Northern Kentucky's Evening Interdenominational Community Bible Study Text of Presentation, Lesson 2, Gen 2:4-25 Click Here for Lesson 2 Photos Click Here to return to GENESIS Home Page

Genesis 2:4-25
Adam and Eve: Life as God Intended

This week begins the story of Adam and Eve. A book, Who was Adam?, by Fuz Rana is just about to be published. Based on Dr. Rana’s talk here at Immanuel about 18 months ago, I’m sure it will be worthwhile. I’m guessing he elaborates on the overwhelming genetic evidence that the entire human race descended from one man and one woman, just like the Bible says – but maybe we’ve had enough science for a while.

The first verse in this section, 2:4, reopens the question about the “days” of Genesis: whether the Hebrew word “yom,” as it’s used in Genesis 1, really means 24-hour days. If you’re using the NIV bible, like me, you probably didn’t notice . . . which illustrates the issue I raised last week about the imprecision of biblical Hebrew, and the difficulty to express the author’s intent in modern English. Listen to the contrast between the NIV and the NAS (considered the most literal modern version):

“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens” (Gen 2:4 NIV)

“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.” (Gen 2:4 NAS)

The two versions are almost identical – except the NAS, King James, and most other literal bible translations read “in the day that,” but the NIV reads “when.” The difference is based on that Hebrew word “yom”; most literal versions translate it “day,” but the NIV realizes “yom” in this instance must mean a period of time, so it reads “when.”

Not wishing to beat a dead horse on this “yom” issue . . . but my friend at CCU has just done a computer analysis of the Old Testament in Hebrew, and observes that none of the OT testimonial passages, which speak of creation as evidence of God’s power, mention creation in 6 days . . . and the only two OT passages beyond Genesis 1 which reference 6 day creation – both in Exodus – do so in the context of emphasizing the Sabbath. Furthermore, the Sabbath is also mentioned in a context other than man’s workweek . . . such as a Sabbath rest for the land one year out of 7. He reason from this that the main focus of 6 days of Genesis 1 is the Sabbath (as is suggested by the Analogical Interpretation, we discussed last week).

What is Genesis 2? Bible detractors claim this 2nd Creation Story undercuts the truth of the Bible because of subtle differences with Genesis 1. Scholars who subscribe to the “J-P” Theory claim Genesis 1 and 2 are oral histories from two different sources, cobbled together in the 6th century BC (or so). People in the first instance are just playing the “gotcha” game, and don’t deserve our attention; and as for the “J-P” Theory . . . I mentioned in the introductory session that modern computer analysis now shows great unity within Genesis and rest of the Pentateuch, which brings J-P into question.

In any case, I prefer a simpler point of view. When reading the bible, we must always keep in mind that Middle Eastern reasoning is different from ours; they focus on function rather than form. And whereas our stories tend to start at the beginning and proceed chronologically, Middle Easterners follow what we call “circular reasoning”: they tell part of the story as a unit, then start over and add more detail. Jesus’ Bread of Life Discourse is an example . . . as is Genesis 2, in which – after the overall creation story in Genesis 1 – the author returns and adds detail on the creation of man and the Garden of Eden. The focus in Genesis 1 is to correct earlier pagan creation myths. Genesis 1 says there is one creator-God YHWH – omnipotent, but loving – who created the universe from nothing (not from existing materials); YHWH created the sun, moon, and stars (which pagans worshiped as gods); and YHWH created all life – including mankind. In Genesis 2, the focus is on God’s relationship to man and on God’s provision. Hence the title in the study guide: “Life as God Intended It.”

2:4 opens with “This is the account of the heavens and the earth . . . ” – an introductory phrase used 10 other times in Genesis to introduce an historical narrative. What it really says is “This is the story of what happened to God’s creation,” but what it seems to mean is: “This is the story of Adam and Eve.” We should read Genesis 2 in that context. The discussion in 2:5-6 about shrubs and rain and mist and streams may just be making the point that God prepared an irrigated garden before He created man.

