Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: — | Date: March 6, 2022 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

Last time we began looking at the question of theistic evolution. And our question here is not to look at it scientifically, but to look at it biblically and to ask the question: is any form of evolution compatible with Scripture? So, you might claim to be a theist and an evolutionist. And on the face of that, that’s consistent. I would argue that it’s ultimately not. But on the face of that, that’s consistent. But our question here is not whether or not you can claim to be a theist and an evolutionist, but whether or not you can claim to believe the Scriptures and evolution. Are the two compatible?

Remember we talked about—by the way, I did not bring handouts. I assume you still have them. There may be some on the back table if you need one. Can someone check that? Does anyone need a handout? Yeah, there are a few left. So if you need one, raise your hand. All right, Isaac.

We surveyed briefly what theistic evolution holds. We saw that it’s a naturalistic explanation for the development of the natural order. In particular, now we’re looking at the question of humanity. It’s a naturalistic explanation for it. That is, God stands behind it in that he created the original stuff, but how it came about and evolved was a naturalistic process with no interruption or intervention from God’s side. So it’s a naturalistic explanation for it. And what comes particularly into focus, then, is the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis and the historicity, in particular, of Adam and Eve.

We began to survey that in the Scriptures last time. I mentioned last time the big book that I showed you, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. The biblical section of that, that is the theological critique of theistic evolution, now is going to be published separately. You can get that if you would like. That’ll be forthcoming from Crossway within a few months. I forget exactly when. But if you’re interested to study the biblical material relevant to the discussion, that, I think, is a good source for you.

Twelve Points That Are Essential to Theistic Evolution

Let me review quickly what you have on your handout. Wayne Grudem has listed 12 points that are essential to theistic evolution. If you’re going to hold theistic evolution, these are the points that are held. And then what we’re going to do is look and see if those points are compatible with Scripture.

So, number one: Adam and Eve were not the first human beings. Perhaps they never even existed. Number two: Adam and Eve were born of human parents. This is what theistic evolutionists would hold. Number three: God did not act directly or specifically or specially to create Adam out of dust from the ground. Number four: He did not directly create Eve from a rib taken from Adam’s side. Number five: Adam and Eve were never sinless human beings. Number six: Adam and Eve did not commit the first human sins. Number seven: Human death did not begin as a result of Adam’s sin. Number eight: Not all human beings have descended from Adam and Eve. There are thousands of others, other human beings on Earth at the time that God chose the two of them as Adam and Eve—and that’s if the theistic evolutionist in question even acknowledges an Adam and an Eve. Number nine: God did not directly act in the natural world to create different kinds of fish, birds, so on. Number ten: God did not rest from his work of creation or stop any special creative activity after the plants and animals and human beings appeared on the earth. Number 11: God never created an originally “very good” natural world. And then number 12: After Adam and Eve sinned, God did not place any curse on the world that changed the workings of the natural world and made it more hostile to mankind.

Those are the essentials that are held by theistic evolutionists today. And what we’re doing, then, is tracing through the Scriptures to see if any kind of notion like that is compatible with the Scripture.

The Biblical Witness to the Historicity of Adam

We surveyed the Genesis account itself. We saw that it is presented to us as a historical narrative on which the rest of the Scripture builds. The rest of Scripture depends. The rest of Genesis, the rest of the Pentateuch, the rest of Scripture rests on the narrative of Genesis 1 to 3. It’s presented as a historical narrative. “These are the generations of,” and the generations then keep moving forward, and the rest of the biblical writers treat it that way.

When we came to the New Testament, we’ve surveyed some in the Gospels and in 1 Corinthians 11 in particular, we spent a few minutes to show that Paul builds a theological argument that is grounded on the historicity of the Genesis narrative with regard to woman being created from man: that man was created first, the woman was from the man, and the woman was for the man. Paul takes all of that from Genesis and builds his argument accordingly. We saw it in 2 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2; Paul does something similar. And I think we ended up with Jude verse 14 where Jude speaks of Enoch, “the seventh from Adam.” We saw that he confirms, then, the historicity of Enoch and the historicity of Adam because he says Enoch is the seventh from Adam. And he confirms the historical reliability of the genealogies of Genesis 5. And I think I ended up by saying it’s impossible to take the biblical writers seriously and deny that Genesis 1 to 3 is actually a historical account.

