By James M. Rochford

Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

Why does the creation narrative repeat itself? Critics argue that the Pentateuch was edited together long after the time of Moses in what is commonly referred to as the JEDP theory (sometimes called the Graf-Wellhausen or Documentary Hypothesis). They claim to find support for this view in the fact that God is referred to with the name Elohim in Genesis 1:1-2:3, but he is referred to as Yahweh in Genesis 2:4 and following. This repetition of the creation narrative is due to the theory that these were actually two separate Jewish accounts that were stitched together by a later author-editor.

We don’t have the time or the inclination to critique this theory here (though we have in our earlier article “The Authorship of the Pentateuch”). Suffice it to say, this theory lacks support in Genesis 1 and 2.

For one, Jesus considered these to be from the same author. He cited Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as complementary texts (Mt. 19:4-5). Furthermore, the “traditional Rabbinic opinion” was that Genesis 1 was “the overall account of the creation,” whereas Genesis 2 is an “elaboration of the events of the sixth day of Genesis 1.”^[1]

Second, the author of Genesis doesn’t treat these names as different deities. In the text, the titles are combined to refer to the same deity—namely “the LORD God” (or Yahweh Elohim; Gen. 2:4). Exodus 9:30 uses the same language. Later, we read, “The LORD [Yahweh] your God [Elohim] gave me success” (Gen. 27:20). Therefore, to split these titles into two separate deities doesn’t fit with the text.

Third, Genesis 1 and 2 shows a unity of thought—not the work of independent authors. One scholar[2] notes structural parallels between the two accounts. Both sections are built on seven sections. “God said” occurs nine times (1:3-31) and “Yahweh God did/said” occurs on nine occasions (2:7-22). Consequently, Genesis 2 is a “thematic elaboration of the key features found in 1:1-2:3.”^[3] Concrete literary parallels fill the text as well:

• Genesis 2:4 uses the term “created” (bara) which matches the language of Genesis 1:1, 21, 27.
• In Day Six, both “male and female” are created (Gen. 1:27), and Genesis 2 explains who was made—namely, Adam and Eve.
• The blessing of Genesis 1:28 turns into a curse in Genesis 3:14-19.
• The command to “multiply” through childbirth (Gen. 1:28) is met with a description of “multiplied” pain (Gen. 3:16).

A superficial reading of the text sees discontinuity between the creation being “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and “not good” (Gen. 2:18). However, the fact that the author uses the same word “good” (ṭôb) and “not good” (lo ṭôb) gets the attention of the reader, anticipating the creation of Eve.

Fourth, there is a reason for using different titles for God. Moses uses the term Elohim (“God”) to refer to God as the Creator, and he uses the term Yahweh (“LORD”) to refer God as the Covenant-Maker (cf. Ex. 6:3). In Genesis 1, God is the Creator of the entire universe, but in Genesis 2, he creates a personal relationship with humans.^[4] We see the same distinction in Psalm 19. When the psalmist speaks of God as the cosmic Creator, he uses Elohim. However, when he speaks of the law of God, he uses Yahweh. These are not contradictory accounts; they are complementary accounts. Different contexts require different titles.

Fifth, recapitulation occurs in other historical narratives in the OT. For example, Caleb asks Joshua for land, and Joshua gives it to him (Josh. 14:6-14). However, in the next chapter, we read about how Caleb received this land (Josh. 15:13-17).

Sixth, recapitulation occurs in other ancient Near Eastern accounts. Both the Babylonian and Sumerian epics also contain this motif. Matthews writes, “In Enki and Ninmah (ca. 2000 b.c.) the first account of the creation of human life is a general one, with creation by nipping off clay, and the second account covers the same ground in more detail. Babylonian Atrahasis has the first creation from the remains of a slain deity mixed with clay, and the second elaborates, showing that the first humans were created in seven pairs by snipping off clay. In both cases the former is general and the second specific.”^[5]

(2:4) “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.”

The MT has an “end-of-paragraph marker after Genesis 2:3,”^[6] which separates these two sections. However, this doesn’t mean that these should be viewed as contradictory accounts—only distinct accounts. Genesis 2 “zooms in” on the creation of humans.

“This is the account” (ʾēlleh tôleḏôṯ) is the first of a repeated expression throughout the book of Genesis (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2). The use of this expression ties the book together, running throughout Genesis. Hamilton^[7] and Waltke^[8] and many commentators believe that this is an introduction to what follows afterward. Those who dehistoricize Genesis have difficulty with the repetition of the term tôlēdôt, because this goes throughout the entire book of Genesis, linking it together. Thus, if we take Genesis 1-11 as mythical, then it seems that we need to bite the bullet and take the majority of text in the same way.

The verse is also what is called a chiasm. This is a literary device similar to JFK’s statement, “It’s not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” The verse opens and closes with “heavens and earth,” mentioning God’s creation in the middle (“when they were created.. the Lord God made…”).

(2:5) “Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted.”

Old Earth Perspective: From this perspective, the ESV has the right translation when it refers to the “land.” Collins^[9] and Matthews^[10] state that the word “earth” (‘erets) is better translated as “land” as well. If this is only referring to the local land in Eden, then this could refer to a separate creation. There are a few reasons for holding this view:

First, this would explain the lack of rain. Under this view, this isn’t referring to a lack of rain on Planet Earth, but only to the place where humans originally lived.

Second, the “shrubs” and “plants” need to be cultivated by humans. This is quite different from the plants that replicate on their own in the previous chapter (Gen. 1:11-12, 29-30). Again, this seems to show that the focus is on the “land,” not the entire Planet Earth. Furthermore, while the term “plants” (ʿēśeḇ) is similar to 1:11-12, the word “shrubs” (śîaḥ) is new. This implies that these types of plants in Genesis “must be those that grow only as a result of human cultivation through planting and artificial irrigation.”^[11]

Third, this describes a local region, rather than a recap of the entire universe. Genesis 1 gave a summary of God’s entire creation, while Genesis 2 gives more details on the creation of Eden and the location of the first humans. Thus, the material in Genesis 2 is portrayed topically—not chronologically. This is the view of many commentators, including Collins,^[12] Sailhamer,^[13] Mathews,^[14] Boice,^[15] and Ross.^[16]

Young Earth Perspective: Certain times of plants didn’t exist yet. These refer to “different types of plants,” and certain groups of plants “had not yet sprouted at this time, just before man was created.” This is because the man “was not yet around to cultivate these types of plants.”^[17] This implies that some plant species actually post-date the origin of humans.

(2:5b-6) “For the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.”

Old Earth Perspective: Again, if the “earth” (‘erets) refers to the local land, then this could refer to a seasonal rain or to a supernatural rain for Eden. The word “mist” (ʾēd) can be translated as “vapor, flood, or stream.”^[18] This is parallel to the “river” that “watered” the Garden (Gen. 2:10), which would refer locally to the Garden—not the entire planet.[19] Thus, this would refer to a “subterranean freshwater stream.”^[20]

Young Earth Perspective: YECs formerly held that rain didn’t exist until the Flood; therefore, it wasn’t until the Flood that rainbows existed (Gen. 9). This was often joined with the “water canopy” theory, which most YECs now reject. Today, many YECs teach that this “mist” refers to the time before humans existed—not after their existence. So, rain could’ve existed from the time of humans to the Flood. Sarfati contends that the “mist” (‘ēd) refers to “springs of water.”^[21]

Creation of Adam

(2:7) “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Matthews understands this as “highly anthropomorphic”^[22] language, where God creates the first human much like a sculptor. Moses uses a play on words because the language for Adam is the same as the language for “the ground” (hāʾāḏām … min-hāʾaḏāmá). This is hard to capture in English, but Hamilton comes close: “God formed earthling from the earth.”^[23]

In the earlier account, we see an act of divine fiat: God created man in his own image (Gen. 1:26-27). We might assume that this refers to a creation ex nihilo. However, this supplementary account shows that God used preexisting materials of some kind to create the first man, as well as the first woman (Gen. 2:21).

“[God] breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” This doesn’t refer to God’s “Spirit” (rûaḥ) as is sometimes claimed. Rather, the simple words “breathed” (nāpaḥ) and “breath” (nešāmá) are used. Though, Genesis might use “the less popular word for breath because it is man, and man alone, who is the recipient of the divine breath.”^[24]

Why dust? This shows our worth apart from God’s creation. Matthew Henry writes, “[Humans were] was not made of gold-dust, powder of pearl, or diamond dust, but common dust, dust of the ground.”[25] Boice writes, “In describing man as being formed from the dust Moses undoubtedly wished to stress man’s humble origin and show that he can aspire to glory only by the grace of God.”^[26]

Theistic Evolution Perspective: TEs argue that God “formed” (yāṣar) Adam from the ground. This word can imply a natural process (Isa. 43:1, 7, 21; 44:2, 21, 24). However, it is also used in the context of God’s supernatural creation (Isa. 45:18; Jer. 33:2), alongside the terms “create” (bārāʾ) and “make” (ʿāśâ).

Which interpretation fits best here? Earlier, we read that God “created” (bārāʾ) humans, which refers to a supernatural act. Moreover, God didn’t create the first human from earlier primates, but from the dust of the ground. Some argue that the “dust of the ground” is metaphorical. But think again. The “dust” is not scientific terminology. Biblically, it later refers to the person decaying back into the ground: “By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19; cf. Job 10:8-9; Ps. 103:14; 104:29; Eccl. 3:20; 12:7).

TEs also see significance in the fact that “Adam” (ʾādām) comes from the ground (ʾădāmâ). They claim that this shows literary significance, perhaps showing that this is metaphorical or even mythical. However, this is unwarranted. Collins notes, “Since the animals too were formed from the ground (2:19), we have little ground for supposing that the author intended such a wordplay.”^[27]

Does the word ʾādām refer to a generic “man” or to the historical person of “Adam”? The word “man” (ʾādām) in Genesis 2:5 refers to human beings in general. However, in Genesis 2:7, Moses refers to the first human. The definite article is used of “the man” up until verse 20.^[28] After verse 20, however, there is no article. This means that Moses is referring to the proper name “Adam.” The article reappears in verses 21, 22, and 25, and the man is called ‘ish (“man”) in the text as well (vv.23-24). So, the proper name must be the reference. Boice writes, “This suggests that in the creation of man God began, as it were, de novo. That is, he started with inorganic matter into which he then breathed life. It does not suggest that man developed from the lesser animals.” He also notes the difficulty of harmonizing TE with the creation of Eve. He continues, “We could always say that man is made of dust even though the actual steps of his creation involved a lengthy development through lesser species. But we run into further difficulties when we get to the case of Eve, for Eve is said to have been created from Adam. This does not correspond to any evolutionary theory.”^[29]

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:45, 47, Boice adds, “Adam existed by breathing in, and the breath he breathed in was from God. He could not sustain himself. Christ, on the other hand, is the One who breathes out, for he is ‘life-giving spirit.’ We are to live physically and spiritually only as we turn to and are united to him.”^[30]

The Creation of Eden

(2:8) “The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.”

What does “Eden” mean? The origin of the word (ʿēḏen) refers to “pleasure, delight, or lush fecundity.”^[31] The LXX translates this as the “garden” (paradeisos), which is where we get our modern term “paradise” (cf. Testament of Levi 18:10-11; Lk. 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7).

Was Eden a real place? Yes. Moses doesn’t call it the Garden of Eden, but the Garden in Eden. Eden appears to be the larger territory, and the Garden was a smaller territory within it.

Later authors refer to this as a historical place. Ezekiel compares the cultivation of the land of Israel to the Garden: “This desolate land has become like the garden of Eden; and the waste, desolate and ruined cities are fortified and inhabited” (Ezek. 36:35; cf. Joel 2:3; Isa. 51:3). If we deny the reality of Eden in the past, then we tacitly deny God’s restoration in the future (Rev. 2:7; 22:1-2). The two hang together.

One evidence for the Fall is our sense that things are not the way they are supposed to be. Leon Kass—who consider Genesis as mythical—still states, “No matter how sophisticated and civilized we have become, most of us respond to this portrait of our mythical remotest past with something that feels, in fact, like nostalgia.”^[32]

(2:9) “Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

The tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the Garden—presumably next to each other (cf. Gen. 3:3). What a vivid picture of choosing either life or death. God didn’t put a brick wall around these trees, or any warning signs. Instead, “God fenced these two trees not with a wall but with his word!”^[33]

“The tree of life also in the midst of the garden.” This means that “the middle of Adam’s world was not himself but life, the very presence of God.”^[34]

The four rivers

(2:10-14) “Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. ¹¹ The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. ¹² The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. ¹³ The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. ¹⁴ The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”

“A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden… from there it divided and became four rivers.” From which perspective should we read this text? Is the viewer looking up the river, seeing them split apart? Or is the viewer looking down the river, seeing them split apart? Scholars divide on this. Wenham holds that Eden is the source of the four rivers, and these split downstream from the Garden.^[35] Others hold that the four rivers were split upstream and came together in the Garden.^[36]

Are these mythical rivers? No. In fact, the mention of these rivers actually adds to the case that we are reading the historical genre—not myth or allegory. Indeed, these “geographic depictions express the historical basis of the account.”^[37] Later the Euphrates serves as one of the boundaries for Israel (Gen. 15:18). Thus, two out of the four rivers are well-known (e.g. Tigris and Euphrates).

While the other two rivers are unknown (e.g. Pishon and Gihon), it’s almost as though Moses is aware of this, because he gives us far more descriptions for these unknown rivers.

Pishon River. The text states that it was in “Havilah,” which seems to be a large area. It is placed near Cush (Gen. 10:7; 1 Chron. 1:9) or northeast Arabia (Gen. 25:18). But there is no existing river in this area.

Cush (or Kush) can refer to different locations in the Bible. It can refer to Nubia (southern Egypt and the Sudan, 2 Kin. 19:9; Isa. 18:1; 20:3; Ezek. 29:10; Esth. 1:1). It can also refer to Babylonia (modern-day Iraq). Regarding the Babylonian setting, Hoffmeier writes, “This squares with the name ‘Kassites,’ from the word kuššu, an obscure people who gained control of Babylonia after the fall of Hammurabi’s dynasty around 1600 BC. The ‘Kassite dynasty’ based in Babylon spans from the fifteenth through twelfth centuries BC, and it is during this period that central Mesopotamia would be known as Cush (Kush) in the ancient Near East, and to the biblical writer.”^[38] Hamilton^[39] favors this latter view.

“The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” The mention of Assyria (literally Assur) began “to lose its importance by 1400 BC.” This makes us ask: “Would the so-called J source highlight a city in its creation epic that had long since ceased to carry any weight, or could this section have been inscribed by someone who knew the glory of the capital?”^[40] Good question!

Empirical evidence supports the reality of these rivers. In 1994, the Spaceborne Imaging Radar (SIR-C image) took an image of a small section of Arabia, and it discovered that an ancient river formerly flowed through the region of Havilah. This evidence is quite interesting because these rivers would have dried up before Moses wrote this book in 1400 BC. In fact, this river dried up sometime between 3500 and 2000 BC. This would mean that Moses knew of a river that predated him by at least 500 years! Hoffmeier writes,

The idea that a river once flowed across the deserts of Arabia, and somehow connected with the Tigris and/or Euphrates River, seems far-fetched. But this all changed when evidence for such a river came from satellite radar images taken during the 1994 mission of the Space Shuttle Endeavor. Boston University geologist Farouk el-Baz, who studied the images, noticed that traces of a defunct river that crossed northern Arabia from west to east were visible beneath the sands, thanks to the ground-penetrating capabilities of the radar technologies. He called it the “Kuwait River’, for that is where it apparently connected with the Euphrates or emptied into the Persian Gulf. Some scholars have proposed that this is the Pishon River of Genesis 2. Environmental studies in the region suggest that this river probably dried up sometime between 3500 and 2000 BC when an arid period was experienced. This new evidence suggests that the Bible has preserved a very ancient memory that predates the era of Moses. By the mid-second millennium BC, this river had already turned to desert 1,000 years or more earlier.^[41]

Moreover, modern day Arabia has 600 sites with “gold” deposits that have been mined for centuries—even as far back as 3,000 BC. This fits with the discovery of hundreds of gold deposits in Saudi Arabia today as well. Regarding the Pishon River, see Farouk El-Baz[42] and James Sauer.[43]

Manna is later described as being similar to bdellium (Num. 11:7), which “is a yellowish aromatic resin.”^[44]

Onyx stone was later used in the Temple (Ex. 25:7; 1 Chr. 29:2) and the priests’ vestments (Ex. 28:9, 20). It could be “lapis lazuli,” but this isn’t certain.^[45]

Gihon River. The land of “Cush” could refer to Ethiopia (Isa. 20:3, 5; Jer. 46:9) or the land of the Cassites (Gen. 10:8),^[46] which would be “western Iran.”^[47] Kidner believes there were two areas called Cush, and holds that this is the Cassites.

Tigris River. This is one of the great rivers that flows through modern day Mesopotamia.

Euphrates River. This great river also flows through modern day Mesopotamia. It travels from eastern Turkey through Syria and Turkey. Then it joins the Tigris River and empties into the Persian Gulf.

Where was Eden? Wenham places Eden “somewhere in Armenia near the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates.”^[48] Others hold that the waters flow into Eden, which would place it near the head of the Persian Gulf.^[49] Matthews states that the “location remains elusive”^[50] based on the fact that two rivers are simply unknown. In the end, the boundaries of Eden may not help in identifying the location of the Garden because the Garden is only stated to be in Eden and because the Flood could’ve massively rearranged the geography.

Young Earth Perspective: YECs state that we do not know where the Garden in Eden was because the Flood “totally rearranged the land.” Consequently, the names of these rivers are examples of “linguistic borrowing,” whereby later names are placed back onto earlier locations.^[51] This is consistent with their view of “Flood Geology,” which was so powerful that it not only rearranged the rivers, but also the continents.

However, this isn’t persuasive. The idea of linguistic borrowing usually refers to renaming the same site with a later name—not different sites with different names. Yet, because the Flood would have totally rearranged these rivers, Moses would’ve been using current names to describe totally different rivers. Moreover, why wouldn’t Moses use current names for all four rivers, rather than just two out of the four? (e.g. Tigris and Euphrates) It seems more likely that Moses is trying to ground his view in historical rivers that the people would’ve known.

Humans in the Garden

For application and implications for this section, see our earlier article “Humans Bear the Image of God.”

(2:15) “Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.”

This repeats verse 8: God “placed the man whom He had formed” in Eden. Verse 8 uses a common term for “put” (yanach), while verse 15 uses a different term for “put” (wayyannihēhû). This second term is normally used for “safety” (Gen. 19:16; Deut. 3:20; 12:10; 25:19) and “dedication” (Ex. 16:33-34; Lev. 16:23; Num. 17:4; Deut. 26:4, 10).^[52] Matthews writes, “God prepares the garden for man’s safety, where he can enjoy the divine presence.”^[53]

“Cultivate” (ʿābad) is the standard word for “work” or “serve” in the OT (Gen. 3:23; 4:2, 12; 29:15; 31:6; Isa. 19:9). However, many commentators observe parallels with the priests who “work” in the Tabernacle.^[54] This word is also used for the worship of God (Ex. 3:12) and the work of the priests in the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:21; Num. 3:10; 18:6; 1 Chron. 24:3, 19; 2 Chron. 8:14).

“Keep it” (šāmar) is the same word used to “keep” the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:9), to “keep” the Law (Lev. 18:5), and to “keep charge” or guard the Tabernacle from intruders (Num. 1:53). The root word means “to exercise great care over, to the point, if necessary, of guarding.”^[55]

In this context, they should have guarded the Garden from the Serpent. Waltke writes, “As priest and guardians of the garden, Adam and Eve should have driven out the serpent; instead it drives them out.”^[56] Consequently, when God expels the humans from the Garden, he charges the cherubim to “guard” (šāmar) the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24).

Genesis continues to speak against the false creation myths. The Enuma Elish and the Atrahasis epic describe the gods creating humans to work to feed them (Enuma Elish, 6:33-36; A Codex Alexandrinus, 1.190-97). However, the Bible “gives no hint that the creator is shuffling off his load onto man: work is intrinsic to human life.”^[57] Work is seen as “very good” before the Fall (Gen. 1:31), though not after (Gen. 3:17-19).

(2:16-17) “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; ¹⁷ but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.’”

Why didn’t Adam and Eve drop dead when they ate the fruit? In this context, the term “die” refers to spiritual death—not physical death (Prov. 12:28; 23:13-14; 1 Kings 2:37, 42). Moreover, Hamilton^[58] surveys the use of the expression “you will surely die” (môṯ yāmûṯ) throughout the OT, and he makes a compelling argument that “all that [it] clearly conveys is the announcement of a death sentence by divine or royal decree.”^[59] That is, the timing of the death isn’t in view. Rather, the pronouncement is the main point.

What did the humans seek to gain by eating the fruit? They gained “moral autonomy.”^[60]

Young Earth Perspective: YEC’s often hold that this refers to physical death—not spiritual death. Sarfati writes, “It doesn’t seem likely that it’s referring to ‘spiritual death’, because the punishment turned out to be an unambiguously physical death.”^[61] He notes that physical death is mentioned immediately after the Fall (Gen. 3:19). He argues that this could be taken in an “ingressive sense,” meaning that Adam’s death started on this day.

However, this creates major problems for Sarfati’s view of the term “day” as a 24-hour period of time. After all, God says that “in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Yet Adam lives for another 930 years! This shows the inevitable collision of a literalistic hermeneutic: It results in absurdities.

(2:18) “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’”

Even though Adam lived in an ideal world, and he had face to face contact with his Creator, God still called his condition “not good.” God created humans to live in community with other persons—just as God has eternally lived in a community of three divine persons in the Trinity. Something about our very design requires love relationships with others, and we reject this at our own peril.

This explains why love relationships give us the most meaning to life. It also explains why punishments like solitary confinement are one of the worst punishments we can administer in our judicial system: We weren’t designed to live in isolation from other personal beings.

“I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Why doesn’t God just give Eve to him first? Why go through all of the trouble of bringing the animals to Adam? Waltke writes, “Adam must realize that it is not good to be alone. Rather than squandering his most precious gift on one who is unappreciative, God waits until Adam is prepared to appreciate the gift of woman.”^[62]

Is it condescending to call the woman a “helper” for Adam? The term “helper” (kěnegdô) seems pejorative in the English language, but this is only because of a mistranslation of the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word “helper” (‘ezer) comes from two roots: “rescue” (‘-z-r) and “to be strong” (‘g-z-r).^[63] Deuteronomy uses these words to describe modify God himself! For instance, “There is none like the God of Jeshurun, who rides the heavens to your help (‘-z-r), and through the skies in His majesty” (Deut. 33:26; c.f. v.29; Ex. 18:4; Ps. 20:3; 121:1-2; 124:8). Waltke writes, “The word helper, used for God sixteen of the nineteen times it appears in the Old Testament, signifies the woman’s essential contribution, not inadequacy.”^[64]

Consequently, this term “helper” should not be seen as a condescending term whatsoever. Instead, it shows the strength of women in their correspondence to men. Put simply, “What the man lacks, the woman accomplishes.”^[65] Even critical scholar Claus Westermann observes, “Gen 2 is unique among the creation myths of the whole of the Ancient Near East in its appreciation of the meaning of woman, i.e., that human existence is a partnership of man and woman.”^[66] At the very least, this passage shows that men need help! For further reading, see our earlier article “Christianity and Women.”

Young Earth Perspective: God calls his creation “very good” (Gen. 1:31), and YECs often equate this with moral perfection. Yet, if this is the case, then YECs need to explain how God could call Adam’s relationship “not good” (Gen. 2:18). They argue that this “not good” refers to “incompleteness.” Moreover, the event of Genesis 2:18 takes place on Day Six, which is before God’s declaration that creation was “very good.”^[67] Yet, this reading of the text seems tortured. They seem to assume that “very good” means perfection, when the text is clearly telling us that it was “not good” before creation was over.

(2:19) “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.”

The term “ground” (ʾădāmâ) can also refer to “land” or to the “earth.”^[68] If the local land is in view, then there is no conflict with the sequence of creation in Genesis 1. Moreover, not every animal was created, but only those in this region. Citing Cassuto, Sailhamer understands that God “formed particular specimens” for Adam.^[69]

Old Earth Perspective: The verb tense is pluperfect; therefore, translators can render this as “God had formed” (see NIV).^[70] This could also be a similar phenomenon to the construction of the Temple, where Solomon calls for Hiram the artist after the completion of the Temple (1 Kin. 6:9, 14, 37-38; cf. Judg. 2:6).

Young Earth Perspective: How could Adam name all animals on Earth in a 24-hour period? For one, YECs argue that God brought the animals to Adam, so this would’ve expedited the process (Gen. 2:19). Second, the number of “kinds” was a much smaller classification than our modern idea of “species.” Therefore, there were “probably only a few thousand animals at most.”^[71] Finally, Adam was still in a pre-fall state, so his speed, energy, and memory would’ve been much better than today.

However, this doesn’t fit with the language of the text. The text doesn’t state that Adam had to name the “kinds.” This is an artificial construction in the mind of the YEC interpreter. Instead, he named “every beast of the field and every bird of the sky.”

(2:20) “The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field.”

By naming the animals, Adam was showing his leadership and delegated sovereignty over them (cf. Gen. 1:28).

(2:21) “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.”

Putting Adam to sleep was “not merely anesthetic, though in the present narrative that surely plays a part.”^[72] It implies that Adam could do nothing to create Eve; she was a marvelous gift of God. By being asleep, this shows “a sense of passivity and acceptance of the divine provision.”^[73] This is similar to Abraham receiving his covenant while asleep (Gen. 15:12; cf. Jacob in Gen. 28:11).

Did God pull out a literal “rib” from Adam? The term “rib” (ṣēlāʿ) is better translated “side.”^[74] The word is used to describe the side of the Ark (Ex. 25:12), the side of a building (Ex. 26:20), or the side of a room (Ex. 41:5-8). This could refer to Adam’s rib. (After all, ribs are on the side of the person!) However, the text literally refers to his side.

Hugh Ross doesn’t think this is a “rib,” but a “biopsy.”^[75] However, this seems like an artificial and modern imposition onto the text. Furthermore, if this wasn’t a literal rib, then why does he need to “close up the flesh at that place”? Adam’s own commentary is that the woman is “bone of my bones” and “flesh of my flesh” (v.23). This shows that “the woman [was] in substance the same as the man.”^[76]

Why does God create Eve from Adam’s side? This explains the “one flesh” union in marriage (v.24). Matthew Henry noted that Eve wasn’t created out of Adam’s head (to be above him) or out of his feet (to be beneath him), but made from his rib (to be beside him).

(2:22) “The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”

“Fashioned” is an uncommon word. It is “a word often translated as ‘build.’”^[77]

“Brought her to the man.” God is the “father of the bride” in this wedding ceremony, bringing Eve to Adam.

(2:23) “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’”

These are the first recorded words of a human being in Genesis, and they are written in “poetic verse.”^[78] Adam bursts into poetry and song the first time he sees Eve. How tragic that he will despise this great gift of God just a chapter later! (Gen. 3:12) So many marriages begin this way, initially filled with great gratitude, but ending with bitterness and a poisoning of the mind.

“This is now” (zōʾt happaʿam) is better translated, “This is at last” (Gen. 29:34-35; 30:20; 46:30).^[79]

“Man” (ʾîš) is similar to “woman” (ʾiššâ). This shows the fact that they are interconnected. We even see this pun in the English “man” and “woman.”

“This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” On one level, this statement shows the biological interconnectivity of the two people. On the other, this shows “a covenantal statement of [Adam’s] commitment to her.”^[80] For example, in a similar passage, the men of the northern tribes ascribe loyalty to David by saying, “Behold, we are your bone and your flesh” (2 Sam. 5:1). Surely this means more than simply saying that these men carry the same DNA.

Does Adam naming Eve make him sovereign over her? Not at all. For one, biblical leadership is a stewardship given by God—not to be abused. Secondly, in this same passage, Adam names himself as well (“Man”).

(2:24) “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

In marriage, we are to leave our parents. Wenham writes, “In modern Western societies where filial duties are often ignored, this may seem a minor point to make, but in traditional societies like Israel where honoring parents is the highest human obligation next to honoring God, this remark about forsaking them is very striking.”^[81]

The NT authors pick up on this passage to ground their ethics about sex and marriage (Mt. 19:5; Mk. 10:7, 8; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31). Thus, our ethics about sex are grounded in our creation and design by God, which is still in effect today.

(2:25) “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”

The first humans enjoyed a perfect relationship with God and each other. They had unashamed sexual intimacy (Lev. 18:6, 10; 20:17). This sets up for the great and terrible Fall described in the following chapter. In chapter 3, we meet a “crafty” (ʿārûm) enemy who will encounter these “naked” (ʿārôm) people.^[82] This is in contrast to the humiliation of “nakedness” (Gen. 9:22-23; Ex. 28:42-43).

Questions for Reflection

What do we learn about what it means to be made in the image of God from chapter 2?

What do we learn about marriage from God’s initial design?

[1] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.53.

[2] J.B. Doukhan, The Genesis Creation Story: Its Literary Structure (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1978), 78-79.

^[3] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 187-188.

^[4] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 20.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 15.

Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.25.

Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998), p.213.

Peter Gentry, “Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image.” SBTJ. 12/1. Spring, 2008. 22.

^[5] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 188.

[6] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.40.

^[7] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 151.

^[8] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.83.

[9] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.111.

^[10] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 193.

^[11] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 154.

[12] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), pp.126-127.

[13] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 41.

^[14] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 189.

^[15] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.111, 112.

[16] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.96.

[17] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 8504.

^[18] R. Alden, 38 אוד. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 17.

[19] R. Laird Harris, “The Mist, the Canopy, and the Rivers of Eden.” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (Fall, 1968), p.178.

^[20] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 155.

[21] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 8504.

^[22] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 195.

^[23] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 156.

^[24] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 159.

[25] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol 1, Genesis to Deuteronomy (New York: Revell, n.d.) 14.

^[26] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.117.

[27] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.136.

[28] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.135.

^[29] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.53.

^[30] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.120.

^[31] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.85.

[32] Leon Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (New York: Free Press, 2003), 61.

^[33] R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 689.

^[34] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 202.

^[35] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 66.

^[36] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.120.

Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.69.

Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.195.

^[37] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.87.

^[38] James K. Hoffmeier, “Response to Kenton L. Sparks,” in Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters, ed. Charles Halton and Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 34.

^[39] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 170.

^[40] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 170.

[41] James Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible (Oxford: Lion, 2008), 34-35.

[42] Farouk El-Baz, “A River in the Desert,” Discover, July 1993.

[43] James A. Sauer, “The River Runs Dry,” Biblical Archaeology Review 22, No. 4 (1996): 52-54, 57, 64.

^[44] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.69.

^[45] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.69.

^[46] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.68.

^[47] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 65-66.

^[48] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 66.

^[49] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.69.

^[50] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 208.

[51] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 8981.

[52] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 44.

^[53] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 209.

^[54] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 67.

^[55] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 171.

^[56] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.87.

^[57] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 67.

^[58] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 174.

^[59] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 174.

^[60] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 206.

[61] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 9015.

^[62] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.89.

[63] Walter Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 24.

^[64] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.88.

^[65] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 214.

^[66] Claus Westermann, Genesis (2 vols. Neukirchener Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981-83), 232. Cited in John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 47.

[67] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 9015.

^[68] L.J. Coppes, 25 אדם. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 10.

[69] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 48.

[70] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.134.

Sailhamer argues that this isn’t a proper translation of the Hebrew. John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 48.

[71] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 9191.

[72] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 46.

[73] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 46.

^[74] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 178.

[75] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.105.

[76] Emphasis mine. John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 47.

[77] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.200.

^[78] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 218.

^[79] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 218.

^[80] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 180.

^[81] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 71.

^[82] Sailhamer writes, “The link provides an immediate clue to the potential relationship between the serpent’s “cunning” and the innocence implied in the “nakedness” of the couple.” John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 49.