Genesis 1-11 is not a scientific account like we often treat it today. Neither is it an etiology like other Ancient Near East texts. Moses is not trying to tell Israel how the world came to be. He is trying to convey to Israel why God chose them and freed them from slavery. Moses answered this question by telling the people about God’s primary characteristic—He is holy. Then, he told the people that God sees His creation, especially humanity, as very good. God does everything He does because He so loves the world. Humanity is His prized possession having been created in God’s image.
When we simply read the text for what it is, virtually every criticism that comes from opponents of the Christian faith are dealt with effortlessly. Moses was not trying to provide a scientific order of events. The days are a little more abstract, not even having definite articles. The focus is on God as holy creator and His love for the world He made, especially humanity.
Genesis 2 is different than Genesis 1. It presents a different creation account. Things in Genesis 2 happen in a different order than they did in Genesis 1. It looks like Genesis 2 was accidentally added from a different source, making the Bible unreliable, incoherent, errant, and certainly fallible. If we try to force Genesis 1 and 2 together, the narrative creates a necessarily long sixth day—much longer than 24 hours. There’s just no way Adam could name all the animals in such little time. If you cut out a bone, it doesn’t grow into another person—and the genetics certainly wouldn’t be present for it to form a different biological sex that hadn’t yet existed. Genesis 2 tells us that rain is required for plant growth, yet it also says that God never caused it to rain. Plant life is impossible according to the Bible, yet God created it early in Genesis 1. It is silly to believe that magical trees existed that decided the fate of humankind. If Genesis 2 happens on the day God created the heavens and earth, why would Genesis 1 number multiple days on which God created these other things?
In Genesis 1, we saw that the text is not meant to be a scientific account. It is a historical account, but exact chronology was not important to Moses. He wasn’t telling us how the world was created, but why God chose Israel and delivered Israel from Egypt. In the Genesis 2 criticisms, the primary claim is that Genesis 2 proves that the Bible is incoherent—that is, self-contradictory. If there is an inconsistency in the divine prelude, we can’t trust anything in the Bible that is built upon Genesis 1-11. Since every claim in the Old and New Testaments depends on the veracity of Genesis 1-11, we cannot trust anything written in the Bible. So, we are no longer talking about science but literature. We are evaluating a testimony to see if it is reliable.
In Genesis 1, creation took six days. In Genesis 2, creation happens all in one day, a day that must have predated the first day in Genesis 1. Well-meaning Christians and apologists will double down on the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1, insisting that “יומ” always refers to literal 24-hour days. This insistence on the strict meaning of the Hebrew term creates a problem when we get to Genesis 2. It’s not a problem with the text. It is a problem with one interpretation of the text. In Genesis 2, the same word “יומ” is used to describe an age or a time. As we saw with the first five days in Genesis 1, there is no definite article. Like with the first five days in Genesis 1, this reference to a day refers to an undefined period. Like we would refer to something “back in the day,” Moses here refers to what God was doing ‘back in the day’ when He created the heavens and the earth. This reference is to something previously written because we can’t understand what day Moses is talking about unless there is a previous part of the story. Thus, it is most likely that Genesis 2 was originally part of the text, dispelling any claim that it wasn’t. Genesis 2 fits here and is, so far, not incoherent with Genesis 1 if we simply read the Bible for what it is instead of adding what is unnecessary to the text.
Genesis 2 is also ordered differently than Genesis 1. People are mentioned before the creation of plant and animal life. Once again, I’ll simply remind us that Hebrews living 3,500 years ago were not as interested in exact chronology as they were in answering the question, “Why?” There are no timing references marking chronology in Genesis 2 whatsoever. Therefore, we cannot get any sort of chronology from the text of Genesis 2. The only way we can get timing references is by adding to the text what is not there. So, those who criticize the text for being in the wrong order haven’t taken the time to understand the actual claims of the text. They have been unfaithful in their evaluation, and their criticisms mean nothing.
Well-meaning Christians interpret the Bible in some odd ways. For instance, they will take Genesis 2:5 to mean that there was no rain before the great flood. There was a mist or streams that watered the whole surface of the ground. The atmosphere was different. People who don’t know Jesus will hear that claim and think Christianity is dumb and the Bible’s claims do not correspond to reality. What does the verse actually say? It claims that plants were not growing because there was no rain. There is no way we can read that, be faithful to the text, and extrapolate it to mean that there was no rain before the great flood. The text means what it says plainly. Plants need rain to grow. Without rain, plants don’t grow. A more logical conclusion would be to say that God caused it to rain for the benefit of growing plants. Again, the actual text corresponds to the way things appear to work in the world. It is a certain interpretation of the text that causes problems and drives people away from the church or Christ.
