1958. The Historicity of Adam. The Southern Presbyterian Journal. 4–5. Apr 23
The Historicity of Adam
The religious movement commonly known as Neo-orthodoxy is characterized
by the tendency to interpret various parts of the Bible as mythology. No doubt some
of the Bible is historical: David probably existed, Jesus pretty certainly existed,
and there is no doubt about the Apostle Paul. But Adam? That is another matter.
Behind history there is Urgeschichte (Prehistory). This Urgeschichte
is not pre-history in the sense of having occurred before some definite events in
ancient times. It is rather the contemporaneous stage setting behind all history.
It is the backdrop against which we see history played out. It is behind twentieth
century history just as much as it was behind the history of Abraham's day. And
Adam is often said to be a figure of Urgeschichte. That is to say, he is not regarded
as a real man who lived at a definite date, but somewhat as a piece of stage setting
that makes the present act of the play more colorful.
The account of Adam is a sort of fable. Aesop told stories. The
events he related did not actually happen, and yet the stories are "true."
That is, they have a moral that applies to all life. The fox flatters the crow and
makes off with the crow's cheese. The dog barks at his image in the stream and loses
his bone. The wolf accuses the lamb of muddying the water. And how clearly we see
in these animals the men and women we know only too well! The fable is "true"
but the account is not historical.
Similarly the account of Adam is a myth or fable. It pictures
the story of every man's fall into sin. The fall is not something that happened
just once, a way back at the dawn of human history. The fall is something that happens
every day and to every individual. And so the Bible is true, true to life, a true
myth.
Ordinary Christians are very stupid to think that the Bible must
be understood historically. For example, the gospel of John is true even though
hardly anything John wrote actually occurred. The picture John gives of Christ is
accurate, even though Jesus probably never said a word that John reports. John did
not intend to write history. He was writing a fable. His aim was not to tell us
what actually happened. His aim was to produce faith in us. And faith can be produced
by mythology as well as and usually better by mythology than by history. And if
this is the case with John, as the Neo-orthodox assure us through their superior
insight, how much more must it be the case with Genesis?
But while we all like fables, and while fables are indeed "true,"
there is some uneasiness in supposing either John or Genesis to have been intended
as myths. They sound like history. Aesop does not sound like history. But John and
Genesis sound as much like history as Winston Churchill's great volumes.
Then further, although a fable may picture some reality, it cannot
explain. The story of Adam might be a picture of every man's fall into sin; but
if it is a picture and not history, does it not seem strange that all men fall into
sin? Why do not some escape the fall? Such a myth does not explain. If, on the contrary,
the historical Adam was the natural and federal head of the race, if, that is, his
guilt is immediately imputed to us and his depravity is inherited by us, then there
is an explanation why every one of us turns out to be a sinner.
Now suppose a young candidate for the ministry appears before
Presbytery for ordination. He has been fed Neo-orthodoxy without ever having had
a good course in Reformed theology. And before Presbytery he makes two statements.
First, he asserts that Adam is a fable, true of course, but not history; and second
he asserts that he accepts the doctrine of the Westminster Confession. What can
be made of the conjunction of these two statements?
In Romans 5:12-21 the Apostle tells us that sin entered the world
through one man. It did not enter by every one of us sinning, but through one man.
Because this one man died in sin, death came to all the rest of us. It was by the
trespass of the one man that the rest of us died. By the trespass of the one, death
reigned through the one. Now, says the Apostle, just as the one sin of the one man
made us sinners, so the one act of righteouness of the one man Jesus Christ brings
justification of life. On both sides of the comparison stands one man. Now, if the
first man is a fable, what is the second man? Was Christ a historical character,
or is he too a picture?
Is Christ a picture? If Adam pictures the many acts of the many
men who commit many sins, then does not Christ picture the many righteous acts of
the many men by which they are saved? If death proceeded from a mythical Adam, then
does not life proceed from a mythical Christ. And is not the myth the picture of
our own righteous life? That is, if we die because of our own sins, and not Adam's,
then does it not follow that we inherit, or rather earn eternal life by our own
many acts of righteousness?
How then can a clear mind assert that Adam is a myth, but that
salvation is by grace? I suppose the answer is that some people do not have clear
minds and that others do not believe in salvation by grace.
— G.H.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment