Who Adam and Eve Were

I was recently asked the following question that I answered:

"You being a Darwinian evolutionist, and having read some of your posts on the subject, I was wondering what your current opinion is of who exactly who you think Adam and Eve were, the nature of the Garden of Eden ...and your take on the nature of the Great Flood."

It seems logical to me that there was a first man, and I assume that this must be a point of agreement between evolutionists and “creationists” (i.e., those conservative Christian believers (usually fundamentalists) who believe that the Genesis 1-3 story is a literal and historical record (not to mention scientific) and believe that macro biological evolution is incompatible with the revealed teachings of Scripture.).

We can all admit that Man currently exists. We can also all admit that there was a time when Man did not exist. Therefore, if Man does exist and there was a time when Man did not exists, I must presume that there was a First Man. From a quasi-historical sense then, this first identified man would be “Adam”. He is the first Adam as Christ is the Second Adam.

But how do I reconcile this belief in the first Adam and my belief in the theory of evolution?

I would suggest that for millions of years life existed on Earth. All of this life was created by God but God did not create this life in the image of Himself. For this reason, because this life was not created in God’s image, this life created by God could not relate to God (a personal being) in a personal way. But God wanted to relate to in a personal way to a personal creature. Life began from the smallest single-celled organism and evolved over millions of year from small worms, to fish, to lizards, to mammals, to ape like creatures – all of which were created by God and non of which were able to relate to Him on a personal level.

I suggest that, at some point, one of these non-personal creatures produced the first creature that could relate to God in a personal way. This creature was probably some early form of “primate” that probably looked more like an “ape” than what we humans look like today. He probably had a small brain and very little intelligence, but this creature could relate to God on a personal level and, in this way, this creature was made in the “image of God.”

So why do I not simply identify the first man with the “Adam of the Scriptures”? The reason for this is that the Genesis 2-3 chapter is not focused on an individual but a corporate personality. The “Adam” of Genesis 2-3 is not a single individual but he is ALL men and every man (and woman) in this scenario in which Man sins and falls from the image of God. Each person (male and female) is Adam and not just the first man but it does include him. It even includes the last man … which is an interesting thought; who will be the last man? Anyway, this is not a foreign concept to Scripture at all.

Look at the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13. Before his entrance, four beasts presented (7:2-8, 15-17, 19-25). From the text it is obvious that these 4 beasts do not represent 4 persons but 4 kingdoms. They are symbolic and non-historical but it does represent 4 historical situations. After the beasts, last comes the “Son of Man”. The “Son of Man” is symbolic and non-historical. The “Son of Man” represents the a kingdom and not a person (7:18, 27). “He” represents the holy people of God.

Now when Jesus came along, He took the symbolic “Son of Man” figure and applied it to Himself. Christ is a corporate being in whom all believers exist (must exist) to be justified by God.

(In college I talked with many people who denied Christ’s deity. They always said, “Well, Jesus never said he was God.” To which I responded: “You’re right, He never said He was God, because He was not just God; He was God-Man.” Or I might respond: “He called himself the ‘Son of Man.’ That’s a much more interesting self-designation.”) See A Quick Confession of Christ.

In Romans 5 (and elsewhere), Paul compares and contrast Christ as corporate with Adam as corporate. The usual reply is that “Christ is both individual and corporate, therefore, Adam must be individual and corporate.” But that is not a logical corollary of Paul’s argument and is not point made in the text.

This is certainly not the point made in Genesis 2-3.

There are 3 “Adams” in Genesis.

There is the “Adam” of Genesis 1 as the collective Man, made in the image of God, being both male and female (P-source).

There is the “Adam” of Genesis 2-3 as collective Man (falls as group), individual Man (falls as individual) and Man as male (‘ish) that stands in relation to Man as female (‘isha) (J-source).

Then there is the “Adam” of Genesis 4 who is probably the only explicitly individual “Adam” in the book. He is the wife of Eve and the father of Cain, Abel and Seth. And he is not mentioned much. Eve actually has a more prominent role in the rest of the narrative.

This is Scripture: it is God-breathed, inerrant, infallible and revealed. From it we get the Word of God. But the question for me is not that the Scripture is inerrant; I believe it is! For me the question is how we interpret this revelation.

We are confronted with several questions in these passages?

We do we have TWO creation stories in TWO different styles each with a different chronology of events (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)?

Who was Cain afraid of when he told God that people on the earth would try to kill him? The traditional view was that there were only 3 people living: Adam, Eve and Cain.

Where did Cain’s wife come from?

Why is there NO evidence of a world wide flood? If we believe that all the different types of animals that exist today were carried on the ark how do we reconcile that they could not all fit on the ark? Where did all the fresh water fish go? The insects? Eight people could not have managed the duties of what it would have taken to care for thousands of animals for over a year. If there was a flood then the earth would have a clay sediment all over the earth, but there isn’t one. Now I believe in miracles but the logistics are such that God would have had to have erased all evidence of those miracles. Why would He do that? And even if He did, then science won’t be able to prove it because God removed all evidence that science must need to verify it.

Again, I believe the Bible is inerrant and I am not questioning the Bible. Rather, I am questioning the traditional interpretation of the Bible on these points. The Bible is not wrong but maybe we have been wrong in how we interpret it.

See also:

Evangelical Evolutionism

The Historicity of Christ

Exegesis of Genesis 3


I hope that helps.