Transcription
Genesis 2 continues the work of God ordering the cosmos for His purposes and establishing a working relationship with humans. But many concepts in this chapter caused confusion and misunderstanding. A man made materially from dust, a woman literally made from a rib. Are the authors talking about material manufacturing of the first humans, or is there something more important that they are trying to teach?
Genesis 2 begins by concluding the work God set out to do in Genesis 1 and noting God has taken up his residence in the cosmic temple. Commentators have noted the word for rest more likely refers to cease, as in ceasing from one's work, not necessarily the need for physical relaxation. For example, these three men cease to answer Job, or the Book of Joshua notes that the manna had ceased, or how day and night will not cease after the flood. Combining this with what we discussed in the previous two videos on Genesis 1, the message is, as John Walton notes, the seventh day is marked by God's ceasing the work of the previous six days and by his settling into the stability of the cosmos he created, perhaps experiencing refreshment as he did so. In other words, God ceases from his work and takes up residence in the cosmic temple that he has inaugurated.
However, many people have a problem with what follows because it sounds like a contradictory account to Genesis 1. For those who hold that the creation account of Genesis is about material creation, Genesis 2 would suggest that humans were created before plants and animals. However, Genesis 1 has humans last in the created order. However, this alleged problem dissipates if we consider Genesis 2 is a sequel to Genesis 1 with the same theological idea that Genesis 1 and 2 are just about establishing order over the cosmos, not material manufacturing.
In fact, this seems to be the way the two texts were meant to function together. First, this would mean that the call of Adam and Eve was a later, second event to God calling man in his image that is mentioned in Genesis 1:27. A majority of scholars accept humans are spoken of in Genesis 1 in very general terms without using the term for man, Adam, as a proper name. As Michael Heizer says, the human beings of Genesis 1 are not in a garden in Eden. There is no Garden of Eden in Genesis 1. The command to subdue the earth would speak of the whole earth wherever humans are, not Eden, which is nowhere in view.
Genesis 2 describes a distinct and separate creation of two humans. Again, the process is put in pre-scientific or supernatural terms and so doesn't give us a scientific perspective on how this happened. With this in mind, we need to remember in our previous video we established God making man in His image is a theological election or status bestowed upon humans, not a material creation. So the image of God was given to all humans. Then God called to specific people in Eden for another task. So this would imply there were other humans there before Adam and Eve.
This actually makes sense with a literary device in Genesis. The second account of Genesis 2 opens with the phrase "These are the generations of." This phrase occurs 10 other times in Genesis and is typically given with the name of a person and then that person's descendants. So the phrase introduces what comes after that person. Using the same logic in Genesis 2, this introductory phrase refers to what came after the creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1, not a recap or a second contradictory account. These specific opening lines are a frequent literary device used to tell us what follows after the person or previous events. In other words, the story is simply picking up where Genesis 1 left off.
But if this is the case, why does it say there was no vegetation in the land and no animals yet? Well, John Walton notes the plants in verses five and six seem qualified, so as to hint that they refer to cultivated crops rather than the general vegetation of Genesis one available to the gatherer. Although the words for plant and bush are simply general words used for plants, they are clearly qualified by phrasing them to be specific plants of a field and that these were plants that needed to be worked by men. In other words, the authors are noting there was no cultivation yet in this uncultivated land.
Trigg VAE meting denotes what we have on the surface level in Genesis two is a garden planted for the maintenance of humans and man's work here has the primary function of providing food. We should also realize the text is referring to a specific area on earth, namely that the authors specify the area they are talking about, which is Eden. This is why the specific features of the land are mentioned, which clearly means they are not referring to the whole planet but the specific land of Eden where there was no cultivation yet. As Michael Heizer says, the two humans of Genesis 2 are in a garden in a place called Eden, which is clearly not synonymous with the earth since it has specific geography on the earth.
In other words, since the syntax suggests Genesis 2 is a sequel to God ordering the cosmos for specific functions, it would follow then that God focuses on the sacred space at the center of the cosmos that needs to be ordered into a specific garden to function as the temple where humans can meet with God. So Genesis 1 is about God ordering and giving new functions to the whole cosmos. In Genesis 2, it continues this story by explaining that the next phase is constructing the sacred space that will function as the center of the cosmos. Humans are then needed to cultivate it and bring order to this sacred space, and to specific humans are given the higher roles as the first priests and priestess before God.
It has been noted by several scholars the garden functions as the first temple. The Hebrew words for work and take care of are often used of priestly services to God rather than agricultural tasks. In other words, Genesis 2 notes the land of Eden was uncultivated. God planted a garden there and placed man in it, where it would function as the first temple where man would commune with God and perform priestly duties in addition to caring for the plants within the sacred space. As G.K. Beale notes, the task of Adam in Genesis 2:15 included more than mere spade work in the dirt of the garden. The implication may be that God places Adam into a royal temple to begin to reign as his priestly vice-regent. In fact, Adam should always best be referred to as a priest king, since it is only after the fall that priesthood is separated from kingship. Though Israel's eschatological expectation is of a messianic priest king.