The formation of man is described in 2:7. God formed man from the “dust of the ground” – what Luther called a “lump of earth.” The verb is the same one used for a potter shaping pottery; so the metaphors in Isaiah and Jeremiah – that God’s relation to man is like that of a potter to his pottery – may be more literal than we realize! When God breathed “the breath of life” into man – and not before – man became “a living being.” The Hebrew word translated “breath” applies only to God and man; this is a divine breath. Man is made “in the image of God” (1:27); man alone among the animals has spiritual qualities like self-consciousness and moral discernment.

Some liberal theologians believe God breathed His divine breath into a lower humanoid, and made it man by give it “a living soul” (to use the KJV). But Genesis 1 records lower animals also have “a living soul.” Furthermore, Genesis 3 tells us man returns to “dust” at death; hence it’s hard to interpret “dust” as meaning a lower humanoid, because we surely don’t become Neanderthals when we die!

This is not a minor point. The key to man’s capacities and limitations lies in man’s origin. Unless man was uniquely made “in the image of God” – but fell – the Bible has little to contribute to understanding man and resolving the human dilemma. On the other hand, if man is what the Bible says . . . maybe secular psychologists have something to learn.

Once formed, man is placed in a garden in a place called “Eden,” “in the east.” The location of Eden has been much debated. “In the east” surely means east of Israel, and the root of the word “Eden” refers to the plain between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers; most modern scholarship puts “Eden” in this general area. I posted on the web a Smithsonian article which purports to have located the Pison and the Gihon Rivers, and claims Eden was a place near the mouth of the Euphrates, now covered by the Persian Gulf . . . but it’s unlikely we can verify that – or any other suggested location.

Recall from Genesis 1 that God granted man dominion over the animal kingdom (1:26); and now in the Garden of Eden, man is commanded to “dress" the garden and "keep" it (2:15). Man is essentially God’s steward, endowed with considerable intellectual faculties – probably reflecting the image of God in him. Man is further commanded to "subdue" the earth (1:28) . . . which implies a degree of sovereignty over nature. This gift of dominion and the effective exercise of power over nature was designed to enable man to enjoy his environment fully.

And what an environment it must have been! The same infinite care with which God created the universe and earthly vegetation and animals is apparent in His preparation of a home for man. Eden is a special act of God on behalf of man. The garden was irrigated (2:6) by a river (2:10). The Creator desired mankind to have ideal living conditions in which to realize their potential . . . a beautiful environment in which to examine and learn. 2:15-16 imply God led Adam to the garden personally, in keeping with the unspoiled, intimate relationship between Adam and his Creator. The trees in the garden were designed especially for the benefit of man – aesthetically and foodwise (2:9).

There were two trees of particular significance: "the tree of life" and “the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (2:9). Scholars debate whether these were literal trees or merely symbolic language. The simple reading of the text is these were two literal trees. The Bible in no way implies their appearance was unusual; they were set apart only by divine designation.

God commands man not to eat from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil"; the penalty is death (2:17). The Hebrew text includes – again – that pesky little word “yom,” so the literal translation of 2:17 is: “ . . . for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die” (NAS). However, since the full Hebrew text does not imply immediate death, but ultimate death, the NIV reads: “ . . . for when you eat of it you will surely die” (NIV). As with (2:4), the NIV realizes the word “yom” in this instance must mean a period of time, but the NAS, King James, and most other literal translations read “in the day that.”

Am I making much ado about nothing? I don’t think so, because right here in Genesis 2 we see two examples in which “yom” – day – means a period of time, rather than a 24 hour day. And we know that for certain with regard to 2:17: as we will learn in chapter 3, Adam does not die within 24 hours of eating the forbidden fruit, so if “yom” in this case means a 24-hour day, God is a liar . . . and if that’s true, we should all go home, because if the bible lies, there’s no sense studying it.

Another piece of wisdom we can squeeze out of 2:17 is that – contrary to what some theologians say – the first man knew what death was; it did not enter the world with Adam’s fall. How could death be explained to someone whose only companion was an eternal God, and who had never seen a plant or an animal die? It would take a lot of ‘splaning! And recall, the other special tree in the garden is the “tree of life” which – if eaten – would allow someone to live forever (3:22). If there was no death prior to the fall, why is the “tree of life” there?

