Genesis 2 - A recall of Genesis 1? No. It is Not.
In Genesis 2 - A recall of Genesis 1?, I introduce my interpretation of Genesis 2 as mostly a continuation of Genesis 1, not a mere rehash. Obviously, I am not the first one to ever suggest Genesis 2 occurred after Day 7, but I have not read elsewhere of the possibility that Adam’s creation in Genesis 2 provides the context for Evolution in Genesis 1, and then picks up from there. My rationale is based on how well the combination of Genesis 1 and 2 map to the scientific record.
- Genesis 2:4-6 describe the earth 4.5 billion years ago.
- At that time, there was only earth to work with.
- Genesis 2:7 says God used earth to form Adam… God’s work (including Evolution) had begun
- Genesis 1 describes the fossil record very well starting from 4.5 billion years ago until homo sapiens appeared on Day 6
- God blessed homo sapiens on Day 6 and told them to multiply and prosper
- Adam was expelled from the Garden at or after the appearance of Agriculture
- Agriculture appeared after homo sapiens were filling the earth, hence was after Day 6, hence after Day 7
- Therefore, Adam was created after Day 7, after evolution of mankind had completed
- Genesis 2:7 can therefore be interpreted to cover all of earth’s history, up through Adam, which includes Days 1 to 7
- Then God breathed new life into Adam.
I have developed this entire sequence on this blog.
In Genesis 2:7, I believe God introduced Himself to Adam, hence giving Adam something to believe (there is a God and I know Him), and I believe God accounted it to him as righteousness. So then what? Genesis 2 tells us:
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Just continuing on the narrative, it would seem that God took this man from his people, people who knew not God, but clearly had the capacity to. He took Adam from them, introduced Himself to Adam, planted a garden for him, and put him in it to live. Now many people interpret this passage as a rehash of Day 3 of creation, and then criticize the scriptures for saying plants were created before mankind in Genesis 1, then after mankind in Genesis 2. This interpretation completely avoids this problem. Simply put, the scripture says God planted a garden, so God planted a garden. Simple. Then He brought Adam it to live in it.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
I have begun studying the location of Eden. I come back to this another time.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
In this passage, God does not teach Adam how to care for the garden. He simply tells him to care for it. Adam’s response was to obey. God then gave Adam something else to believe and to obey: Believe that eating of the tree will kill you; obey in your restraint from eating of it. As long as Adam continued in this path, he would have life, and life abundantly. And scripture is quite clear Adam continued on in righteousness, because God sought to bless his abundance:
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
Freed from the need to reconcile this with Days 5 and 6 of creation, it becomes clear that God merely took of the beasts and bird He had previously created, and brought some to Adam to see what he would call them. Does this mean that Adam did not already have a name for them? Does it mean that no man had ever named an animal? Does it mean God was unaware of what Adam already knew of these animals? It means only what it says: God brought the animals before Adam, and let Adam choose their name. Whatever else was true before then does not matter. What does matter is that whatever Adam called them, none made a suitable helper.
Now, why would beasts or birds be considered suitable helpers? Birds can make nests and beasts can climb trees. Each animal has its own natural inherent talents… but apparently these were not enough.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman, ‘
for she was taken out of man.”24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Does this mean that Eve was the first woman? No. It means merely what it says… she was made from Adam’s rib. I do believe there many many other men and woman throughout the earth already, and God could have simply led one of those women to Adam, but He chose not to. He made a woman who had not lived in the world, and brought her to Adam.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
This implies to me that shame was something that was known. However, Adam was living in pure righteousness up to this point, and Eve started out in righteousness… believing what God had said through Adam, perhaps even said directly to her, though scripture does not exactly say which it is.
With a couple living in true righteousness before the Lord, there is no shame, and no sin. It is from this situation that “Original Sin” would come.