The Necessity of a Literal Adam

It has become increasingly common today to dismiss much of the historicity of the book of Genesis and instead claim that it is fictional or consisting of mythical stories that serve the purpose of teaching us a lesson. Many people deny the reality of the first man described in the Bible, Adam. I have even had people tell me that it actually doesn't matter whether or not the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal but instead it is just about how you see Jesus. However, whether or not you believe that Adam is literal DOES matter in how you understand the entire Bible. If you are consistent, and you believe that Adam did not exist or was merely a myth or figurative of something else, then you must also believe that Jesus Christ did not exist or served as only a myth or was figurative. The reality of Jesus rises and falls with the reality of Adam and the historicity of the narratives in Genesis. Just follow this logic:

If Adam was not a literal man, then he could not have had a literal son named Seth. Seth could not have had a literal son named Enosh. Enosh could not have had a literal son named Kenan. Kenan then could not have had a literal son named Mahalalel who in turn could not have had a literal son named Jared, who could not have had a literal son named Enoch, who could not have had a literal son named Methuselah, who could not have had a literal son named Lamech, who could not have had a literal son named Noah (Genesis 5:3-30).

So if Adam was not a literal man then Noah could not be a literal man if one is consistent in such an erroneous interpretation. This would also mean that Noah could not have had a literal son named Shem (Genesis 5:32; 10:1), who could not have grown up to have a literal son named Arpachshad, who could not have had a literal son named Shelah, who could not have had a literal son named Eber, who could not have had a literal son named Peleg, who could not have had a literal son named Reu, who could not have had a literal son named Serug, who could not have had a literal son named Nahor, who could not have had a literal son named Terah, who could not have had a literal son named Abraham (Genesis 11:10-26).

If Abraham was not a literal person since he descended from all others who were not literal people, if Adam is denied being a literal person himself, then he could not have had a literal son named Isaac (Genesis 21:2; 25:19) (And with such detail in the narrative pertaining to God's promise to Abraham and His means of bringing about this child to him and his wife, Sarah, as well as the preserving of his descendants, how one could deny that the author intends for us to understand a literal child promised to a literal man is beyond me), who could not have had a literal son named Jacob (Genesis 25:21-26), who could not have had a literal son named Judah (Genesis 29:35), who could not have had a literal son named Perez (Genesis 38), who could not have had a literal son named Hezron, who could not have had a literal son named Ram, who could not have had a literal son named Amminadab, who could not have had a literal son named Nahson, who could not have had a literal son named Salmon, who could not have had a literal son named Boaz, who could not have had a literal son named Obed, who could not have had a literal son named Jesse, who could not have had a literal son named David who would become a literal king over a literal kingdom known as Israel (Ruth 4:18-22)

With a fictional David, that we would have if Adam is viewed as fictional since a fictional Adam can only produce a fictional son that eventually leads us to a fictional Abraham and so forth, we actually find the reality of Jesus denied in two different ways; through both of His earthly parents. To argue that Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures, who would have to be both the son of David and the son of Abraham as predicted, Matthew traces His legal genealogy through His adopted father, Joseph. We see that the line of the Messiah proceeds through David's son, Solomon. So if David did not exist, which would necessarily follow if Adam never existed, then he could not have had a son named Solomon, who could not have had a son named Rehoboam, who could not have had a son named Abijah, who could not have had a son named Asa, who could not have had a son named Jehoshaphat, who could not have had a son named Joram, who could not have had a son named Uzziah, who could not have had a son named Ahaz, who could not have had a son named Hezekiah, who could not have had a son named Manasseh, who could not have had a son named Amon, who could not have had a son named Josiah, who could not have had a son named Jeconiah, who could not have had a son named Shealtiel, who could not have had a son named Zerubbabel, who could not have had a son named Abihud, who could not have had a son named Eliakim, who could not have had a son named Azor, who could not have had a son named Zadok, who could not have had a son named Achim, who could not have had a son named Eliud, who could not have had a son named Eleazar, who could not have had a son named Matthan, who could not have had a son named Jacob, who could not have had a son named Joseph (Matthew 1:6-16), calling into question the entire reliability of the gospel accounts of this man's adopted divine Son named Jesus.

The same can be seen with Jesus' biological genealogy through His mother Mary. While Matthew provides us with Jesus' ancestry through Joseph, Luke appears to give us Mary's. This would explain the differences we find between the two of them after King David. This would also make sense as Luke shows more knowledge pertaining to things involving Mary than Matthew does in his gospel. After all, he is the one who tells us about her encounter with her cousin Elizabeth and the special birth of John the Baptist (1:5-80) and how she treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart (2:19). He might have used her as one of his sources for compiling the information concerning the life and work of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus is truly shown to be the Messiah since on both sides of His earthly family, He can be shown to be seen the son of David and the son of Abraham. However, again that all depends on the literal understanding of Adam. Luke traces Jesus' genealogy, through Mary, back to Adam himself. If Adam was only figurative and not a literal person then one must conclude that Jesus must be as well! Going the opposite direction than Matthew did in his gospel, Luke begins with Jesus and moves backward to Adam. So in this case, Jesus actually proves the literal existence of Adam! If Jesus was literally born of a literal woman named Mary (which the Bible certainly intends to be taken literally!), then she must have been born of a literal man named Eli and so forth all the way until you get to the man named Adam who in a sense can be called the son of God since God created him and no other humans preceded him (Luke 3:23-38). (I almost began to list all of the names but I think that by now you should be be able to see my point.)

As you can see, how you understand the Genesis narrative and particularly the literalness of Adam, does matter with how you view the rest of the Bible and especially Jesus, His death, and resurrection. Either Genesis is true in what it tells us about Adam or none of the Bible stands as true since it is all connected back to Adam, even Jesus Himself. Everyone must make a choice. You either believe all of the Bible to be God's Word that does not err as it claims itself to be or you believe none of it at all. To deny any part of the Bible to be God's Word would be to deny all of it since Paul clearly tells us that ALL Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). To call Adam into question really is to call Christ into question.

In Christ,
Lee
Soli Deo Gloria!
Sola Scriptura