I want to see some more passages like that today, and we’ll have to do this quickly as well. Some of them I may have to just skate through quickly. But there are passages where Adam is not explicitly mentioned, but he’s clearly in view. For instance, look at Matthew chapter 1. I’m sure this is a passage that none of you has memorized, but you are familiar with the opening verse. Matthew 1, verse 1: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” And then in the following 17 verses, we have him tracing that lineage back to Abraham and to David, establishing the Davidic genealogy of Jesus, his rights as the Davidic king, and so on.

But notice in verse one: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” “The book of the genealogy”—does anybody know where that comes from, that expression, “the book of the genealogy”? That’s right out of Genesis chapter five, verse one: “The book of the generation,” or “the book of the genealogy of Adam.” Now remember we’ve seen in our Genesis studies that the book of Genesis is structured around these “these are the generations of” passages. You have Adam and you have Abraham and you have others. The book is structured that way. But when it speaks in Genesis 5 of Adam, it words it just a little bit differently and it says, instead of “these are the generations of,” it says, “the book of the genealogy of Adam.” And it seems that Matthew here is quoting that.

Now, “the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ,” that is the Messiah, “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” So what we get from that is that it seems that Matthew understood the genealogy of Adam in Genesis as historical. He sees it as culminating with Jesus. I think that part of his reason for wording it this way and reaching back to Adam to do that is to, like Luke does, show Jesus as the second Adam, the new representative man. But he wants Matthew’s readers to understand Jesus in connection with this historical lineage that begins with Adam and now it culminates with Jesus, the new representative man. Matthew’s argument rests on the assumption of the historicity of Adam.

Look at Matthew chapter 19. Again, we’ll just be going through several different passages here. Matthew 19, we have one of the dispute passages, Jesus disputing with the Jewish leaders of his day. Matthew 19, verse 3: “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, here’s Genesis 2, Moses’ words—’therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.'”

So the Pharisees come to him with a strict question about divorce. “Is it okay to divorce? And Moses gave this allowance for divorce. What’s your answer?” And, you know, however you answer it, you’re going to be in trouble—that kind of a question. Jesus then reaches back to Genesis 2, and he points out the first marriage, Adam and Eve, and he establishes that as the norm. And he quotes Moses as saying that—that’s Genesis 2, I think it’s verse 23—where Moses gives that interpretive comment, that the two become one flesh. And Jesus establishes then that marriage of Adam and Eve as normative for all marriages for all of history. At the first, that’s the way it was done, and forever, that’s the way it is to be. That’s his argument. Well, you can see in that that Jesus then—not just the biblical writers, Matthew, but Jesus himself—takes the Genesis narrative as a historical narrative and he understands Adam and Eve to be historical people.

Matthew 23. Here he’s in this famous passage of denouncing the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. Let’s just take verse 35: “so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.” We have a parallel to that, if you like, in Luke 11, verse 51. The Zechariah in view here is probably the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24. But Jesus here is referring to the martyrs across the ages of the Old Testament. In that, he recognizes, obviously, the historical nature of the Old Testament records. And what’s interesting then is he tracks that from Genesis 4 onward. And Abel is as much a part of the historical narrative in Jesus’ view as anything else. Again, we have Jesus’ understanding of the early Genesis narrative.

Romans chapter 8. This is a well-known passage, an important one in many respects with regard to God’s redemptive purpose. Romans 8, verses 18 to 23, Paul says, “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it in hope, that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now, and not only the creation, but we ourselves who have the first fruits of the Spirit groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for the adoption of sons, the redemption of our bodies.”

All right, Paul is saying here we’re joined to Christ and in Christ we have this great hope. Presently the created order, and we with it, is all in disarray because of a curse, because of judgment that has come upon it. He says this is not its original condition, but it was subjected to vanity. So here we have Paul saying that the present state of the created order is not its original order. That’s important because although he doesn’t mention Adam here explicitly, it is clearly his point of reference and specifically it’s Genesis 3 and Adam’s sin and the consequent judgment that came because of Adam’s sin. The present condition of this created order with all of its upheavals of nature—tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, all of that—and all of our suffering, sickness and disease, the cancers and all of the rest, all of that, Paul says, is traceable back to Genesis chapter three: Adam’s sin and God’s judgment on humanity.

