AWOL: Andrew Wilson Online

Genesis 1 speaks of God creating plants, animals and man in that order (on Days 3, 5, 6a and 6b). Genesis 2 tells us that God created man, plants and animals in that order (see Genesis 2:5-9, 19).

Likewise, Genesis chapter 1 speaks of man and woman being created at the same time (1:27) whereas chapter 2 speaks of them being created separately (2:7, 18-25).

Liberal scholars would argue that the different names of God used in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 (God - Elohim - in Genesis 1 and LORD - Yahweh - in Genesis 2) are also evidence that these two chapters were probably written by two different authors.

Are there two creation accounts? Is there a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2? 

No, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

Firstly, with regard to the order of the creation of animals, Genesis 1 tells us that God created the animals before man. However, Genesis 2 does not contradict this. Genesis 2:19 reads that, 'out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them'.

This appears to contradict Genesis 1, but it is important to understand that in Hebrew there is no tense system (past, present, future) as in English. In Hebrew, verbs are instead said to be either perfect or imperfect. What this means is that the action the verb describes is either complete or incomplete, that is, the action is either finished or still ongoing. Verbs that are perfect (complete) usually tell us about something that happened in the past (because the action is now finished), whereas imperfect (incomplete) verbs usually refer to actions in the present  or future (because the action is still ongoing or yet to be completed). Actually, the Hebrew verbal system is more complicated than this. However, most importantly, the Hebrew perfect (complete) may be translated by the English past tense ('he formed'), the English present perfect ('he has formed'), the English past perfect ('he had formed') or the English future perfect ('he will have formed'). 'It must be emphasized that the Hebrew Perfect does not have tense (time of action) apart from context and issues of syntax (i.e., word arrangement and sentence structure)' (Basics of Biblical Hebrew, Gary Pratico and Miles Van Pelt, Zondervan, 2nd Ed, 2007, p130).

Thus, the NIV translation of Genesis 2:19: 'Now the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air ...' is perfectly (forgive the pun) acceptable, and in the light of the context of Genesis 1, the best translation of the verse. God did not create the animals in Genesis 2:19 - he merely brought the animals he had created to Adam in this verse.

With regard to the plants, notice carefully exactly what Genesis chapters 1 and 2 state. Chapter 1 verse 11 tells us that God created plants of all types, and it gives us three representative categories of plants: 'vegetation (or grass), plants (or herbs) and fruit trees'. Genesis 2:5 reads 'before any plant (shrubs or bushes - a different Hebrew word to any used in 1:11) of the field was in the earth and before any herb (same word as plant/herb in 1:11) of the field had grown'.

Notice that the two types of plants in Genesis 2 are specifically (and repeatedly) described as 'of the field'. 'Field' here does not mean ground or earth (all plants need earth to grow in). Instead, 'herbs/plants of the field' refers to plants and crops that are grown in cultivated fields, that is, fields tilled and specially dedicated to the growth of a particular plant. These were the sorts of plants that are only really useful if they are cultivated by man. For example, if wheat were to be randomly thrown around in a jungle it might well grow, but its harvest would be difficult and the crop would be limited. Similarly, if a grapevine were grown without the necessary cultivation and care that a vinedresser supplies (pruning, lifting up on a trellis or support), its fruit would be of little value, if not spoiled. Notice that Genesis 2:5 explicitly states that these plants/herbs of the field had not yet appeared or grown because 'there was no man to till the ground.'

Thus, the plants and crops mentioned in 2:5 do not refer to all plants (as mentioned in Genesis 1), but are a specific sub-set of all plants and refer to those that require a farmer to get the best out of them. Nor, when Genesis 2 says that these cultivated plants were not yet in the earth (that is, they had not yet been planted) nor had they yet grown, there is no contradiction with Genesis 1, for plants can exist without being planted (in seed form), and this awaited the creation of man whose job it was to cultivate and tend these particular plants. Man and these particular cultivated plants were intended to co-exist in a symbiotic relationship, and Genesis chapter 2 is all about man's relationships. 

To bring this last point out, notice the following contrasts between Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

1. Whereas in Genesis 1, it is God who is working, in Genesis 2, man is working - he is put in the Garden to tend and care for it
2. Whereas in Genesis chapter 1 God does all the naming (day, night, land, sea, etc), in Genesis 2, man does the naming (animals, woman)
3. In Genesis 1, the focus is upon where the whole creation comes from (its 'genesis'), whereas in Genesis 2, the focus is upon man - where he comes from and his relationship with creation (the cultivated plants, the animals, woman). Genesis 2 tells us not simply where man comes from physically but also spiritually, and it also explores the origin and basis of man socially, where human society comes from.
4. Thus, we can say that in Genesis 1, the focus is upon God and his relationship to creation, whereas in chapter 2, the focus is upon man and his place in creation.
5. Finally, of course, we must not forget that chapter 2 is not a self-contained story, but rather the beginning of an account that continues to the end of chapter 4. Thus, whereas in Genesis 1, God blessed creation, in Genesis chapters 2-4, we learn the reason why God had cursed creation: man's sin.

