Why is a de novo creation of Adam important?
1. It establishes a discontinuity between humans and the rest of the living world, signifying our uniqueness of being image-bearers of God.
First, as far as I understand things, it is our being made imago Dei that establishes this discontinuity between humans and other creatures, and it is not clear how Adam being created de novo has any bearing on this. In other words, it doesn’t look like this biblical anthropology would be in any way diminished if Adam was born. Either way, whether he was born or created de novo, humans are unique by virtue of being the only divine image-bearers.
Second, this may be more easily seen if we recall that, on both young-earth and old-earth creationism, it was not just Adam that was created de novo as an adult; so were other creatures. Either there was so much uniqueness going on that the term is practically meaningless or human uniqueness is grounded in something other than Adam being created de novo as an adult, such as our being made divine image-bearers.
Again, nothing seems to be lost by Adam being born.
2. The creation of Adam de novo is how God established a personal relationship with him from the beginning.
I would have to disagree with this point, because I have been convinced that God’s personal relationship with mankind, starting with Adam, was established through covenant, not the act of de novo creation. In fact, the account seems to contain a fair amount of covenantal language and symbols—including their very names, Adam and Eve, which is probably not the names they called themselves (as pointed out by John H. Walton).
Also, that personal relationship you had in mind, what would it look like? Once you have thought about that for a moment, consider whether or not God had that kind of relationship with everything he created de novo. I suspect not, because humans are supposed to be entirely unique in this regard. Again, I think that comes down to covenant, that God’s personal relationship with mankind is predicated upon covenant, not de novo creation. On young-earth and old-earth creationism, a vast array of creatures were brought forth de novo, but God has this very special relationship with only mankind.
3. It establishes a more definite act of “ensoulment.”
I’m afraid I wasn’t able to follow your thinking on this one. Some things to keep in mind if you’re willing to expand on this for me:
-
From the dust of the ground and the breath of life, God created man as “a living creature” (nephesh chayyah). But this is true of other creatures formed by God from the ground, other nephesh chayyah in whose nostrils is the breath of life. But I think your point about “ensoulment” is supposed to be unique to only humans, so these things can’t be what distinguishes between them.
-
On young-earth and old-earth creationism, both man and other animals were created de novo, so that also can’t be what distinguishes between them vis-a-vis “ensoulment.” I think we are being gently pushed again toward covenant theology for the clarification needed.
-
While something might be lost from denying “ensoulment,” is anything lost by not having a definite act to which we can point? I don’t think so. We don’t have a definite act of “ensoulment” for Abel, but we wouldn’t deny him a soul.
-
Moreover, if Adam was born and the events described in Genesis 2:7 took place when he was a grown adult—a scenario pictured by such scholars as Denis R. Alexander or Joshua M. Moritz—couldn’t that still function as a definite act of “ensoulment”? I am just wondering, again, whether anything important is lost if we assume that Adam was born.
Note: I happen to be something of a “physicalist” myself, having been influenced by the likes of G. C. Berkouwer, Anthony A. Hoekema, and Lynn Rudder Baker, among others.
4. The creation of Eve de novo establishes her suitability as an equal partner for Adam.
You suggested that if Eve was born and raised someplace else and brought to Eden by God to wed Adam, she would probably bring undesirable world-view baggage with her. And I think your point is almost certainly correct. However, that would present a problem for her suitability only if God left her saddled with that baggage—which he doesn’t do for those he has chosen. What if Genesis 2:21–24 is about God giving Adam a vision of Eve being chosen by God who regenerates her and imparts a divine covenant awareness to her. With Adam being a divine image-bearer elected to a special vocation, the only suitable helper would be another divine image-bearer likewise elected—Eve. As tentatively suggested by Denis Alexander, “When Adam recognized Eve as ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,’ he was not just recognizing a fellow Homo sapiens—there were plenty of those around—but a fellow believer, one like him who had been called to share in the very life of God in obedience to his commands.” [1]
5. As Christ entered the world through a special creation (virgin birth), so also Adam came into the world by a special act of creation.
But you missed something there: Christ entered the world through birth, not de novo creation. Could the same hold for Adam? Not a virgin birth, necessarily, but a special birth all the same? Why would a de novo creation be important here? What might be lost from this (admittedly speculative) point you raised if Adam was born?
6. The creation of Adam de novo is required to establish an original righteousness for humanity.
Unless, of course, righteousness is covenantal language—in which case Adam, who was born and raised, would enjoy original righteousness from the moment the covenant is established until he first sins. As Derek Kidner suggested, “God may have now conferred his image on Adam’s collaterals, to bring them into the same realm of being. Adam’s ‘federal’ headship of humanity extended, if that was the case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike.” [2]
Thanks for engaging me on this question. I gained some good insight from the options you suggested here. I look forward to conversing with you further.
John Bauer
-–
Footnotes:
[1] Denis R. Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? (Oxford, UK: Monarch, 2008), 237.
[2] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 29.