Is the Genesis 1–11 Account Real History Or Merely A Teaching Symbol?

Alfred P. Dykema

What does the account actually tell us? Genesis 2:7 says that God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. “And man became a living soul.”

Genesis 2 says God took one of Adam’s ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And from the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man, and Adam said, “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”—a real bone and flesh person.

Genesis 5:5 says that Adam lived 930 years and he died. Genesis 4:1 and 2 tell us that Adam and Eve had children. Ten generations are recorded, including Noah. Genesis 11:10 records ten more generations including Abram. Matthew I records the generations from Abraham to Jesus Christ.

Before sin came into the world God made a covenant with Adam which demanded obedience as a condition. If he obeyed he would have life and if not, death. Covenants are not made between God and mere symbols, but between the Triune God and a real human being. Adam disobeyed, and sin came into the world. Adam, being head and representative of the covenant was as such the head and representative of the human race. That this is a real historic account cannot be denied. The full historicity of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is absolutely crucial to the entire God-revealed plan of salvation.

The editor of the Banner in an editorial said: “That a mortal blow would be delivered to the history of salvation if the reality of our first parents were to be denied.” He further states in the same article that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are indispensable foundations for the New Testament. Every part of Genesis 1–11 is basic to it.

Report 44 says: “We must insist, that the first eleven chapters of Genesis reveal the major historical events in the dealings with man and the world prior to the time of Abraham.” On page 43 of this same report it says: “It is clear that any denial of the Creator or of the historicity of the fall as an event at the beginning of the human history is in conflict with our confessions.”

The Synod of 1982 was also concerned with this matter when it adopted the recommendation of the advisory committee that, “Adherence to the confessions as required by the Form of Subscription includes those utterances of the confessions that affirm the historical factuality of the events recorded in Genesis 1–3 and that departures from those doctrines must be dealt with in terms of the requirements of that form. Also, that synod instruct the board of trustees and all assemblies which deal with admission to the ministry of the Word to require of the candidate a clear statement of commitment to the confessions, including those utterances of the confessions that affirm the historical factuality of the events recorded in Gen. 1–3.”

Anyone who signs or has signed this Form of Subscription and does not believe that Adam and Eve are real bone and flesh historical human beings, but only teaching model symbols is playing games of deception and defeating the very intent and purpose of this document.

If we believe that the first chapters of Genesis were finally penned by Moses under the guidance of the Holy Spirit there is no reason not to accept them as God’s own Word.

In a sense the history of Adam and Jesus stand or fall together. For Jesus said in the Gospel of John 5:46 and 47: “For had you believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings how shall ye believe my words?”

It would seem that if the record of Adam is “fiction or model” that there would be evidence that such interpretation is legitimate in Biblical terms and also that it does not destroy or contradict the reality of our confessions. So far there has been no such evidence—nothing but hair splitting words and terms. Science or any method of interpretation cannot disprove what God has revealed in His Word. We must accept God’s Word or revelation in a childlike faith even when that revelation transcends or even contradicts the wisdom of the world.

Prof. R.B. Kuiper in his booklet entitled, “Is the Glory Departing” says: “that we, the Christian Reformed Church, have a glorious heritage. Shall we not maintain it uncompromisingly? Shall we not in complete loyalty to the Word of God seek to augment it? Shall we not with holy zeal impart it unsullied to others?”

In our celebrating the 125th anniversary of our denomination we ought to bear this in mind for the future if we wish to continue to maintain and promote the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of sinners to His glory.

From Truth to Untruth

J. Tuininga

It is sad that the magazine Verdict, which started out so promisingly some ten years ago under the name Present Truth, is now flirting with all kinds of semi–and pseudo-biblical ideas. As a reader of some years, I have been noticing the sliding trend especially the last couple of years. Editors Brinsmead and Paxton became more and more enamoured with neo-orthodox writers and scholars considerably to the left of the Reformed position. It appears that the pilgrimage of the editors is continuing, and it is hard to tell where it will take them. Paxton began in Seventh-Day Adventist circles, then came into the Reformed camp, even serving for a while as pastor of one of the Reformed churches in Australia. But that didn’t last long and it appears that both Brinsmead and Paxton are so intent upon fleeing from the lion of legalism that they are running right into t he paws of the bear o f licentiousness (cf. Amos 5:19a). In taking note of the pilgrimage I was reminded more than once of the similar route taken by some ardent disciples of the A.A.C.S. in Canada some years ago. There is considerable similarity between the two.

