Response to IEAC Creation Statement/5
by brother Mike Pearson
←back to index
5: Adam as the First Man
FROM THE IEAC CREATION STATEMENT:
BASF Clauses 3 and 4 state that ‘the first man was Adam, whom God created’. The reference to Adam being the ‘first man’ precludes the view that there were other humans or similar beings existing at the time of his creation (see also Genesis 2:5; 2:18; 3:20; Acts 17:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:45, 47). This understanding is consistent with the teaching of Christ and the apostles, all of whom upheld the literal interpretation of the creation record (Mark 10:6- 7; 1 Corinthians 11:7-9; 2 Corinthians 4:6; 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; 2 Peter 3:5).
Observations:
There are a couple of points to note here. Firstly, that Adam was the first of God’s nation there is no doubt. The genealogies trace back to Adam, and show that he is the first of God’s people - the first man. But was Adam “the first ever human”?
Many of our early scholars - who created our Statement of Faith - believed in a pre-Adamic creation with “man-like” creatures. How is it that our early brethren could uphold clause in the statement of faith, whilst at the same time write notes such those below?
“There are indeed hints, casually dropped in the scriptures, which would seem to indicate that our planet was inhabited by a race of beings anterior to the formation of man... Now the earth, we know, was the place of judgment to the contemporaries of Noah and Lot, and seeing that these three are warnings to inhabitants of earth, it is probable that they are all related to things pertaining to our globe in the order of their enumeration — first, judgment upon its pre-Adamic inhabitants; secondly, upon the antediluvian world, which succeeded them; and thirdly, upon Sodom after the flood.”[1]“The Bible leaves room for a pre-Adamic race, but that need not disturb our faith in the Mosaic record of Creation which Christ endorsed.”[2]
“What happened to any pre-Adamic race, we cannot know; that there may have been such beings has never been denied; what we cannot admit is that they could have had any part in the Gospel of salvation as preached to the race of Adam."[3]
What these brothers are in effect saying is “Adam was the first man [of this current creation]”. Is this un-Biblical? It all comes down to how literally one reads 1 Corinthians 15:44. To be entirely consistent, we have to read the phrase “The first man Adam” just as literally as we read “the last Adam”; and likewise for v47 which refers to Adam as the first man and Christ as the second man. We can’t choose to read the first phrase literally and then the second phrase spiritually. The context of Paul’s thoughts don’t allow us to change the literality of these thoughts mid-sentence.
As already stated in earlier chapters, this does not imply these early scholars endorsed evolution, but it does suggest that the overly literal interpretation pursued by the authors of the IEAC Creation Statement are not entirely consistent with our community’s traditional views.
As we saw here, an overly literal approach to the creation record unnecessarily introduces problems for the earnest Bible student, and this is something our early scholars recognised. They worked within the boundaries of God’s broader context, focusing rather on the spiritual implications of God’s message for us. This is entirely consistent with the way Jesus also “upheld” the figurative language of demons and devils, or the notion of the afterlife in Luke 16:22-31.
To summarise and conclude this point:
Adam’s position as the “first man of God’s current creation” is under no doubt. But if Adam was quite and very literally “the first ever human” then consistency demands that develop equally literal meanings for examples like “the second man” (Abel? - who was of heaven?). This is clearly a non- trivial and spiritual concept, and even our early scholars wrestled the concepts of the “first ever man” vs. other pre-Adamic races or beings. This being the case, it is entirely expected that we might have a variety of views on this point in our day, but these sort of academic differences should NOT be a source of division between us.
- ↑ Walker, C. The Christadelphian (1907) 44:220
- ↑ Walker, C. “An Ancient Skeleton Very Like a Modern One”, The Christadelphian (1912) 49:182
- ↑ Bro L G Sargent “The Origin of Man”, The Christadelphian (1965) 102:346
