These verses immediately remind us that we can't always trust the chapter divisions in our Bible as a guide for where sections begin and end. There is a possible contradiction between verses 2 and 3. You won't see it if you have the NIV. Verse 2 has God finishing the work of creation on the seventh day while verse 3 says He rested on that day. Three ways around it: LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch say “sixth day” in verse 2. This is a possibility since the words for sixth (hashishi) and seventh (hashebi'i) are very close to one another. A medieval rabbi Rashi solved the problem in another way by proposing that what God created on the seventh day was Rest. NIV translates it as “By the seventh day, God had finished the work he was doing.” That is not really a strict translation, but more of a paraphrase that attempts to get around the contradiction (The Living Bible and TEV do the same thing).
Then we get into the bulk of chapter 2 and here the problems really begin. There appear to be three ways we can understand Genesis 2: (a) a completely different account from Genesis 1 by a different author. Later editors didn't know which version to go with so they included both even though they contradict one another in details; (b) a retelling of the Genesis 1 account from a different viewpoint, but not contradictory; or (c) a second special creation. Let's assume that the first option (two contradictory accounts) is ruled out. What are some arguments in favor of ch. 2 being a separate creation by God?
PRO:
If one proposes some sort of human or humanoid creation without a soul in Chapter 1 followed by the specific creation of a chosen couple in the Garden of Eden at a later date, it would provide a ready explanation for Cain's concern about being killed by others in his wanderings and show where his wife came from.
A two-fold creation of “man” might fit in well with current scientific thinking of paleontologists regarding the cohabitation of homo sapiens and humanoid species – i.e., many of us have some Neanderthal DNA. It would also provide more leeway in correlating biblical dating with scientific dating of human activity, and it might explain why mankind seems to have arisen in Africa while the Garden of Eden appears to be located in the Middle East.
If there are two creations of mankind, then it also eliminates the apparent contradiction between Genesis 1 where man is created out of nothing while Adam in Chapter 2 is “formed” out of pre-existing matter.
The early Jewish philosopher Philo believed in two creations of mankind, but he felt that the first creation (Genesis 1:27) was actually the creation of the heavenly man with a soul while Adam in Chapter 2 was an earthly man. This is the opposite of what is proposed by most others, but his reasoning was that Genesis 1 describes man as created in God's own image (and God said that it was very good) while the second man, Adam, was formed from dirt. I remember Christians years ago saying quite indignantly, “I'm not descended from an ape.” It was felt to be beneath us. Just remember that the biblical account says we are actually descended from a handful of dirt.
CON:
The majority of evangelical scholars feel that chapter 2 doesn't describe a second creation of man, but merely provides more detail on the events in Day 6 of creation that are given in chapter 1. This is in line with the common Hebrew writing style which starts with an general introduction, then gives more details and then zeroes in on an even more detailed account. Thus, Genesis 1:1-2 provides an introduction, the rest of chapter 1 goes into detail, and then chapter 2 zeroes in on the creation of mankind.
There are many strange (almost science fiction) beliefs associated with the two-creation scenario. Some of those holding to this view even state that there are people today who do not possess a soul since they are descended from the first creation and not the second one.
Perhaps the most telling argument against the “two creation” hypothesis is that voiced by Francis Schaeffer in his book Genesis in Space and Time. He recognizes that some people have this belief but uses Jesus' own words to refute it. In Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-8, Jesus is quoted as saying, “From the beginning of creation,'God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.'” Jesus joins together two quotes from Genesis: Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, treating them both as referring to the same event and the same class of beings.
I will assume that Genesis 2 is a retelling of the sixth day of creation. But if so, then there are some apparent contradictions that will pop up and will have to be dealt with as we go through the story.
Whichever it is:
The first creation story is theocentric and ends with God's satisfaction with it; the second creation story is man-centered and ends with Adam's satisfaction with woman.
Genesis 2:4 Toledot is used 9 other times in Genesis and all but one begin a new section. This word is variously translated as genealogy, descendants, generation, story, origin, source, line, history, or account. The Greek equivalent of toledot is geneseos. There is another possible piece of evidence that we are beginning a description of part of the same creation as in Chapter 1: This verse constitutes a chiasm (mirror-image symmetry):
of the heavens
and the earth
when they were created
in the day that the LORD God made
the earth
and the heavens
The first half points backwards to Genesis 1:1 and second half points forwards to indicate it is the same creation being referred to. This verse includes the word for God, the impersonal elohim, from the first account but adds the more personal Yahweh. Genesis 1 is a more scientific account while Genesis 2 is a more personal account.
“Day (yom)” is same Hebrew word as used in the six days of creation of Genesis 1. And it obviously refers to at least 6 days, probably much more. So the universe is either created twice (once in 6 days and once in one day), or the more likely explanation is that yom in both chapters means a “time or era.” The phrase “generations of the heavens and the earth” also appears to refer to an extended time period.