For a while the Sabbath was the culprit: it has been abolished now, according to the editors. We can worship the Lord any day, and there is nothing special about the first day of the week. Then Luther’s and Calvin’s emphasis on the law was a serious mistake. “Not the labors of my hand can fulfill thy law’s demands”—that was a misunderstanding of the nature of the gospel. We do not get to know our misery from the law of God. They say no word about God’s original covenantal demand on Adam to live a n obedient life; they divorce law from God’s covenant and see it too narrowly as Mt. Sinai alone. Nor have they a word about the rich connotation of law as fo und in Ps. 119 or the beauty of God’s commandments in Prov. 1–4, or any mention of what John says in his gospel about loving God and keeping his commandments (14:15, 21; 15:10) and the similar emphasis in his epistles (cf. e.g. 1 John 5:3). Not a word about all that. For them the second (teacher of sin) and third (rule of gratitude) uses of the law are inventions of Calvin and Luther, and should be abolished. We have had enough of “Christian nomism.”

The latest thing is “the historical method of biblical study.” We have learned more about t his since W.W. II than during the previous 19 centuries. This leads even to a re-examination of the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith. Not only was this original doctrine too encumbered by “law,” but it was also too individualistic in nature—we are saved only along with our neighbor, not as mere individuals. Here too, the biblical teaching that as individuals we are ingrafted into the church, the body of Christ, is replaced by some vague modern notion of justification being “very much a social event.” The “to me also” of the Heidelberg Catechism is replaced “by seeing how graciously God deals with our neighbor.” It is all rather nebulous and confusing.

Indeed, we must read the Bible “historically”—it is important to know the original recipients and the original setting as well as possible. But nowadays this “historical reading” is robbing us of a Bible that has anything definite to say to us today.

It is unfortunate that these “Johnnies-come-lately” are so ready to throw overboard what they themselves embraced wholeheartedly a few short years ago. It is a sign of a certain immaturity. And along with it comes a form of “undenominational” Christianity which is as non-descript and unstructured as it ever was. How sad!

The Christian Response Toward a Godless Society

John Heerema

I would like to encourage Christians to speak out in a secular society. The questions we face concern religious freedom. Does our nation still accept religious freedom as was intended in the Constitution, or is our society tolerating religion as long as it does not interfere with society’s course? The intent of the writers of the First Amendment to the constitution was to protect existing religions. “The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.”¹ The implication was that Christians were given the freedom to maintain their religion. Christians were free to “replenish the earth and subdue it. ” ² This included freely bringing and preaching the gospel. Such freedom found in the Constitution means that even the ruling authorities come under God’s Law. The Bible becomes the final authority.

It must be noted at this point that the Constitution contains no mention or intention of separation of church and state. It simply is not in the Constitution! What the First Amendment does say is, “Congress (the Federal Government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The intent was that each area could maintain its own religion.

Today we have shifted from this kind of thinking. In fact, the Supreme Court decisions are not based on Biblical precepts, but on so-called “neutral” human views of law. The First Amendment has been turned from its original intent and it is now used to usher in Humanism as our national “religion.” Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. summed up his expression of this Humanist theory, “that law is not logic, but experience—law was the product of man’s opinion, supported by the absolute rights of the majority”³ (emphasis added).

Can Christians accept such “neutral” views, based on human reason? To be “neutral” for Christians is to tolerate and accept the lifestyle of the secular world. This is not permissable for the Christian because he is mandated to replenish and subdue the earth. If we accept the Biblical mandate, we must resist and oppose government policies that are not based on Biblical authority. This is exactly what Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer is talking about when he states, “We must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not to be subject to the man in that office who commands that which is contrary to the Bible.” ⁴ I should add that Dr. Schaeffer makes a distinction between “lawless uprising and a lawful resistance. Christians should always attempt to correct and rebuild society” (emphasis added).s In light of this, I request that we must be alert regarding decisions that were and will be made in the future by those that are “placed above us” and study such rulings from a Biblical viewpoint. If law is not based on Biblical principles, it is not promoting the institution as is pointed out in Romans 13, which clearly states that there is no power but of God. Because we live in a representative system (it is a Republic, not a Democracy) you can let your legislators know your viewpoints by writing letters. It is also imperative that Christians not only vote for, but diligently work for, representatives that share and stand for these God-given viewpoints.

In addition, we must all pray continuously for our government. I Timothy 2:1–4 gives a clear idea how to pray for the government. As a Denomination, we should speak out on all moral issues and write to our representatives and leaders insisting that they base their decisions on Biblical grounds. As pastor Mclllhenny of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of San Francisco once commented, “It is time for Christians to come out of the closet.” I pray that our nation may once again become a Christian nation so “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior.”⁶

1. The Second American Revolution by John Whitehead, page 96.

2. Genesis 1:28 (KJV). ‘The Second American Revolution by John Whitehead, page 193.

3. The Christian Manifesto by Francis A. Schaeffer, page 101.

4. Ibid., page 104.

5. I Timothy 2:2–4 (KJV).