing added beyond what can be provided by nature, then he must be an animal and nothing more. And if he shares the origin and nature of animals, it is only reasonable to suppose that he will share their destiny. To argue that he is an animal but an animal with a soul introduced from outside the system, may be a sop for theology but it is quite unacceptable to the strict evolutionist. And even for theology such a concession is wholly inadequate because man's body is to share equally in the redemptive process. So that it is not enough to argue that a human soul is sufficient distinction: he must also have a body that is uniquely human.
      Why is this not a sufficient concession to theology? Because the redemptive process required the vicarious sacrifice of a truly human body. If it should be asked in what way this redemptive process relates to the nature of Adam's body as created, the answer is to be found by considering the three following compelling affirmations which are locked together and must all be precisely honoured or none of them has any validity.
     First of all, unless the body of Jesus Christ was by nature under no necessity of dying, it could not be sacrificed vicariously. Secondly, unless the body of Jesus Christ was truly human, the sacrifice of it was not vicarious for man. Finally, if His body was by nature free of any necessity of dying and was therefore indeed sacrificed vicariously for man, then Adam's body in its original form must also have been by nature free of any necessity of dying.
Such was Adam's body, and it cannot possibly have been derived from any primate body since all other primates are by nature subject to death. It must therefore have been a direct creation of God. Immediate creation thus

     pg.4 of 17    

meets all the theological requirements whereas mediate derivation by evolution meets none of them.
     The Christian evolutionist takes refuge in the tacit assumption that it is the soul of man which is unique and this is all that matters. As for man's body, since it is animal in origin, it cannot have any transcendental significance. In short, the body is not essential to man's continuance in eternity. In this view, man is man only because of his soul. The biblical view of man as a unique body/spirit entity has to be abandoned. Man can exist just as well as a mere ghost, even if that ghost supposedly has to assume the shape of his body for purposes of identity!
     To the evolutionists, there can be nothing in nature of which nature is not the author. No discontinuities in the great chain of being from amoeba to man can be allowed. No divine intervention, no miracle to upset the strict chain of physical causality, no revelation to point up the inadequacy of the human mind in its interpretation of the evidence.
     The Christian who admits to faith in either creation or revelation is suspect, for evolution is a strictly deterministic, materialistic, non-theistic philosophy. Thus it is difficult to maintain a position that falls between the two diametrically opposed world views. The passage from a little admission of doubt to a frank abandonment of any biblical faith at all is along a slippery path, and those who start upon it innocently enough, soon find it more and more costly to stop the slide. Or if they do, they will in the end find it increasingly difficult to defend what faith they retain except on an emotional basis.
     This abandonment of rational defense is made a little easier if one really has no understanding of why the issue of the body of man is so important; but such ignorance of the true situation hardly encourages a strong and mature Christian faith. Unfortunately, while we have a highly developed theology of the spirit, there is as yet no convincing parallel theology of the body. The importance of the

     pg.5 of 17    

body has been sadly neglected.

     To a large extent our problem is the result of a paradox. In spite of a gross materialism which infects us all, we have somehow overlooked the importance of a material body, even though the New Testament lays such an emphasis upon it. We have tended to settle for the Greek view that it is a prison to be abandoned as soon as possible. It thus becomes easy to view its evolutionary origin as quite acceptable, for in this view it is only a temporary part of our being in any case not something we shall have throughout eternity. Where it came from is as irrelevant as where it is going to. Whereas it is in fact part and parcel of our hope of glory!
     We betray this hope of glory by barely perceptible stages, yielding on some supposedly "innocuous" point (such as the vast antiquity of man) which then becomes a first step down the slippery decline. And we do it in a way that causes us little concern because the element of betrayal of our Faith is not apparent. We just don't see that it matters.
     Soon it becomes necessary to go a step further and abandon the idea of a real Adam and a real Eve such as we find in the biblical record — and with it goes the story of the Fall. As their concrete reality slowly recedes, we are easily led to make the tacit assumption that if there was an Adam and an Eve in such a distant past, they would obviously have looked much like the ape-men of current reconstructions, and very soon the derivation of Eve out of Adam becomes clearly mythological.
     The next step is comparatively painless. Some kind of ape is in fact in our direct line of descent. Since the further back we go by natural generation the more "primitive" we assume we were, early man is soon indistinguishable from the rest of the primates, so "why not simply join the family?"
     By now our passage down the slope is going full-tilt. It

     pg.6 of 17    

is quite exhilarating. We are coasting freely with the crowd. We no longer stand alone: and the comforting thing is that it doesn't seem to matter. We don't appear to have sacrificed any essential part of our Christian Faith. Yet somehow the "old Book" seems to have lost its power to inspire or rebuke or encourage. And we come across the references to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Last Adam and scarcely realize that the term is now meaningless because the First Adam has been lost in the mists of evolutionary antiquity two or three millions of years ago and cannot possibly have truly been a prototype of the magnificent figure we meet in the Gospels as the Last Adam.
     But it is too late to retract. At least, the cost will be so great in terms of "reputation for sanity" and perhaps even job security, that we cannot contemplate it. And so we settle in the end for a philosophy that is totally inconsistent with the Faith we once lived by. To do otherwise requires more and more moral courage, while the exhilaration of apparent "progress" is hard to give up. Without a strong conviction that one's course is wrong, there is no incentive to try to reverse it. And one cannot have any strong conviction in the matter unless one understands something of the reason for ever having had such a conviction in the first place.
     No one really wants to be the only man in step. It takes a lot of stamina to go against the current. It is difficult to sustain a position which is only reasonable to those who allow its premises, and the enemy is adamant in rejecting these premises.
     But the logic of the Christian Faith has such an inner consistency that it cannot be tampered with or adjusted without virtually rendering it irrational and therefore difficult to defend. To surrender any part is either to surrender the whole (as many have done in recent years) or to retain what is retained in a way that is incomprehensible to those who have not made the surrender.
     Such inner inconsistency may allow a certain level of

     pg.7 of 17    

continued fellowship along purely spiritual lines but it certainly destroys fellowship of mind which is always such a delight among the Lord's people. The sad thing is that such forms of disagreement are often the most distressing because theological incompatibility seems more conducive to disharmony than spiritual incompatibility. Mental convictions are more intractable: we generally find it much easier to bend on purely spiritual matters than on theological ones. Heart is more "forgiving" than mind. Protestant charismatics who attach little importance to theology can have close fellowship with Roman Catholic charismatics. It is when either party becomes theologically adept that their fellowship is endangered.

     We will not repeat what we have said in the first chapter regarding the shift in Evangelical Theology which took place at Princeton Theological Seminary immediately after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. But it may be worthwhile to pause for a moment to reflect upon the first step taken on this slide, because it seemed at the time so innocuous.
     Sir Charles Lyell (1797—1875), one of the first British geologists, published his Principles of Geology between 1830 and 1833. In this three volume work he established that a very long period of geological history must have preceded the introduction of Adam while the earth was being prepared for him. He did not seem to have any doubts about the reality of the Genesis account of what happened to Adam and Eve and their immediate descendants, only that the six days which preceded Adam's creation had to be interpreted as a far greater period. But in a later work, The Antiquity of Man published in 1863, Lyell argued that Adam must himself have appeared on the scene far earlier than the 4000 BC of biblical chronology because his remains were being found increasingly in rocks of great age.
     As we have seen, William Green accommodated the Bible

     pg.8 of 17    

to geology in this matter by proposing that no absolute biblical chronology was possible due to gaps in the genealogical records. What neither Charles nor Alexander Hodge recognized in Green's thesis was the fact that the argument for the existence of gaps is entirely circular. If it is asked, "How do you know there are gaps?" the answer has to be, "Because parallel records elsewhere in Scripture show them up by supplying the missing names!" How else would one know there was anything missing?
     But if the gaps are filled in elsewhere in the same book, there are no gaps! In other words, we know that in some instances the genealogies of the Bible are abbreviated, but we only know this because the abbreviation is pointed out to us elsewhere by supplying what is missing. In short, nothing is actually missing; it is only that the data are presented elsewhere. Were they not to be found "elsewhere" we could have no knowledge of "the gaps" in what preceded. The only way we can become aware of the abbreviations in the genealogies is by being warned later on that such abbreviations exist because we are given the names of the individuals who must be inserted therein to make the record complete. When we are not given these names we have no right to assume there are still gaps. Thus, in effect, the genealogies do not actually contain unfilled gaps at all. The only concrete evidence for a gap is the "filling" supplied elsewhere, which only reveals the gap by closing it!
     If, for instance, a piece of information in a detective story is given later in the book, would a reviewer say, "Unfortunately, the story has gaps in it?" The identity of the murderer may be left by an author until the very last sentence, but this does not mean that the murderer's identity is missing! Omissions in one place supplied in another place are not really gaps at all, but only temporary withholdings according to the author's intention.
If on an examination paper, for the sake of neatness and ease of reading, one were to work out a mathematical sum but omit some of the commonplace steps in the calculation,