This is also seen in the cult in name the animals. John Thomas Swann notes God calling Adam to name the animals is considered an act of establishing order. The issue of this part of the passage is not about material creation of the animals, but the main theme is to note that Adam has been elected by God in aiding him to bring order and stability to the cosmos. Either way, the passage in Genesis 2 doesn't indicate there were no animals before this in Eden. The specific act of bringing them before Adam are possibly miraculously forming them from the ground is only done for the naming process so Adam can help bring order to creation. Again, the theme and aim of this chapter seems to be more on order in functions, not material creation.
This is most seen in the conclusion of the chapter. Many young earth creationists claim we ought to take the whole passage literally, but this is impossible for even their own standards. Genesis 2 ends by noting a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh. What are we supposed to believe? Adam and Eve joined physically together like Siamese twins? If the passage is meant to be literal, why aren't Christians lining up at hospitals to be sewn together to their spouse?
The point of verse 24 is man and woman ought to function as one flesh, as that is the proper order for a marriage to follow. And this should be a clue to how we are to understand the symbols and terms in the chapter. The authors are using metaphorical language to describe human relationships in our relationship with God. Just like the marriage union is described metaphorically as one flesh, the components that make Adam and Eve are given for theological reasons to describe human identity, not to describe scientific components. This is a common way to describe humans in other ancient Near Eastern texts. Human creation was described in archetypal ways to explain all of humanity's relation to their deities and with each other.
Genesis specifically does this in Hebrew with the names Adam and Eve. There is direct wordplay to show archetypal nature. Adam, which means man in Hebrew, is given the name specifically because he is an archetype for all humans, and wordplay is used because he is connected to the ground. Adam, a woman, Ayesha, is wordplay on 'ish, which means man, because 'ish taken from 'ish. This doesn't directly mean Adam and Eve were not real people. I've already argued I think they were real people, the real first priest and priestess of creation that stood in the first temple before God. This is just a note that how they are described with their given names and ingredients always meant to teach theological and relational importance, not scientific truths.
As John Walton says, in summary, then, there are both differences and similarities between ancient Near Eastern and Israelite presentations of the archetypal humans. Ancient Near Eastern texts speak of a collective archetype that is connected to deity by being made of divine ingredients that does corvee labor for the gods. The Old Testament speaks of archetypes consisting of a human couple who portray the connection of male and female by the manner of the female's origin and their connection to the ground in death by their ingredients. They are connected to deity in their role only, not by their ingredients.
In other words, ancient Near Eastern texts using ingredient metaphors or archetypes to describe roles in connections between humans and God. Materials are mentioned for their archetypal significance. This is obvious when we read that the marriage union is described as one flesh. We understand this as a metaphor, not a literal flesh bond. Likewise, when we see how Eve was made, we can also understand the archetypal relation, despite the way the English reads.
The Hebrew word for rib is not in Genesis 2, so it is inaccurate to say Genesis 2 teaches Eve was made from a rib. This should be obvious when we read Adam's first words when he sees her. He says, "This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." Obviously, Eve was more than just bone. If this was an account of material origins of humanity, this would create a contradiction in the English because Eve would only have been made from bone, not bone and flesh.
What is actually taken from Adam to make Eve is a 'sela'. The word typically means the entire side of something, like the side of a hill, one side of the ark, or side chambers in a temple. Even the Akkadian cognate is ambiguous and rarely does it refer to a single rib, but more refers to the side of someone. Ziya's Evatt says disassociating 'sela' from rib has strong philological support in Biblical Hebrew. 'Sela' is employed to refer to a number of different items: the sides of a structure, chambers or rooms extending from the side of another structure, wooden planks or support beams, the side of a hill. In fact, the only place in Biblical Hebrew where it may refer to skeletal ribs is in the Genesis passages. Its Akkadian cognate 'sailu' means rib, side, lateral wing of a building, and by extension, direction. Its two is cognate 'sela' means only tablet, beam. All these nouns refer to flat rock structures. On the basis of that, the text would be saying Adam was cut in half and with one side Eve was made. So when God closed up the flesh on Adam, was he just half a body hopping around on one leg?
However, if we focus on what happened prior to this, it sheds light on what the text is actually trying to say. The text says Adam was put into a deep sleep. However, Michael Fox notes this is typically not ordinary sleep. The word typically means a type of sleep that blocks all awareness of the physical world, so it is often used for someone who is about to receive a vision from God. Based on this, what follows after Adam has put into a deep sleep is something he saw in a vision that God gave him, namely he saw himself being divided in half and realized the other half of him was the woman and he was incomplete without her at his side. The priestly work in the garden cannot be performed properly if there is not a woman there working it with the man.
So if the marriage union and relationship between man and woman is described in archetypal and metaphorical language, we should expect the same rules to apply to man's relation to God and how he was made. The text says man was formed dust of the earth with breath of life and he becomes a living being. First, Walton notes we need to remember the act of forming is not necessarily a material act. Some passages say God formed events to take place, that he formed seasons, the emotions and inclinations of the heart, the nation of Israel in a corrupt administration is said to form misery in people. Even when the Hebrew word for forming is about material creation, it doesn't necessarily mean a miraculous event. Given what we have already seen as the aim of Genesis 1 and 2, a material formation is unlikely. The explanation the author's are getting at with the formation of Adam and an archetypal understanding is probably more likely.
Next, the preposition "from" is not actually in the Hebrew of Genesis 2. The actual text would read, "God yetzer man dust of the earth." So in reality, there is no direct claim man was formed from dust. The text really seems to be saying, "God yetzer man, who is dust of the earth." Being of dust is a common archetypal theme for humans, used to represent mortality. Genesis 3:19 says, "for you are dust and to dust you shall return." Man is dust currently and will return to dust at death. Since we lost access to the Tree of Life, the text of Genesis 3 is pretty clear it was access to the Tree of Life that made man immortal, not something inherent in our own biology that we lost.
As Trigg fame Ettinger says, however we choose to understand Genesis 2:7, it is clear that the wording does not imply eternal life immortality. This is only to be obtained by eating from the tree of life. Or as Joshua John van E notes, first, before the fall, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden did not possess the living forever attached to the Tree of Life. It was possible for them to die. Their bodies were susceptible to natural death. Second, because of the possibility offered by the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve were not doomed to die until after their disobedience concerning the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, human death is a result of sin.
Also, the Bible uses the metaphor for dust to describe all of humanity. Being of dust is a common way to denote human mortality. Job 10:9 even says he was made like clay, but obviously Job was not ignorant on how babies were made. Being made from clay or dust was a common way to describe humanity in the ancient Near East. In other words, it is understood as a basic idiom to denote one is mortal. Being made from dust denoted a statement of identity, not a scientific claim, which is why man is called dust directly in Genesis 3:19. Paul even teaches a similar notion in first Corinthians 15, in explaining Christ's resurrected body, he compares it to Adam's body, the type of body we all have now, which is corruptible and mortal and must be changed to a new form of our body that we will receive, and it will be immortal and imperishable. So Paul seems to teach Adam did not have an immortal body like Christ. The implication Paul is telling us, as van E notes, is that Adam as created needed a change to inherit the kingdom of God.
Next, despite the way the English reads, the Hebrew phrase for "breath of life" doesn't actually appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures. So the only context we have is Genesis 2:4. What this phrase is supposed to mean, so far we can see, we have a claim that God yetzer man dust of the earth, then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living nephesh. Given the archetypal language used to describe the marriage union, man's relationship to his wife, the idiomatic nature of dust, and the aim of Genesis 1 and 2 being about the functions of the cosmos and humanity, the aim of this verse is probably the same.
Richard Hess notes the word 'nephesh' can have multiple meanings, but typically represents the vitality of a person or one's desire to live. He notes the Hebrew of Leviticus 17:11 is written in a way that the 'nephesh' describes that element of the person that chooses life, seeking it and experiencing it. In other words, when talking about a person, the 'nephesh' is often used to describe their purpose for living or what drives them to experience life. In Genesis 2, the message seems to be that God gives man his reason for living and purpose to be alive. God calls mortal men and breathes into them a new purpose and a reason for living.
This might also be what Paul was indicating in his epistles. In 1 Timothy 2, it reads, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." However, the entire chapter has been shown to be difficult to translate, including this verse, because the word for "form" only shows up in one other place in the entire New Testament, which is in Romans 9. But here Paul seems to be talking about God spiritually forming people. So when Paul references the formation of Adam, he might also be referring to how God spiritually formed Adam by giving him a new purpose or vitality to live. This would make sense with what happens to Adam next. He is placed in the garden and given new functions and tasks, elected by God to aid in bringing order to the cosmos. Then we are told man is not functioning properly without a woman. So God shows Adam that Eve is the other half of him, and the two become one flesh, metaphorically speaking, in being the first priest of creation.
The whole chapter itself is best understood as a sequel to Genesis 1. God ordered the cosmos and then in Genesis 2 selects a sacred space in the midst of the cosmos to commune with man. God gives the man a purpose and desire to live and establishes that woman is as necessary, equal, establishing the first ordained marriage under God. These archetypal patterns are meant to represent how all humans relate to each other and to God. However, humans and God were not alone in the garden. Another creature stirred about, bent on ruining this established order. This otherworldly being is learned of in Genesis 3.