And then he mentions that we were subjected to this condition—this is not the original condition; we were subjected to it—and then he says in verse 20 we were subjected to it “in hope.” What’s that? Genesis 3:15. We were subjected to this present condition of fallenness in hope of a coming champion who would come to fix the whole mess. And here Paul rests the whole Bible story on the historicity of Genesis 3. We’ll have more to say about that in a little bit.

Hebrews chapter 11, verses 1 and following. Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith, we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made of things that are visible.” And there he starts the record of individuals. “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, and through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith, Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found because God had taken him. Now before he was taken, he was commended as having pleased God, and without faith, it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” Verse seven: “By faith, Noah.” Verse eight: “By faith, Abraham.” Verse 11: “By faith, Sarah.” Verse 20: “By faith, Isaac.” Verse 21: “By faith, Jacob.” Verse 22: “Joseph.” “By faith, Moses,” verse 23.

So here he gives the stream of the faithful all the way back to Abel. And here he accounts for creation itself in the opening verses of Hebrews 11, but then he begins with Abel himself. And the writer of the book of Hebrews then takes all of the narrative of Genesis, both of the creation and of the existence of Abel and Cain, acknowledges them as historical, and includes them with this list of the faithful from history.

Hebrews 12. Here we speak of Abel again, Hebrews 12:24: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable angels in festal gatherings, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.”

The writer here is speaking to Jews who had professed faith in Christ. They are tempted to go back to the Mosaic system of worship, and he’s saying here: that was Sinai; you have come to Mount Zion, and you’ve had these great blessings attached to it, and you’ve been joined to the righteous in Christ from all the ages. And he says here, you’ve come to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, that is the blood of Jesus, that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. Now there’s a reference back to Genesis 4 in verse 10, where God says the voice of your brother is crying out from the ground. And he speaks of—kind of a personification here—speaks of the blood of Abel as talking. What does the blood of Abel say? What is it crying for? Vengeance. Justice. And now he says, you’ve come to the blood of Jesus, which speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. Jesus’ blood speaks of forgiveness. So he draws this great contrast. But now our purpose here is to show that here he speaks of historical figures, Jesus and Abel, and they speak very differently. It is clear that his recognition of Abel is as a historical person.

We have the same in 1 John 3 and verse 12. Well, let’s look at that. 1 John 3:12. John is speaking of loving one another, loving your brother. He says, “we should not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. Why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. Verse 13: Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you.” So here his exhortation is in regard to the world’s opposition to the righteous, and he says this is something that began way back in Genesis chapter four. He mentions Cain by name, he mentions his brother, that is Abel, and he traces the persecution of the godly that we see today as having its historical beginning back in Genesis chapter four. And now we have John’s opinion of how we should interpret Genesis.

1 Corinthians chapter 15. Now here’s a passage where we could spend a lot of time. This, 1 Corinthians 15, and then Romans 5, which is next—these are centrally important. That’s why I kept them to the last. I wanted to run through the others. Here Paul builds some very significant theological arguments on the historicity of Adam.

1 Corinthians 15, verses 20 to 22: “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact, Christ has been risen from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order, Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.”

We have two men here. Some similarity: each was a man, he’s called a man, and each was a representative head. By the one came death; by the other comes resurrection. So they are similar in that they’re men and that they’re each representatives, but they’re very different in terms of how they represented us and the results of their headship or representation. For one, by one man, by a man came death—that’s verse 21, by a man came death—and then, next verse, “in Adam all die.”

All of that points us back to Genesis 2, where God gave the threat to Adam: “in the day that you eat of that tree, you will die.” And then Genesis chapter 3, after he ate of the tree, God pronounced the curse: “and to dust you’ll return.” So in Adam, all die. In Adam, in one man came death. And on the other hand, we have another man, a representative head, and that’s Jesus. And by him, we have the resurrection of the dead and we are made alive, sharing in his resurrection. There’s a difference in timing. He was raised 2,000 years ago. We will be raised when he returns. That’s verse 22, 23.

Now what Paul intends to do here is give a historical account for death. And he says it traces back to a man in history by the name of Adam. It’s worth noting here, I think as well, that at the beginning of this passage, Paul’s taking up the doctrine of the resurrection in all of 1 Corinthians 15. That’s his burden. And at the outset of it, he says—this is verse three and four—that this is a matter of first importance. This is a centrally important doctrine, this doctrine of resurrection. And included in his argument is the historical argument that death began at Adam. In other words, then, this discussion belongs to the gospel. It’s not just an incidental difference.