     pg.9 of 17    

and then append these omitted calculations on a final sheet of paper, it would be quite improper for the examiner to argue that the student has actually left gaps in the calculation.
     In the Bible these so-called "gaps" are made manifest and clearly indicated by what is recorded elsewhere in Scripture itself. There is no evidence of any other gaps. How could there be? What would be the nature of the biblical evidence of any such other gaps which are not elsewhere made manifest? How could one identify such a gap at all unless it was elsewhere "filled in" and by that very means removed? William Green was quite unjustified in claiming there are still actually gaps in the genealogies without providing literary evidence for the assertion.
      Furthermore, if a vast antiquity far beyond the 4000 BC traditional date is demanded, there are other ways in which a great antiquity for the world prior to the creation of man can be allowed for. For example, the days of Genesis might be viewed as days on which revelation was given to Moses; or they might be taken to mean ages; or we may introduce a hiatus between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and so on. One may disagree with these alternatives, but they have all been proposed by biblical scholars over the centuries and are still held by many serious and well-informed students of Scripture.
      But there is no way, if we limit ourselves strictly to biblical evidence, that Adam as the first man of whom the Last Adam was a true representative, can be pushed back into a vast antiquity as currently demanded. There are ways of accommodating long periods prior to Adam, but not of pushing Adam himself back into a dim period a million or more years ago.

      That Adam was indeed the first man seems clear from the Bible. To begin with, there was prior to Adam no man to till the earth (Genesis 2:5): and when Adam was created to perform this function he was strictly alone in the world

     pg.10 of 17    

(Genesis 2:18). In his aloneness there was no helpmeet for him, and one had to be formed out of his own flesh (Genesis 2:20). This helpmeet then became the mother of all living, i.e., of all other human beings (Genesis 3:20), none excepted. And to clinch the matter, 1 Corinthians 15:45 tells that Adam was truly "the first man."
     Suppose for the sake of argument that this first man really was introduced upon the scene at least a million years ago, how do we fit this million-year silence as to his subsequent history into the setting of the first three chapters of Genesis? Was there "so long ago" a Garden of Eden in which a helpmeet was brought to him, formed out of his own body? And were these two then tested in the matter of a fruit they were not to eat?
And did the disastrous results of their disobedience then affect the whole human race subsequently so that every individual in Adam's line throughout all those unrecorded millennia was a fallen creature about whom Scripture is totally silent? One has to bear in mind that the Last Adam stood as a potential substitute for all the descendants of the First Adam — and this would therefore include all the human beings living in the world throughout these silent millions of years. All of them, no matter how ape-like or how little like the Last Adam they might be, would still have to be such that He was nevertheless truly in the same image: and these untold millions of intermediate forms would still have to be truly represented by this Last Adam both physically and spiritually or they would not be "redeemable" under the terms that clearly apply according to the biblical strategy of Redemption.
     Shortly after the expulsion from the Garden, this first man and his wife consummated their marriage and bore two sons who grew up, one to become a farmer and the other a herder. We actually have their names! One of these sons in a fit of jealousy killed his brother, fled from the company of his other brothers and sisters and, taking his sister-wife with him, built the first "city," naming it after

