I came across this debate over at Books and Culture regarding the historicity and importance of Adam. For Christians in China, conversations about Genesis are regular occurrences because of the prevalence of teaching about evolution.
John Walton, who wrote an important book I reviewed this past year, had a very clear and cogent statement that I think should provoke some good discussion. I am certainly curious to hear what you think.
We can contend that Adam and Eve are theologically and historically significant even if they were not the first humans. We can contend that Adam and Eve are appropriately positioned as fountainheads of humanity even if we are not all their direct biological descendants. We can contend that humanity has a distinct place in the created order, unique among species, even if Adam and Eve are not de novo creations. . . .
The most important affirmation that Christians should be making about human origins is that humans are ontologically distinct from other creatures, regardless of the biological processes leading to humans. Humans are not animals, even if they were created from animals. We deny that ontology derives from ontogeny; how we were made does not dictate what we are. Israelites descended from Amorites and Hittites (Ezekiel 16:3), but that is no true indication of who they are. They have been given a specific, unique ontology by virtue of election and covenant, which has nothing to do with their line of descent.
I’m especially interested to hear what you think about the last paragraph and his use of Ezekiel 16:3, which says “Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.”
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In