Now if we look down across the page, 1 Corinthians 15, verses 44 and following, we pick up some of the same stuff. Here he’s talking about the resurrection body. What will that resurrection body be like? He has established the reality of the coming resurrection, tied to Christ, our representative head, our forerunner; in him, we will be raised as well. Then in verse 35 and following, he takes up the question of what will the resurrection body be like.

And now in verse 44, he says, “It’s sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. If there’s a natural body, there’s also a spiritual body.” That is, there’s a body fitted for earth and there’s a body fitted for the resurrection. That’s the general sense of the verse. Verse 45: “Thus it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living being.'” That’s Genesis 2:7. “The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” Here we have the contrast again. The first one was created, became a living creature. The last one became, in his resurrection, a life-giving spirit. That is, he will raise the dead.

Verse 46: “But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the natural, then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust.” There’s Genesis 2:7. Created him from the dust of the ground. There’s Paul’s understanding of Genesis 2:7. “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust. The second is the man from heaven.” That is, Christ has his ultimate origins in eternity, not in Bethlehem. “So also are those who are from heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust”—that is, we were created in Adam’s image; we find that in Genesis 5, he bore a son in his image—”just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we’re like him, we’re earthly creatures, so also we shall bear the image of the man from heaven” who in his resurrection body has attained resurrection glory, and we will be like him in our resurrection.

So these two states: earthly existence and then the heavenly existence or spiritual existence in resurrection. This existence that we have now, it’s a natural body we inherited from Adam. It started with him, and then in resurrection we will follow Christ and be like him. Again, we have two representative heads and we have resulting from them an earthly state and a heavenly state, a resurrection state.

But notice now how he describes them. Verse 45: “the first man Adam.” Verse 47: “the first man.” And then we have verse 45: “the last Adam.” “The second man,” verse 47. That Adam here is called “the first” means that there’s no other representative person. There’s no other person before him. He’s the first man. Then we have the last Adam. There’s no representative between Adam and Jesus. Jesus is the next one who, like Adam, represents humanity. But we have just these two men, Adam and Jesus, and the purview is inclusive of all humanity.

So what we saw back in verse 20 to 22: by Adam came death. Now, verses 44 and following, especially verse 49: by Adam came all humanity. “We have borne the image of the man of dust.” That’s us. We have borne the image of the man of dust. This one who was created from dust, Genesis 2:7, is the one whose image we all bear. So by Adam came death (verses 20 to 22 that we saw) and now by Adam came all of humanity. In other words then, Adam—we have Adam before sin, made from the earth, made from dust—and then Adam after sin in his fallen condition in which all of humanity shares.

Verse 45 here cites, as I said, Genesis 2:7. Verse 47 speaks of him as “the man of dust.” That’s Genesis 2:7. He refers, then, to Adam as created by the hand of God as described in Genesis 2. He affirms the Genesis narrative just on its face reading. He also affirms, then, Adam as the common ancestor of all humanity. Verse 49: “we’ve borne the image of the man of dust.” In resurrection, we’ll bear the image of the man of heaven.

So let’s draw some conclusions from this. Number one: Adam is not one of thousands of people that God chose out to make some spiritual point in a Genesis narrative. He’s not one of thousands; he’s the first. That’s what Paul takes. There are none before him and all the rest come after him. Every human being bears his image. That’s what Paul says. The second point, then, is that all who by grace will bear the image of the man of heaven previously bore the image of the man from dust. Now this is an important point. If we are not descended from Adam, we are not eligible for the redemption in the second Adam. That’s Paul’s argument here. That in Adam, all of us have come, and now in the second Adam, we’ll be redeemed. All who bear the image of the man of heaven were ones who previously bore the image of Adam himself.

Then our third point I want to draw from this: in our resurrection with Christ, our Adamic humanity will be restored. What we lost in Adam, we regain in the second Adam in Christ. In other words, then, in 1 Corinthians 15 here, the historicity of Adam, the historicity of the fall, the reality of all of humanity coming from Adam—all of that, in Paul’s estimation, is a gospel essential. It’s in that narrative we find the elements that give rise, finally, to the gospel of Christ.