     pg.11 of 17    

his own son Enoch. All this happened within two generations of Adam's first appearance.
     And there followed during the next three or four generations the development of a high civilization which included all the arts and technologies we have already mentioned. Suddenly without any evidence of a hiatus of even a few centuries, let alone a million years, we find ourselves on the very threshold of an advanced culture abundantly witnessed by the findings of archaeology.
     Bringing Adam into the historical period makes sense but what does one do with a hiatus of almost a million years? I remember a brief article on the evolution of man which occurred in a well-known Christian magazine as part of a series by various authors on evolution generally. It was written by a Christian anthropologist about 27 years ago. In his article the writer said, in effect, that it was now reasonably certain that man was at least 100,000 years old. He was clearly quite willing to adjust his thinking about Genesis to suit this new position. One wonders how he felt, when fifteen years later, 100,000 years had become an even more confident "million" years: and now we are being told that our roots probably go back 3 million years. At what point does one say, "Hold! Enough." And having done this, what position does one take? At what point would the writer of that article now say, "Here is where Adam was introduced?"
     This kind of open-ended stance can soon become so nebulous as to leave one without any position at all, or to put the matter slightly differently, we would really have to say that there was no Adam, ever. The first Adam is thus eliminated: what does this do to the Last Adam?
     Somewhere we have to find room for these millions of years, and if we do it is obvious that the very simple and straightforward record in Genesis of what happened to Adam and Eve (and the whole human race in so far as they were latent in them) becomes a shambles. The foundation of the redemptive history of man is utterly destroyed. And

     pg.12 of 17    

it seems that the great Princeton defenders of the Faith felt no need to attempt any reconciliation between these two historical perspectives, nor were they aware that by allowing the evolution of Adam's body they were placing in jeopardy the theology of Redemption they otherwise so ably expounded.
     Perhaps they surrendered too readily. The evolutionary picture itself is tending slightly towards a position regarding the origin of the human species which lies a little closer to the biblical concept of direct creation, though this would certainly not be admitted by those who advocate these newer concepts of evolutionary process.
     As we have seen (Chapter 3), Goldschmidt's "saltations," then Simpson's "quantum leaps," and now Gould's "punctuated equilibrium," are all attempts to account for the sudden appearance of entirely new species, of which man is but one. But they are descriptive terms, not explanatory.
     Yet they are at least admissions of a fact that is surely most simply explained as evidence of creative intervention. The biological record is by no means a smooth "gradualist" one but is marked by abrupt changes from time to time involving sudden extinctions on a mass scale and sudden new emergings, leaving many gaps that have persisted despite continued assurances that they will be found. These gaps are almost universally admitted, as is also the fact that they can no longer be attributed (as they were formerly) to the "imperfection of the fossil record."
     Thus while the suddenness of man's appearance is not perhaps the problem that it was, the assumed timing of his appearance certainly remains a difficulty for anyone whose faith in Scripture stands firm. And I do not think that the biblical account can ever be made to accommodate the antiquity that is still being demanded. Personally, I am convinced that the arguments for this vast antiquity will in due course be modified by fresh evidence and the Bible vindicated, as it always has been. Certainly, within the historical period, archaeology has consistently verified the biblical

     pg.13 of 17    

record, not simply in a general way but in a way that confirms it in its most literal reading. Historically it has stood every test — and I am convinced that the story of Adam and Eve is part of history, not prehistory.

     In increasing numbers there are devout Christians who nevertheless take the evolution of man's body for granted. They tend to regard Genesis as mythology or poetry or allegory — but they have not adequately considered what such an approach does to the congruity which is so strongly reinforced in the New Testament between the First and the Last Adam.
     The bond between the only two truly human beings, both of whom were thus called Adam, is entirely predicated on a miraculous origin in both cases: the creation of the first man Adam, which was clearly a supernatural event; and the virgin conception of the Last Adam, which was also clearly a supernatural event.
A body of animal origin acquired by evolutionary processes is an entirely different thing from a body of divine origin acquired by direct creation. As to the former, it is clear that such a body must by nature be subject to death, the ancestral line being through some primate channel where death is natural. As to the latter, such a body becomes subject to death not by nature but only as a penalty.
The whole Plan of Redemption hinges upon this difference because the Last Adam cannot by nature be subject to death and still make a truly vicarious sacrifice of Himself. He would merely be paying a debt to nature before the expected time.
     We have to recognize that whereas an animal dies NATURALLY because it is necessary, a man dies UN-NATURALLY because it is a penalty — he is, in fact, executed. By contrast, the Lord Jesus died SUPER-NATURALLY because He died vicariously, himself alone being the executor. As soon as this important truth is lost sight of, we have lost the rationale of the divine plan for man's Redemption.

     pg.14 of 17    

     The origin and the death of the First Adam were not natural events: neither were the birth and death of the Last Adam. These four events stand or fall together. To speak of the latter but deny the former is to render meaningless the terms First and Last upon which so much hinges in the Plan of Salvation.