Genesis 2:5-9 This looks like a contradiction with the order of creation found in Genesis 1 in that
plants seem to come after the creation of man, not before it. This can be explained by looking at a
similar construction in Genesis 1:1-2 where an introduction describes what it was like in the beginning
– i.e., the earth was without form and void, but the earth doesn't really appear until the third day. In this
opening to the Eden story, it similarly describes the situation before the creation: there were no plants
on the earth. Then the story zeroes in on the 6th day. 'Erets in verse 5 can mean the whole earth or the
land. Probably the latter in this case. This describes the condition of the land in the Middle East in the
summer before it rains, not necessarily a time before it had ever rained on earth. Also the garden that
God plants in Eden is not necessarily the first time any vegetation appeared on earth.
Genesis 1 Genesis 2
plants man
animals plants
man animals
Genesis 2:7 There is an interesting parallel in John 9:1-7. I'll give you the Reader's Digest version: “As
Jesus walked along, he saw a man blind from birth...he spat on the ground and made mud with the
saliva and spread the mud on the man's eyes, saying to him, 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.' Then he
went and washed and came back able to see.” This was not a mere healing, but creation of something
new. You can see the similarity to the creation of man in Genesis 2:7; it is not a mere transformation of
matter but a brand new creation. Each case of creation uses dirt plus something from God's mouth
(Jesus' spit and God's breath/spirit).
In the case of man's creation, this story indicates that we have a dual origin – from the earth and from
God. This has very wide implications. If we are mere physical beings subject to the laws of nature like
any other substance on earth, we are really no more than a complicated machine. Everything we do is
completely controlled by our genetic make-up and our environment. We have no free will; we only
think we have (and even that thinking is beyond our control). It is only if we each have a soul or spirit
that we can explain the existence of free will. I carried on an e-mail correspondence with an old high
school friend for over a year trying to get him to admit to the existence of God. He came up with
arguments against all my points except this one. He had to admit that if he was right in thinking there
was no God, then man had no free will. But he said, “I still don't believe it.”
Genesis 2:8 Andy Crouch: The first gardener – the first one to plant, to water, to select, protect, weed
and nurture – is not Adam. It is God. Genesis 1 is creatio ex nihilo whereas Genesis 2 is creatio ex
creatis. “A garden is nature plus culture.”
Genesis 2:9 Two special trees: What does “good and evil” mean? Two explanations: (a) Good and evil
are opposites, indicating complete knowledge: a figure of speech called a merism (the long and short of
it, heaven and earth, alpha and omega) or (b) It probably is more related to moral, first-hand knowledge
than all knowledge.
In the OT, the tree of life only appears here in Genesis, in the Proverbs as a metaphor, and in the Book
of Revelation.
Proverbs 3:18 “[Wisdom] is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are
called happy.”
Proverbs 11:30 “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but violence takes lives away.”
Proverbs 15:4 “A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness in it breaks the spirit.”
This tree is “a general image of blessing and fulfillment, a touchstone for what one would desire.”
(Dictionary Of Biblical Imagery) The tree provides things needed to keep a person on the right path. So
the tree of life brings spiritual nourishment as well as physical health. Both may be in mind in
Revelation 22 where the fruit of the tree of life is said to be for healing. Notice that at this stage of the
story, Adam is permitted to eat of this tree. Presumably, Adam and Eve would remain in their present
physical state without aging as long as they kept eating from the tree.
Genesis 2:10-14 Most standard Sunday school lesson guides wisely skip these verses. I'm not so wise.
Anyone attempting to locate the Garden of Eden from this description would have a great deal of
trouble. The Tigris and Euphrates are of course located in Mesopotamia, but the Gihon flows from
Mount Zion in Jerusalem (However, Cush is usually understood to be in Ethiopia), and no one knows
where Pishon is located (but from the name Havilah it is probably in Arabia). It may just be a poetic
way of saying that Eden waters the whole known ancient world. The imagery here recurs in the same
passage in Revelation 22:1-2 where a river of life flows from the Throne of God through the New
Jerusalem with the tree of life on either side to heal the nations. New Heaven and Earth is pictured
somewhat like a return to Eden.
Genesis 2:11b-12 In the middle of this digression concerning rivers is a digression within the
digression concerning the various materials found in the land. Andy Crouch: “Why does the author
indulge in this metallurgical excursion? ...Note that these are not particularly useful minerals or
substances... These are substances whose only real value is in their beauty.” There is a great deal of
uncertainty in translating the three substances listed. Bdellium seems to be an aromatic resin of some
sort used in perfume; the word for gold is translated as frankincense by some; and the last item has
been translated as onyx, lapis lazuli, carnelian, or just “precious stones.” God created things to be
pleasing to our senses – the reason for the arts. At one time I was active in an arts ministry at one of the
area churches. It was helpful in reminding me that many things can be used to glorify God and
celebrate his creation. Everything doesn't have to necessarily serve a utilitarian purpose. We can see the
same thing through the description of Solomon's ornate temple and in the heavenly visions in
Revelation filled with allusions to gold and precious stones.