All right, Romans 5 you’re probably more familiar with, and we will have to look at Romans 5 when we get to Genesis 3. I don’t think I have to spend a lot of time here, but Romans 5:12 to 21, I think you’re familiar with it. Verse 12: “Just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned,” that is, in Adam. We have two men throughout this passage: Adam and Christ. We have two heads and two consequences for their actions. One disobeyed—there was trespass, there’s condemnation, and there’s death. The other one, that is Jesus—there was obedience, righteousness, justification, and life. Two representative heads with two very different results. We’ll look at that more when we get to Genesis 3.

But what do we learn about Adam here in this passage? Well, verses 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, he’s called “a man,” corresponding to Jesus, the man. Verse 14 makes a historical remark: “from Adam to Moses.” So again, now Paul refers to Adam as a historical figure. You have this era Paul outlines, a dispensation if you will, that ranges from Adam to Moses. And then verse 14, he calls Adam a “type,” one who prefigures Christ. Typology rests on historical institutions and people and events that look forward to realities brought out in Christ. That word “type” acknowledges Adam as a historical figure as well. And then very importantly, verses 12 and 15, Paul acknowledges that the entrance of sin in humanity traces to Adam. That’s when sin started in humanity.

What Is at Stake?

All right, now, let’s review again these 12 points of conflict that Grudem outlines for us. I want you to see how different all of this is from what we’ve seen in the Scriptures. According to theistic evolutionists:
1. Adam and Eve were not the first human beings; perhaps they never even existed.
2. Adam and Eve were born of human parents; that is, there was humanity before them.
3. God did not act directly or specially to create Adam out of dust from the ground.
4. God did not directly create Eve from a rib taken from Adam’s side.
5. Adam and Eve were never sinless human beings.
6. Adam and Eve did not commit the first human sins.
7. Human death did not begin as a result of Adam’s sin.
8. Not all human beings have descended from Adam and Eve.
9. God did not directly act in the natural world to create different kinds of fish, birds, and land animals.
10. God did not rest from his works of creation or stop any special creative activity after the plants, animals, and human beings appeared on the earth.
11. According to theistic evolutionists, God never created an originally very good natural world.
12. According to theistic evolutionists, after Adam and Eve sinned, God did not place any curse on the world that changed the workings of the natural order that made it more hostile to mankind.

All of those 12 propositions, not just Genesis, but the rest of the Bible emphatically denies. I’ve said before, I don’t understand how a man can take the Bible seriously and affirm theistic evolution.

Now, Ryan asked a question last week, or last time. And I misunderstood the question. It was no sooner after Sunday school, Jimmy, my son, comes up to me and says, “You didn’t understand his question.” And oh, he no sooner got done, and I bumped into Kim, and she said, “You didn’t understand his question.” And so I’ve heard. So I talked to Ryan afterwards and I said, “I heard I didn’t understand your question.” He was much more gracious than Jimmy or Kim. But I don’t think I did understand it. I think his point was that there are professing Christians, there are Christians who may be tempted to believe theistic evolution, but they haven’t worked their way through all of this. And so they don’t understand just how firm the biblical material is. And that could be the confusion on their part. Ryan, if that’s your point, then you are right. I’m sorry, I misunderstood. I do think we have to take that into consideration, that not everyone has sat through Sunday school and looked all through the Bible and all of these verses and said, “This is just slam dunk,” I think. It’s impossible to say that the two are compatible.

Now, at the end here, I want to point this out. This is important. Not just do we have selected biblical statements contradicting theistic evolution, but I want to talk more theologically here. What is at stake in all of this?

Number one: The clarity and the authority of Scripture. What must we do to the Bible if we deny the historicity of Adam? What do words mean? If we have to do away with special creation of the earth by God, what does that say about the Bible? It certainly seems to tell us that God created. It certainly seems to tell us, unanimously and repeatedly and emphatically, that Adam was the first man. And if, in fact, he was not the first man, what does that do to the doctrine of Scripture?

