Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
Why does the creation narrative repeat itself?
The MT has an “end-of-paragraph marker after Genesis 2:3,”[1] which separates these two sections. 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). In this narrative, critics claim to find support for this view. 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. Therefore, they argue, the 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 inclination to critique this theory here (though we have in our earlier article “The Authorship of the Pentateuch”). Suffice it to say, this theory doesn’t find support in Genesis 1 and 2.
For one, the author of Genesis doesn’t treat these names as different deities. In this 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.
Moreover, the author of Genesis refers to Elohim (“God”) as the Creator, and he refers to Yahweh (“LORD”) to refer to 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.[2] 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.
Furthermore, Genesis 1 and 2 complement each other with key literary features. First, Genesis 2:4 uses the term “created” (bara) which matches the language of Genesis 1:1, 21, 27. Second, Genesis 2 fills out the events of Day 6. In Day Six, both “male and female” are created (Gen. 1:27), and Genesis 2 explains this. Third, on Day Seven, God calls his creation “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Yet Genesis 2 states that the loneliness of Adam was “not good” (Gen. 2:18).
“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.”[3] The blessing of Genesis 1:28 turns into a curse in Genesis 3:14-19. The command to “multiply” (Gen. 1:28) is met with a description of “multiplied” pain (Gen. 3:16). Jesus cited Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as complementary texts (Mt. 19:4-5).
Finally, recapitulation like this is used elsewhere. 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).
(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.”
“This is the account…” (tôlēdôt) is a repeated expression throughout the book of Genesis. Most commentators believe that this is an introduction to what follows afterward.[4] It runs throughout the book of Genesis, tying the book together as a unit (Gen. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2).
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…”).
Theistic Evolution Perspective: 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.
(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, rendering the word “earth” (‘erets) as land.[5] This would make sense as to why there was no rain, and why the order of the creation events are different from Genesis 1. If this is only referring to the local land in Eden, then this could refer to a separate creation. Genesis 1 gave a summary of God’s creation, while Genesis 2 gives more detail, taking up the majority of the chapter.[6] Boice writes,
If you take Genesis 2 as teaching a chronological sequence, you have first the creation of man, then the planting of a garden, then God putting the man in the garden, then God causing trees to grow in the garden. After this there is a description of the rivers of the garden. Then man is put in the garden again. Problems like this should tell us that something is wrong with that approach. They tell us that chronology is not in view here at all. What matters in this chapter is man. Everything else is introduced for its relationship to him… It is not the waters, plants, and animals of the entire globe that are in view, but only those waters, plants, and animals that had bearing on Adam’s life in Eden.[7]
- John Collins understands this as coming from the perspective of the viewer in the land of Eden. It isn’t that rain and animals didn’t exist, but rather, they didn’t exist in the land at this moment. There was no rain and a mist because this was a “particular time of year, when the rains had not yet come, and hence the plants had not begun to grow.”[8]
Hugh Ross similarly holds that this is from the perspective of the land in Eden. He writes, “The words are arranged for sensory impact, not for time sequence.” Moreover, the perspective is told from the “storyteller’s position, not to the entire planetary surface.”[9]
Young Earth Perspective: 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.”[10]
(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 either seasonal rain or supernatural rain for Eden. The word “mist” (ʾēd) can be translated as “vapor, flood, or stream.”[11] This is parallel to the “river” that “watered” the Garden (Gen. 2:10), which would refer locally to the Garden—not the entire planet.[12]
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. 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.”[13]
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.”
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.”[14] 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.”[15]
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 is 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 “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.”[16]
The word “man” (ʾādām) in Genesis 2:5 refers to human beings in general. However, in Genesis 2:7, he refers to the first human. The definite article is used of “the man” up until verse 20.[17] After verse 20, there is no article, which refers to the proper name “Adam.” The article reappears in verses 21, 22, and 25. Verse 23-24 the man is called ‘ish (also man). 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.[18]
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.[19]
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.”[20]
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 refers to “pleasure, delight, or lush fecundity.”[21] The LXX translates the “garden” as paradeisos (“parkland”), which is where we get our modern term “paradise.”[22]
Was Eden a real place? Notice, that Moses doesn’t call it the Garden of Eden, but the Garden in Eden. Eden seems like the larger territory, and the Garden was a smaller subsection in 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.”[23]
(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 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!”[24]
The four rivers
(2:10-13) “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.[25] Others hold that the four rivers were split upstream and came together in the Garden.[26]
Are these mythical rivers? No, in fact, the mention of these rivers actually adds to the understanding that the genre is historical—not mythological. Waltke writes, “The geographic depictions express the historical basis of the account.”[27]
Two out of the four rivers were known in Moses’ day, as well as today (e.g. Tigris and Euphrates). The other two rivers are unknown. However, they are given more description than the Tigris and Euphrates—most likely because they were unknown. These details also add to the historical dimension. Later the Euphrates serves as one of the boundaries for Israel (Gen. 15:18).
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, refers to more than one geographical area in the Bible, the most prominent being Nubia, the southern part of Egypt and Sudan (2 Kgs 19:9; Isa 18:1; 20:3; Ezek 29:10; Esth 1:1). The other location, which better fits the Mesopotamian setting of the other rivers and of Eden, is Babylonia (central Iraq) itself. 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.52 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.[28]
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 this area (i.e. Havilah). Moreover, modern day Arabia has 600 sites with gold deposits that have been mined for centuries—even as far back as 3,000 BC. However, this river 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! James 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.[29]
Regarding the Pishon River, see Farouk El-Baz, “A River in the Desert,” Discover, July 1993. James Sauer immediately saw the geographical connection between this ancient river and the description of the Pishon in Genesis 2.51
Gold is specifically mentioned as “good.” This would fit with the discovery of gold hundreds of gold deposits in Saudi Arabia today.
Manna is later described as being similar to bdellium (Num. 11:7), which “is a yellowish aromatic resin.”[30]
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.[31]
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),[32] which would be “western Iran.”[33] 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 in the Persian Gulf.
Where was Eden? Wenham places Eden “somewhere in Armenia near the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates.”[34] Others hold that the waters flow into Eden, which would place it near the head of the Persian Gulf.[35] However, the boundaries of Eden may not help, both because the Garden is only stated to be in Eden and because the Flood could rearrange the geography.
Young Earth Perspective: 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.[36] This fits consistently 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 of 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 what we read in verse 8—namely, 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).[37]
“Keep it…” Wenham sees language of the Tabernacle and Temple here.[38] It’s 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). 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.”[39]
This further speaks 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.”[40] 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—not physical—death (Prov. 12:28; 23:13-14; 1 Kings 2:37, 42).
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”[41] 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 the 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, because 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.’” Humans were designed to be in relationship.
Young Earth Perspective: Even though God calls his creation “very good” (Gen. 1:31), 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.”[42] This reading 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.”
Again, the term “ground” (ʾădāmâ) refers to “ground, land, or earth.”[43] If we take this to refer to the local land in Eden, 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.[44]
Old Earth Perspective: The verb tense is pluperfect, which would render this as “God had formed” (see NIV).[45] 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 24 hours? 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.” Third, Adam didn’t need to exhaustively name every animal, but just the major kinds. Therefore, there were “probably only a few thousand animals at most.”[46] Finally, Adam was still in a pre-fall state, so his 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 interpreter. This is inferred from Genesis 1. 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).
“…but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.” Why doesn’t God just give Eve to him first? Why go through all the trouble of bringing the animals to him? 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.”[47]
Is it condescending to call the woman a “helper” for Adam? The term “helper” seems pejorative in the English language, but this is only because of a mistranslation of the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word ‘ezer (“helper”) comes from two roots. (1) ‘-z-r means “rescue, to save” and (2) ‘g-z-r means “to be strong.”[48] These root words are used in Deuteronomy to 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). 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.”[49]
Therefore, this term “helper” should not be seen as condescending; instead, it shows the strength of women in their correspondence to men. 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.”[50] At the very least, this passage shows that men need the help! For further reading, see our earlier article “Christianity and Women.”
(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.”[51] 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.”[52] 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? This is the only occurrence of the word “rib” in the OT.[53] Hugh Ross doesn’t think this is a “rib,” but a “biopsy.”[54] However, 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 to be in substance the same as the man.”[55] 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.” God is the father of the bride in this wedding ceremony, bringing Eve to Adam. The word “fashioned” is not the common word used, but it is “a word often translated as ‘build.’”[56]
(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.’” This is written in a poetic meter. Thus Adam speaks poetry the first time he sees Eve.
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.”[57]
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). Our ethics about sex are grounded in our creation and design by God.
(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. This sets up for the great and terrible Fall described in the following chapter…
[1] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.40.
[2] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.20.
Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.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.
Gentry, Peter. “Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image.” SBTJ. 12/1. Spring, 2008. 22.
[3] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.53.
[4] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.83.
[5] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.111.
[6] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.41.
[7] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.111, 112.
[8] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), pp.126-127.
[9] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.96.
[10] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 8504.
[11] Alden, R. (1999). 38 אוד. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 17). Chicago: Moody Press.
[12] R. Laird Harris, “The Mist, the Canopy, and the Rivers of Eden.” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (Fall, 1968), p.178.
[13] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 8504.
[14] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol 1, Genesis to Deuteronomy (New York: Revell, n.d.) 14.
[15] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.117.
[16] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.136.
[17] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2006), p.135.
[18] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.53.
[19] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.53.
[20] James M. Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), p.120.
[21] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.85.
[22] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.67.
[23] Leon Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis (New York: Free Press, 2003), 61.
[24] Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., Jr., & Waltke, B. K. (Eds.). (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 689). Chicago: Moody Press.
[25] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.66.
[26] 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.
[27] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.87.
52 Diana Stein, “Kassites,” in OEANE 3, 271-75. Speiser, “The Rivers of Paradise,” 475.
[28] Hoffmeier, J. K. (2015). Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology. In C. Halton & S. N. Gundry (Eds.), Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters (p. 34). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
[29] Hoffmeier, James Karl. The Archaeology of the Bible. Oxford: Lion, 2008. 34-35.
51 James A. Sauer, “The River Runs Dry,” Biblical Archaeology Review 22, No. 4 (1996): 52-54, 57, 64.
[30] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.69.
[31] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.69.
[32] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.68.
[33] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.65-66.
[34] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.66.
[35] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.69.
[36] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 8981.
[37] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.44.
[38] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.67.
[39] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.87.
[40] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.67.
[41] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 9015.
[42] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 9015.
[43] Coppes, L. J. (1999). 25 אדם. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 10). Chicago: Moody Press.
[44] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.48.
[45] 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 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.48.
[46] Jonathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2015), Kindle loc. 9191.
[47] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.89.
[48] Kaiser, Walter C. Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988. 24.
[49] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.88.
[50] Westermann, Claus. Genesis. 2 vols. Neukirchener Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981-83. 232. Cited in John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.47.
[51] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.46.
[52] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.46.
[53] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.199.
[54] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.105.
[55] Emphasis mine. John H. Sailhamer, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.47.
[56] Vern Poythress, Interpreting Eden (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), p.200.
[57] Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), p.71.