recorded in Gen. 1: 26-28 and in Gen. 2: 18-25, shew that two different men are

intended. If the second mention in chapter 2: indicates a different creation, then, the

reference to the forming of every beast and fowl in 2: 19 might also indicate a separate

creation, differing from that of Gen. 1:; but we need not multiply arguments, for the

apostle Paul has settled the matter once and for all.

Gen. 1: 27 tells us that Adam was made in the image of God and that male and female

were included under that one common name. Gen. 2: 7 omits all reference to the image,

and speaks of Adam as being taken from the earth, and made a living soul, and gives

details concerning the making of Eve. Now the Adam of Rom. 5: 12-14 is the Adam of

Gen. 2: and 3:, without peradventure. So is the Adam of I Cor. 15: 22 & 45, and

I Tim. 2: 12-14. In I Cor. 11: the priority of creation undoubtedly refers to Gen. 2:,

but in the same chapter (I Cor. 11: 7) Paul has no hesitation in referring back to

Gen. 1: 26, 27. To Paul the Adam of Gen. 2: was "the first man Adam" (I Cor. 15: 45).

Psa. 8: refers back to Gen. 1:, and there is not the slightest suggestion that

the Psalmist is thinking of any other man than the Adam who is the father of the race

(Gen. 5:), and of the same flesh and blood as ourselves (Heb. 2: 5, 6, 14).  Gen. 9: 6

most clearly refers to the Adam of Gen. 1:, and the genealogy of Luke ends with the

There is another consideration connected with these early chapters of Genesis. It is

God (Elohim) Who created man in His own image (Gen. 1: 26, 27); it is the Lord God

(Jehovah Elohim) Who formed man in Gen. 2: 7. The same argument that would make

two distinct Adams would as well make two distinct Creators.  So far as we are

concerned, the problem does not exist. We have in Gen. 1: the broad outline, and in

Gen. 2: more intimate details of one important section of the self-same creation.

The doctrine of Romans and Corinthians is vitally connected with Adam, and we must

not allow any speculations of this kind to imperil its clearness and its force. The same

reasoning that demands two Adams by the differences in Gen. 1: and 2: could also

demand two Noahs as guided by the Higher Critics with their Elohistic and Jehovistic

sections. Gen. 6: 19 simply says of the animals that were to enter the ark: "two of

every sort . . . . . male and female." In Gen. 7: 2, 3 an additional instruction is given:

"of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens." This is but expanding in fuller

detail the original command.

Here we must stay. In our next paper we hope to consider the special bearing upon

the status of man of the reference to "the breath of life".