Number two: The nature of man. Is man made in the image of God or not? And on what ground do we believe that? Is man just the latest stage of evolutionary development? And I think an important question that needs to be brought up in the discussion is: how do we determine human dignity? What is the value of human life? We all instinctively recognize that there’s a unique value to human life. At whatever cost, protect human life. And on that same matter, is racism wrong? And if it is, why? I’ve got all kinds of reasons to say that it’s wrong. And it begins in Genesis. But if you start with evolution, you’re going to be like Darwin, who’s just pure racist, and talk about the “lower races” and the “mud races.” That’s something that evolutionists don’t like to talk about, but it is a reality. What is the nature of man? What is the nature of human dignity? What is it that makes, on one level, all men equal? That’s at stake in this discussion.

Again, related to that: the unity of the human race. Is there a common humanity about it? Psychologically, physiologically, our needs, our ambitions? Do we have a common sinfulness? Do we have a common racial sinfulness? Do we have a common fallenness, a common guilt? Do we have a common need of redemption? Where does that come from? The Bible is just replete with this idea of the one-level brotherhood of mankind. Where does that come from? How is it we all need the same redemption? It is because we are one race, united in Adam.

That brings us to the next point here. What’s at stake? The nature and origin of sin and guilt. Just what is sin? What is guilt and how do you explain it? Is there such a thing? What is the nature of sin? Wherein lies the guilt of sin? Guilty before whom? How do we explain it? How do we establish it? To whom are we accountable? And why? Is the fall just a symbol in Genesis 3, a symbolic teaching that humanity is just not yet perfect—it never was? Or is there a fallen condition from which we need to be redeemed? All of that’s at stake in the discussion of evolution.

Next: The significance of the incarnation. Did God the Son take on humanity that is common to all of us or not? And how is that established? The human race did not evolve from a common ancestor, the Bible teaches. But in fact, if they were evolved from a number of ancestors behind Adam even, are there some people for whom Jesus cannot be represented? That’s at stake in this discussion: the significance of the incarnation. Did he come and take on our common humanity?

And then that brings us to what I’ve said all along, several times. What’s at stake in this discussion ultimately is the doctrine of human redemption. Romans 5 is most explicit on that. 1 Corinthians 15, very explicit on that. The whole notion throughout the New Testament is the unity of the redeemed in Christ. We stand in Christ the second Adam, and it presupposes a previous common existence in Adam and now in the second Adam. And by the way, evolutionists—theistic evolutionists who claim to be believers, claim to be evangelicals—will acknowledge this: that the Bible story depends on, and the gospel story depends on, a reading of Genesis as we have.

In short, the whole Bible story and its message is at stake in the discussion. If Adam did not bring sin, then what’s the problem? Just what is the problem? Is there one? If we can’t account for it through Adam, how do we account for it? If Adam is not the type of the second head, Jesus, then what becomes of the antitype, Jesus? Is he really a representative head if Adam was not? Did Christ accomplish human redemption? On what ground? How do we explain human death? How did it come about? What’s the ground of the Christian hope?

The whole Bible story of redemption builds on the creation account, Genesis 1 and 2, and then on the temptation, the fall of Adam, and the promise in Genesis 3 and verse 15. Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed. He’ll bruise his head… he’ll bruise your head, you’ll crush his heel.” This seed of the gospel promise that is there, the whole rest of the Bible builds on that. There we have the whole program of redemption, the whole plot for Scripture put in place there. It’s canon-wide, it’s history-long. The champion’s going to come, the seed of the woman; he’ll crush the serpent and fix the problem that Adam created for us in his sin.

The whole story of the Bible and its message are at stake in the question. I’m not saying that some don’t try to have both. It’s amazing how the human mind can hold things that are incompatible. But you have to see that the story unravels if we remove the foundations in Genesis 1 to 3. And even matters—I have this on your outline—even matters of church order and gender roles. We saw how Paul builds his arguments for that in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11 on the creation account as we read it in Genesis.

I have a quote here from Leland Ryken, which I think summarizes it well: “I assert that the denial of Adam weakens the biblical claims regarding truth and ultimately affects our daily lives. There are multiple Christian doctrines that lean heavily upon the story of Adam. These include confidence that the Bible is God’s word, the reality of sin, the existence and present influence of evil, the definition of sexuality, assurance of justification, the promise of resurrection, and eternal life.”

But without Genesis 1 to 3 as we read them, there’s no accounting for the rest of the Bible story, no accounting for the message of the Bible, the gospel that it gives us. These chapters are truly foundational in every respect.

And I didn’t realize I had gone so late. Dismissed.