Gordon Clark: The Historicity of Adam (The Southern Presbyterian Journal)

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.