Genesis 2:15-17 Critics of the Bible point to these verses to show that God is a portrayed as a petty
tyrant who wants to keep knowledge away from mankind while Satan should be revered for keeping us
from ignorance. Be thinking over the next week how you would answer this objection. There actually
was a 2nd century cult, the Orphites, who did worship Satan for that very reason.
Some have labeled this a covenant of works between God and man. The covenants in the Bible are not
those made between two equal parties – God sets out the terms, the benefits and the punishment if the
terms are not met. There are only two places in the Bible that might support calling it an actual
covenant. The first is in Genesis 6:18, where God tells Noah, “I will establish my covenant with you.”
The word translated “establish” is not the usual Hebrew word but one that means something like re-
establish. The other passage is Hosea 6:7, where the Hebrew says literally: “But as Adam, they (the
Israelites) transgressed the covenant.” Others translate Adam as “mankind” (KJV) or as a place name
(as at Adam). There is an obscure town on the east bank of the Jordan named Adam, but nothing of
importance is known to have occurred there.
Genesis 2:18-23 The fact that God says it is not good infers that these events occurred before God said
the creation of mankind was very good in 1:31. It has been argued that “fit” should better be translated
“equal.” Also it has been noted that the word translated “helper” usually connotes “savior” or
“strength” and is most often applied to God himself. Eve is a power equal to Adam. This equality is
also stressed in the Genesis 1 version of the creation and in Adam's phrase “bone of my bone, flesh of
my flesh” in verse 23. So it doesn't connote inferiority by any means.
Genesis 2:19 Again we have an apparent contradiction in the order of creation where man appears to
be created before the animals rather than afterward. Two ways out: complete humankind (both male
and female) was only present after Eve was created, and this was after the animals according to
Genesis 1. Or God just formed examples of all the existing animals and brought them to Eden to
parade them in front of Adam.
Genesis 2:21 An article in Biblical Archaeology Review magazine proposes another anatomical
translation in place of “rib” but I can't explain it in front of a mixed audience.
Genesis 2:22 A rather far-fetched alternative theory to the standard explanation of this verse has been
offered by one commentator (Sasson): Eve misidentifies the two trees. They really eat of the Tree of
Life (which is why they don't die). Then verse 22 means “lest they continue to eat of the tree of life.”
Genesis 2:23 There is a pun in v. 23: Man = ish; Woman = ishah
Genesis 2:24-5 Who wrote these verse? Most scholars would say that this is obviously a comment by
the unnamed narrator of the story. Fundamentalists might say that that is not a high enough view of
Scripture – Moses obviously wrote these words. Jesus has an even higher view of Scripture. The
Matthew 19:4-5 quote given below begins with: “Jesus answered, 'Have you not read that the one who
made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and he said, 'For this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife...?'” Jesus attributes the words to God himself, not
that we need to put quotation marks around these particular words as coming from God, but Jesus is
probably indicating his high view of the inspiration of all Scripture.
Why is it the man who leaves and not the woman? There is a literal and symbolic meaning here.
Regarding the literal meaning. Some have proposed that this verse assumes a matriarchal society, but
that doesn't really fit the patriarchal picture we see throughout Genesis. This command, like many
others in the Old Testament, is primarily directed toward the men, who had much more leeway than
women in ancient society to do what they wanted. So they are to take the lead and subordinate their
personal interests to those of their wives. But, as Rabbi Judah taught, the command really applies to
both parties. They are both to value the marital bond over the family bonds. One commentator notes:
“Since honoring parents is next to honoring God, for a man to forsake them and cling to his wife
stresses the supreme sanctity of marriage.” By the way, the word “forsake” is closely related to the
Aramaic word Jesus spoke on the cross when he said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
So it is a very strong word. Another way of understanding this verse literally is to take it as a
proverbial saying rather than a command. In other words, it expresses the general psychological truth
that is found in the popular saying: “A son is a son till he gets him a wife, a daughter's a daughter all of
her life.”
There are more symbolic ways of understanding the truth in this verse. Some rabbis felt that it
applied to converts to Judaism who must leave all of their Gentile environment behind if they want to
follow God.
Then we get to the apostle Paul, who puts both the literal and symbolic meanings together in one place,
Ephesians 5:25-33. This is the passage where Paul starts out talking about the ways a husband should
love his wife, one of which is to subordinate his love for his parents to his love for her. Then he
continues by saying that Genesis 2:24 really refers to Christ and the church. Basically, he is reminding
us that out of love for us, Christ left his heavenly Father to come to earth and establish his church, his
spotless bride.
I would like to conclude by going back to Genesis 2:20, where Adam names the animals. According to
ancient thinking, naming something or someone gives you power over them. Thus, God allowing
Adam to name the animals confirmed Genesis 1:26 when God said that man would have dominion
over creation.
There is a great Bob Dylan song entitled “Man gave names to all the animals” which stops in the
middle of Adam starting to name the snake. Man will not have dominion over Satan until many years
later with the coming of Christ.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments