When Did He Show Up? question 179
Here is a question that often comes up when I am working with those outside the church, especially if they have some interest in the Bible and know a bit about it.
Because Genesis 1 describes God creating man on the sixth day (v. 26-31),
yet chapter 2 verse 4ff describes God forming the man before the shrubs and
plants had yet appeared and before it had rained because “there was no man
to work the ground.”
And chapter 1 verses 11-13 say that God created the plants on the third day.
I got my own theory.
I’m curious about yours!
Since this question comes from one of my favorite bloggers and thinkers, I am curious about HIS take on this, but I’m also happy to share mine.
There are three main theories about what is going on here. The first, which I reject, is that there are two, contradictory versions of the creation story. The second is that the shrubs and plants of the field (siah hassadeh and eseb hassadeh) are not the vegetation found in chapter one, but representatives of the thorns and thistles (qos wedardar) that would shortly come as a result of the Fall. In this second theory, the mention of rain is a further reminder of the judgment of God that would later come with the Flood. The reference to “no man to work the ground” refers to the time that Man would be banished from the garden. This view is championed by many including John H. Sailhamer.
Another, more classic and accepted view, is that chapter two is an expansion of the creation and place of man in the universe. It is not a separate, contradictory passage, but an expansion of the brief mention in chapter one. For instance, in chapter one man is made in God’s image. In chapter two, he is made of the dust of the ground. A contradiction? Not in my mind. He is in the image of God but he is not divine — he is a creature made in much the same way as the other creatures with whom he shares the earth. As a creature, he has responsibilities including dressing and keeping the Garden. “Dressing” is an archaic term that, for reasons that escape me, is usually retained in modern versions (the NIV uses “work” and “care for”). It means to cultivate, beautify, and care for. The word “keeping” is another term that needs clarification. For instance, in 3:24 the cherubim are put in place with flaming swords to guard the entrance to the Garden. The word “guard” there is the same word that is translated “keep” in 2:15.
Guard? From what? I believe that man was placed in the Garden to guard against the devil’s attempts to enter and ruin it. I’ll flesh this out in future columns, but for now, let’s refer to that classic set of (immensely complex and Hebrew-intensive) commentaries by Keil and Delitzsch. They, and most classical scholars, say that the shrubs and plants of the field refer not to vegetation — nor to thorns and thistles — but to cultivated plants. In other words, God had planted a garden (2:8) and then placed man in it… so vegetation was certainly present before man showed up. THEN, man was to dress and keep the garden, manipulating it, working it, etc. He would transplant, plant, and arrange it and those new plants and arrangements were the shrubs and plants referred to in 2:5. In other words — we had plants and vegetation but the plants in 2:5 refer to those that man worked with, not the ones God had already planted. They were “of the field” which indicates man’s planning, planting, and keeping them.
Next time… a different view of creation that might bring peace to many of you and really, really upset others…
May 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I know we disagree on this, but I do look forward to your next post. It won’t upset me, because we’re both Christians and I’m convinced I’m wrong about enough things that our disagreements will come out in the wash.
But why, oh why, would God create Adam for the purpose of guarding the Garden from ruin and exercising dominion over the whole creation (extending beauty and order to the ends of the cosmos), if in the end He was going to ruin the whole cosmos Himself?
Isn’t that surrendering to Satan’s accusation — as if in the epilogue to Job, God nuked Job (as opposed to Satan’s weakened attempts at destruction) instead of restoring him to shalom?
May 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I’ve always held to that classic interpretation, too, Patrick (the one esposed by Keil and Delitzsh). We often expect the Bible to read like a science textbook. That is not its purpose. It is a book of stories that show us things.
We are so tied to the Greek idea of propositional truth. That is one of our shortcomings.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
The problem is only there if you see both chapters one and 2 as being chronological, historical accounts of creation, since they cannot both be chronological and both be correct at the same time, since they do, as you note, have different orders. I think the structure of each is for different literary purposes, chapter one to show humanity as the peak of the created beings, while 2 shows humanity as the center around which everything else is organized. There are numerous explanations out there, but make sure what you hold is based on what the text actually says, not on any reconstruction of it. A book you might find interesting is H. Blocher, In the beginning (Intervarsity), which you could probably get through interlibrary loan.
All the best, chad
May 12th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I’ll fess up to be the questioner for this one!
I really don’t see the chapters as contradictory, either – nor do I see their purpose to be a detailed record of science and history, yet they can still true to both in a narrative way about one of the most legendary events in the story of mankind.
The short version of my theory is that God created the man Adam long before He made man, both male and female.
If I’m right ….
Adam got to see the garden grow that God had planted for him to tend (third day). He got to see God create great lights in the sky (fourth day). He got to see God create all kinds of aquatic and avian creatures (fifth day) and all kinds of land animals and perhaps even other people (sixth day). This man was specially created for a special purpose – to look after the plants and know the animals by name – a keeper, as you say, Patrick! – and a prototype of sorts.
For in the middle of that garden there were two trees – and a choice. But it was not enough. So the man – Adam – observed all the creatures being fruitful and multiplying and God made certain that he understood that he was not complete. So He specially created of Adam’s own genetic material a woman he could not crave more, for she was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. (And he looked at her, and realized that she was a keeper, too!)
And after they made the choice for self rather than God and were expelled from the garden and the and one of their dear children had been murdered by the choice of the other, Cain knew that his banishment would put him among the men and women created on the sixth day and feared that “whoever finds me will kill me” – though God protected him, and he even found a wife among them.
I think Adam’s longevity and uniqueness may have been part of God’s plan to let him know that he had been created for an extraordinary purpose. I believe that the greatest part of Adam’s purpose – and ours – is to choose, and to do so wisely, choosing God over self.
As I say, that’s the short version. It’s just a theory, doubtless full of holy-holes. But, as I like to say of my theories, it fits the available facts and I think William of Occam would shave with it.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Interesting discussion, but I am not sure I understand how to concluded that God created other humans in addition to Adam and Eve. This concept makes it sound as if Adam and Eve where different than mankind today. Many individuals subscribe to the belief that their linage must go back to Adam and Eve, but if others were created then this would not be the case? I had never considered that ideal before hearing it here.
If we are considering that the Bible is not a science book, but like a history book, couldn’t it be possible that enough time had passed that many others existed through Adam and Eve (see Gen 5:4)? We can study history today in our lives, but we mostly study records and highlights about life changing events. If you want more details you would research further and hope someone recorded the information. I always figured that written language prevented documentation of the creation in details and the information available was passed along by mouth with stories. Once man was able to record the events those stories had lost many details.
Anyhow, thank you for providing more thought provoking material!
May 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Actually, I think oral transmission does a better job of preserving the details than written transmission.
May 13th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I have no idea how Wayne’s name got appended to my comment above … but the comment was mine:
___________________________
Adam and Eve weren’t “different from mankind today” – they were our original progenitors.
I realize I didn’t go into detail about how God might have created man male and female in my theory (was trying to keep it short), but Eve as the “mother of all living” would certainly have been a key factor (as would Adam). I just wouldn’t want to leave out God as a factor then, too, as He remains today, and as David recognized (Psalm 139).
Someone provided genetic diversity through two progenitors with, presumably, the same genetic material as Adam’s bone.
That was strange, wasn’t it? I deleted that comment since it was attributed to someone else and have left this copy of it in place. Thanks.
May 16th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
My theory is this, we have to remember that there were not as many Kinds of shrubs plants etc… and when there was only Adam and Eve these plants or there seeds were perhaps placed in the ground but it was not a flourishing place because we know that all was created perfect before the fall so probably no weeds etc… only that which was good and geneticaly perfect. So God made a Garden where thngs would flourish and that the only man and woman that existed could cultivate the ground. It say now no plant or shrub of the field and no plant of the field had yet sprouted or even perhaps had spread from the garden because there was no man to cultivate it and it also says that all plants were given for food, there were no junk plants poison or whatever that wasnt good for mankind and I think they origonated from the garden. I think the word field is kind of key here. Then it says he planted a garden and placed the man there where he could cultivate it. Even today all good plants/benefcial usualy need cultivated and the garden is where that happened or would happen. Everything ggod for food was there even the tree of life and the tree of the knowlege of good and evil. And it says that a river flowed out of eden to water the garden and it said already that all the other shrubs of the field etc… had not sprouted because it did not rain and was not cultivated. but in the Garden it was cultivated and it was watered by the river that flowed out of it.
We cant look at things from a it only makes sense when it is looked at what is acceptable from language normality. Like for nstance it says after that God saw that man was alone and it was not good. This doesnt mean God had no plans for woman and later thought “oh what did I make a mistake on, oh i know ill make a woman for the man cause he is lonely. Absolutley not! Gods plan was already to make woman and he did so the same day adam was made. he is Just saying that it was not good that the man He created should be alone and so He also made woman for them to have each other. And when it says there wasnt anyone to be a helpmate for adam, God wasnt saying we looked all over adam but there isnt anyone, so ill make you women I didnt think of that before—again absolutley not! Its just simply saying that after Adam was created it wasnt complete and there was no help mate for him and so now God was going to create woman. It wasnt that God had a miss thought and didnt know, Oh whats wrong adam you cant find anyone. That would be ridiculous to look at it from such a perspective. Gods whole intention was to creat both adam and eve and he did so in the same day.
The earth plant life was not what it spread to as we know it now it only flourished at first in the Garden and was perfect, and from that Garden it spread and so did people, animals etc…etc… remeber the earth wasnt seperated by the waters either as it is today it was all one big land mass. Had to say land mass cause I dont know how to spell continent. Just my thoughts.