What is meant by “knowledge of good and evil”? Most likely it refers to moral autonomy. Unlike the toil associated with the cursed earth after the fall (3:17-18), man in the Garden of Eden is rewarded by complete fruition and productivity. He doesn’t need to work (in the sense that agricultural workers plow and plant and weed and prune); he just has to pick and eat. Yet this idyllic existence is based on his relationship with – and submission to – God. His paradise is a free gift from God, and all he needs to do to keep it is to obey God . . . to follow God’s direction with regard to right and wrong. Hence the “knowledge of good and evil” is independent moral authority . . . making one’s own choices about right and wrong, rather than relying on God.

God brings all the animals to Adam, and he names them (2:19-20). In the Middle Eastern mindset, this means God is reiterating man’s dominion over the animal kingdom (1:26): the right to give a name implies ownership. Some commentators claim naming the animals proves Adam was not a primitive . . . that Adam had a unhindered intellect, with an intellectual capacity greater than ours. I’m not sure I buy that argument . . . and from an allegorical point of view, it’s obvious that the names man gave the animals became the names by which they were referred to in later communications with other men!

The balance of the chapter deals with the creation of Eve. For the first time in the history of creation, God says, "It is not good. . . ." (2:18). Everything up to this point has been perfect in function and appearance. However, God had not designed Adam to be alone, and Adam realized his incompleteness when he named all the animals: none was "a helper suitable for him" – a phrase that might be better translated, "a helper corresponding to him." This “helper” is a co-equal partner, not a lesser being. The term “opposite” has been used; I prefer the term “complementary.”

The narrative of God's creation of Eve is one of great beauty and intimacy. God causes "a deep sleep to fall upon” Adam (2:21). The Hebrew implies this sleep is so deep that all consciousness of the outer world and of one's own existence vanishes . . . a sleep such as produced by a supernatural agency (cf. Gen. 15:12; Job 4:13, 33:15). After putting Adam into this deep sleep, God removes one of Adam's ribs and makes from it a woman with all the life qualities He had given Adam. The Hebrew word traditionally translated “rib” can also be translated “side part,” which carries the nice implication that man and woman are two halves of a whole. The bible does not record that God gathered more “dust” to create Eve – using Adam’s “rib” or “side” as a model; it appears that Eve is constructed entirely from the substance of Adam. As Adam says: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; . . . she was taken out of man” (2:23).

The creation of Adam and Eve teaches us much about the marriage relationship. First, marriage was instituted by God (2:24-25). Second, marriage is to be monogamous; God gives Adam just one wife. Third, marriage is heterosexual. Fourth, the husband and wife are to be unified physically and spiritually, knit together by love and mutual respect: the man is to “leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). This unity implies the permanency of marriage, an implication which Jesus makes explicit in his exposition of 2:24 in Matt 19:4-6.

I’m fond of saying God ordained the family as the fundamental building block of society – and marriage is the foundation of the family. Each of us must individually stand before God, so I try to let God be the judge on issues of divorce, single parenthood, and other relationships typical of today’s society. But it’s hard to deny that divorce and single parent households create special problems which do not appear in a stable family based on a happy, heterosexual marriage. Hence from a viewpoint of both economics and psychology, that’s the optimal situation . . . which is surely why it was God’s plan!

Adam and Eve were the capstone of God’s creative activity. They enjoyed a perfect relationship – spiritually, mentally, physically. They were both naked, but were not ashamed (2:25). In later parts of the Old Testament, nakedness is a sign of humiliation and/or guilt; but Genesis 2 seems to make the point that this was not the case at the time of creation. Adam’s and Eve’s nakedness was natural. It was neither sensual nor guilt-ridden; such attitudes came about with man’s fall.

In summary, earliest man had almost complete freedom; freedom from want, freedom from fear, and freedom from the need to work . . . free to pursue aesthetic and intellectual activities without hindrance. Man was restricted only with regard to the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil . . . which either figuratively or physically – or both – represents independence from God. Yet even though man is in a situation that appears ideal in dependence upon God, man can be tempted to seek independence from God; and when that happens, the consequences are dire – as we will see next week.