     We need not only a "theology of the spirit" but also a "theology of the body." In every Systematic Theology there is a section called Anthropology which is intended to treat of the nature of man. But it is remarkable how little is said about the importance of man's body not only in this life but in the world to come. After all, this is an absolutely essential component of his nature. At any rate, while we have a plethora of Christian works on the importance of man's spirit, they tend to eclipse the importance of man's body. It is really no wonder that the evolution of man's body has been accepted so readily and so widely. *
     There has seemed no compelling reason not to accept it and the pressure to do so is very great indeed. If one can see no reason from the point of view of the validity of one's faith as a Christian, why not accept it when everyone else appears to be doing so?
     Moreover, the theory of evolution has firmly established itself as a theory with tremendous heuristic potential, a key to everything that involves change and development — or so it seems. Since it is a recognized principle that a "useful" theory is not overthrown merely by contrary evidence but only by a better theory, and since the "better" theory that we prefer as Christians is predicated on certain metaphysical premises that are totally unacceptable to the scientific

* Even the Roman Catholic theologians, conservative as one expects them to be, have now been given permission to adopt evolution as a working hypothesis, though they too will find it introduces unresolvable contradictions into the theological rationale of the Atonement. This unfortunate step was given approval in 1951 by Pope Pius XII in an encyclical titled Humani generis, which allows evolution to be applied to man's body but not to his soul.

     pg.15 of 17    

community at the present time, it looks as though we really have no alternative that can hope to succeed in opposition to it.
     It is fundamentally the premises that are at issue, and here faith is the deciding factor as to which premise is chosen. And faith in the reality of a Creator is not achieved by rational argument but only by a leap in the dark, a sudden change of viewpoint. It would therefore seem that our only hope in this warfare lies in a mighty revival among ourselves and a gracious infusion of saving faith among those who are our chief opponents. Perhaps we need to pray more for the salvation of our opponents and not just try to marshal more facts — though we certainly should not enter the fray unarmed!
     In spite of the fact that our warfare in this matter is a spiritual one rather than an intellectual exercise or a battle of wits, it is still important to keep clearly in mind that the use of reason cannot be abrogated. To communicate with an intelligent person we must be able to give a reason for the hope that is within us. Irrationality is not necessarily evidence of great faith. But the relation between the direct creation of Adam's body and our "hope" must at least be clear to us if our words are to carry any weight.
     It is my conviction after watching this warfare between evolution and creation for over half a century that there are indeed fatal flaws in the theory of evolution that ought certainly to be kept before the general public. On the other hand, there are also theological consequences of which the Christian public has for too long been almost wholly ignorant.
     But theological arguments for rejecting the evolution of man's body cannot be used as so much 'ammunition' in this warfare because they are not based on the same premises upon which our opponents base their case and they therefore carry little or no weight with them. Nevertheless these arguments (a number have been examined in this book) can and should be used to arm the Lord's people

     pg.16 of 17    

against a too ready capitulation to evolution as it applies to man's body, even if we are not adequately equipped to challenge all the biological data on which the theory is based.
     But above all, we must bear in mind that whatever we allow that diminishes the reality and the historical significance of the First Adam inevitably reflects upon the reality and historical significance of the Last Adam. That is why, in my view, the issue is so very serious and why it must be fought on both fronts, the biological and the theological.

     Why should we contest the evolution of man's body so vehemently? Because half of our humanity is wrapped up in it. It is a body which was glorified by the Incarnation, a body which has made us redeemable creatures, a body which has a future beyond death and will be essential to our recognition of one another throughout eternity.
     The New Testament asserts that this body will be resurrected in identifiable form and placed beyond the power of death for ever. Moreover, this promise is applied to Adam himself and effectively to every one of his descendants, however far back we place him in time.
     This prospect demands a unique origin because the redemptive process by which that destiny is to be effected hinges upon the fact that man began in the first place with a body which was potentially immortal. Such a body cannot have arisen by any evolutionary process, because it was designed for a unique destiny not promised to any other creature.
     Evolution is confessed by its own chief advocates to be a philosophy without any such hope. We believe that by the super-natural birth and death and bodily resurrection of the Last Adam, of whom the First Adam was the prototype, we can have not only a bright hope for the future, but a certainty of it.


     pg.17 of 17    

Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights reserved

Previous Chapter            * End of Two Men Called Adam *              Back to Home

Home | Biography | The Books | Search | Order Books | Contact Us