Moses includes some verifiable geographical information in the text. Still today, that land is some of the most fertile land on the earth. It makes sense that Eden would have been located at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The fact that there is real geographical information that corresponds to the actual geography of the world shows us that this is meant to be taken historically and literally. It also means that the world today resembles the ancient world. Even if there was once a supercontinent like Laurasia, Gondwana, or Pangea, the shape and relative geography are most likely essentially consistent. There are some well-meaning Christians who claim that the great flood broke a prediluvian Pangea apart into the landmasses we know today when the force of the floodwaters reshaped everything. Such a scenario is impossible according to Genesis 2. But, we see here that before the flood in the biblical account, geography was basically the same. Yet again, Christianity’s critics look at someone’s interpretation of the Bible rather than trying to understand the explicit claims of the text. They assume that there is no evidence in favor of a biblical flood because antediluvian and postdiluvian geography are basically the same. The Bible does not claim that the flood is the reason multiple continents exist now. It does not claim the flood shaped mountains or canyons. It is not meant to tell us how exactly anything happened. Christians don’t do themselves any favors by adding to the text what is not there. The flood may have shaped some of our geographical features. I think it is highly likely that it did, but the Bible does not say it did. Just by reading the Bible carefully and not adding men like Ken Ham’s theories to the biblical text, we can avoid much controversy. Christianity’s critics are shown to be foolish because they have not criticized actual biblical claims but the interpretations and historical claims of a certain individual or group.
Genesis 2 does not indicate that the trees are magical or actually grant anything special to people. The account gives names to two of the trees, but it does not attribute any special power to them. So, neither do we have to attribute any special powers to them. Genesis 2 does not indicate that people magically grow from ribs. It does claim that God chose to create another person from Adam’s rib for a reason. There is no natural law saying that a craftsman cannot make whatever he wants out of whatever he wants. Unlike some naturalists, Christians believe that like things give birth to like things. When there is something different, it must be intentionally created differently.
Considering some of the issues in Genesis 2, I want to challenge anyone listening to or reading this apologetic commentary. We cause many unnecessary problems when we add to or take away from the text. We should read carefully and be aware of interpretations and explanations that go beyond the biblical text. When we don’t pay attention to what the text actually says, we back ourselves into corners because we feel a need to defend all sorts of positions that the Bible does not take. If we read the Bible carefully and resolve not to add or take away from the story, we are actually freer to relate to people and look at the intention of the text for people’s lives. Many people choose not to believe the Bible because of someone’s interpretation or use of the Bible instead of the biblical claims themselves.
Now, we have expended all this energy by clarifying the Bible to show that most of the criticisms against the Bible don’t actually address what is in the Bible. Instead, they address what some people claim the Bible means. We have expended so much energy doing this that we have missed something important. We have focused on defending the text and have missed the intention of the text. Thus, when practicing apologetics faithfully, it is possible to be so distracted by providing a reason for the faith that we forget to explain the hope we have. Sometimes the practice of apologetics eclipses the Gospel when it should be a platform upon which we have greater opportunity to share the Gospel. We don’t get so concerned about defending our beliefs that we fail to offer hope to our opponents. We are, after all, to love our enemies.
What is the point of Genesis 2?
Remember, Moses is answering as to why God chose and delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt. In Genesis 1, Moses tells the people that God so loves the world, especially human beings. In Genesis 2, Moses zooms in on the creation of the Woman. The woman is the focus of Genesis 2. No animal was a suitable helper for Adam. So, God created a special being in Adam’s likeness—bone of Adam’s bones and flesh of Adam’s flesh. Because she was created in Adam’s image, like Adam was created in God’s image, the man from this moment on is instructed to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife as one flesh. The woman becomes the earthly focus of the man’s life. Why? If Genesis 2 belongs after Genesis 1, then we know that people were created in God’s image. People are the crown of creation. People are God’s prized possession. Now, when God creates the woman particularly, He says that the woman is to be the man’s prized possession out of everything else on the earth. He does not mean that women are property. He means that the woman is the proverbial apple of the man’s eye. He lives His life for her. He raises her up. He establishes her. She is the crown of his life like humanity is the crown of God’s creation. In marriage, the woman is the very picture of what humanity is to God. God created this relationship so that people could feel what He does in His special love for humanity. Genesis 2 explains for us in a way that is relatable why God said, “It is very good,” in Genesis 1.
Israel is asking, “Why did God choose us?” God is saying, “Why did you choose your wife?” I loved her. That’s why I chose her. God loves people, that why He chooses them. Something about God choosing Israel exhibits His love for humanity. We don’t learn what that is yet.
Both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. In an honor-shame culture (unlike the West today, which is an innocence-guilt culture), this meant that the man and woman were fully exposed to each other, body and soul. They honored each other perfectly. They did not bring shame to themselves or their family by dishonoring each other. They rightly loved each other like God loved humanity. They did not do anything to harm each other or the world. They were without shame and full of honor, a truth that sets us up for Genesis 3—again showing that Genesis 2 is more reasonably a meaningful transition from Genesis 1 to Genesis 3 and was not a later addition. It is a natural part of the story.
Why did God choose Israel?
- He so loved the world, especially humanity.
- He exhibits His love for humanity first in the shameless marriage relationship.
In Chapter 1, God created people last as the crown and prize of His own creation. In Chapter 2, God creates the woman last to show that she is the beautiful representation of His whole world. She is the mother, not only physically but as the archetype, of all the living. Unlike what we see in popular society today as it tries to cancel women, and unlike the other worldviews present on the earth, the Bible elevates the role of women early on. Women are important. They were created on purpose for a very specific purpose. Proper and pure marriage and sexuality is an integral part of God’s message to us in the Gospel. The woman is elevated because God elevates His creation to establish it.
Leave a Reply