Two final 'problems' remain - and flow directly from the main point of man's relationships in Genesis 2.

Firstly, the reason for the different names used for God in Genesis 1 and 2 is straightforward once we have realised that Genesis 2 is all about man's relationships. The word used for God in Genesis 1 (Elohim) means 'mighty one'. It is a generic word used of many gods and mighty people (and things) in the Bible. In Genesis 1 it speaks of God's creative power. However, the name of God used in Genesis 2 is God's personal name, Yahweh (Jehovah). We might say that the difference consists in the distinction between calling someone a man and using his personal name. The first tells you what he is, the second treats him as a person, an individual. We might say that Adam and God were on 'first name' terms.

And this, of course, is the whole point of Genesis chapters 2-4. Adam was not simply created from the dust of the earth - he also inherited something from God of a spiritual nature when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Adam was not simply a physical creature with relationships to creation around him, but also a spiritual creature, able to relate to God in whose likeness he was created. 

Adam and God knew each other and had a relationship. God speaks to the man in Genesis 2, communicating his desires and man's responsibilities. God and Adam were on 'speaking terms'. Genesis 3 implies that God spent time fellowshipping with man in the garden, for when God came walking in the garden in the cool of the day, Adam and Eve were aware that God was coming (presumably from daily experience), and hid themselves because they knew they had sinned.

Finally, man's relationship with woman is explored in Genesis 2. Whereas in Genesis 1, we learn that are were both equally created in the image and likeness of God, yet Genesis 2 explores the differences between man and woman.

The woman (a) was created after the man, (b) was created for the man, and (c) was created under his authority. Notice the way that this is demonstrated in Genesis 2 in three ways: firstly, the woman is under the man's authority as far as what their work invovled. God did not separately take Eve aside and repeat to her what he told man about the responsibility to tend and care for the garden. Eve was expected to take Adam's instruction on this matter and follow his example. Secondly, Eve was under the man's authority in relation to the prohibition on eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God only warned Adam about this - Eve had to simply follow Adam's word on this matter, as if from God. Thirdly, Adam alone named the animals. Imagine a slightly ridiculous situation: imagine if Eve were to ask Adam what that funny looking animal was called, and Adam were to reply, that is an elephant. What if Eve were to say, that is a ridiculous name! Can't we have a vote on that? The answer, if God were to be consulted, was No, God had given Adam authority to name the animals. God had even given Adam authority to name Eve (woman (2:23) and Eve (3:20)), just as he had named the animals, as part of his mandate to rule over all the animals (1:28). Naming rights are part of the rights of ownership and just as Adam's rib was his possession, so Adam considered the woman his possession also, and accordingly named her.

Genesis chapters 1 and 2 thus present a balance. To use the language of the theologian, in Genesis 1, man and woman are ontologically equal, whereas in Genesis 2, they are functionally different. Whereas in Genesis 1, man and woman are equal in their being (ontology), in their relationship to God (as both being created in his image and likeness) and relationship to all of creation (both being given dominion over creation), so in chapter 2, they are to relate to each other according to a divinely-instituted order.

We see the same balance with all the other relationships in Genesis 1 and 2. Man is given dominion over creation (Genesis 1), yet he is to 'tend and care' for it (Genesis 2). He possesses the power to rule the world (dominion), yet he is not to abuse that power, but to use it for the well-being of all creation (it is a stewardship). He is part of creation (taken from the earth), yet he also possesses a Divine 'spark', too.

Similarly with man's relationship with woman, he is equal with her (she is his 'helper suited to him' - 2:18), yet he is placed in authority over her. It is not meant to be a master-slave relationship, but one of love - and we catch a hint of Adam's delight and wonder as the woman is presented to him in 2:23. The fundamental basis for human society is marriage (2:24), not domination, but a union based on love and respect.

In conclusion, then, Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1. Rather, it enlarges upon one aspect of chapter 1, that is the place of man in creation. Genesis 2 particularly focuses upon man's relationships with God, creation (plants and animals), and woman. This is the pattern that we find the book of Genesis following throughout: a historical account is told, then one particular part or person in that history is focussed upon in more detail:

• Adam's family's story is given, then the focus shifts to the story of one descendant, Noah
• Noah's family's story is told, then one descendant, Abram, is focussed upon
• Abraham, Isaac's and Jacob's stories are all told, and finally the focus falls upon Joseph's story, the culmination and climax of the book.
• Similarly, in Genesis 1, the story of all creation is told, and then the focus shifts to the story of the first man (chapters 2-4) 

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."