The Creation Narratives

NickImage(First published January 13, 2006)

The God Who appears in the creation narrative of Genesis 1 is a good, benevolent being. He fashions humanity in His image, placing people in a good world made for their use. He pronounces His blessing upon humans, then initiates a rest that implies delight in Him and His works.

The goodness of this God is further highlighted in the second creation narrative, which occupies Genesis 2:5‐24. In this narrative, Moses recapitulates the story of creation with a significant shift in perspective. This retelling of the story allows him to focus the reader’s attention more specifically upon God’s purpose for humanity.

God’s goodness is emphasized from the beginning of the account. The original creation had no weeds, no harsh weather, and no hard labor. Rather, God provided everything for the man whom He created, placing him in a garden or sheltered park. Moses specifies the location of this garden by naming four rivers that would have been familiar to the people of his day. The Tigris (Hiddekel) and Euphrates are known to moderns. The Pison is unknown. The Gihon, while not known, is said to flow through the land of Cush, which places it somewhere in the western Arabian peninsula or east Africa. The Gihon may be another name for the Nile (though this is doubtful). It could be another reference to the “River of Egypt” that evidently marked the border of that country.

In any case, Moses depicts Eden as a place that was larger than a farm or even a city. It stretched from modern‐day Iraq all the way (approximately) to modern‐day Egypt. The garden was larger than many entire nations. Incidentally, it also appears to correspond to the boundaries of the land that was later promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:18), as well as the territory that was tributary to Solomon (2 Chr. 9:26).

Eden was a beautiful park that God prepared for humanity. God “rested” the man in the garden (Gen. 2:15), which carries implications of shelter and safety. God caused trees to grow there for the man’s nourishment. He also caused other trees to grow: the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad.

The name of the second tree is what ties this narrative to the first creation account in Genesis 1. The emphasis of the first account was on the goodness of the Creator. The second account reemphasizes the Creator’s benevolence in many ways. The expansive dimensions of the garden, its nature as a sheltered park, the provision of food, and above all, God’s provision of safety reflect the kind nature of the good God who blesses.

The tree also draws attention to God’s purpose for humanity. This has already been intimated in Genesis 2:14, which should probably be translated that God “rested” the man in the garden “for worship and obedience” (see Cassuto or Sailhamer for the reasons). If this translation is correct, then the man was made to be a priest, not a farmer. He was made to walk with His Maker, to adore Him, and to obey Him.

Obedience should be easy when every command comes from a completely benevolent deity. Both creation narratives emphasize God’s goodness repeatedly. This alerts readers that God is worth obeying, that His commands stem only from His interest in blessing humans.

That is why God confronts the man with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad. Throughout this context, good means useful or beneficial. This hints at the purpose of the tree. Surely it was a real tree with real fruit, but it was also a symbolic tree that represented the knowledge good and bad. To this point, God has always been the one to say what is good. Human responsibility has consisted entirely in the willingness to receive whatever good the Creator has provided. Human knowledge of the bad is non‐existent, and human knowledge of the good is a derived knowledge that comes strictly from trusting the Creator. Therefore, the tree must represent the intention for the man to determine good and bad for himself. If the man will not trust the Creator to determine what is good, then he will have to decide for himself. He will gain his own knowledge of good and bad.

In other words, what was being tested was Adam’s willingness to trust God. By not eating of the tree, the man would be submitting himself to God’s decisions about what was good and what was bad. If he ate of the tree, however, that would signify his declaration of independence from God and his choice to determine good and bad for himself. This would be the worst sort of treason, for it would imply that the man now considered the Creator to be untrustworthy. In this test, obedience and trust are inextricably linked.

If the man rejected the Creator, pronounced Him untrustworthy, and declared independence, he would come under sentence of death. How could it be otherwise? The Creator is the origin of life. To separate one’s self from Him is to choose death. God warned that if the man ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad, then sentence of death would be passed on the same day.

At this point, all of the pieces are in place for the great drama of temptation that will follow in Genesis 3. Before the man is allowed to face temptation, however, one further episode intervenes. This episode begins when God declares that something is not good. He says that it is not good for the man to be alone, and He purposes to make for the man a helper “like himself.” This comes as a surprise, because up until this point everything has been very good. Why choose this stage of the narrative at which to announce what is not good?

The crucial question is whether the Creator really deserves the trust that He requires from the man. Can humans truly rely upon the Creator to supply everything that is good for them? Will the Creator notice any deficiencies, and can He be trusted to supply them?

God was aware of Adam’s need even before Adam had noticed it. In fact, God had to show Adam the need by putting him through an exercise in taxonomy. By comparing and classifying (naming) animals, the man discovered that he was alone in the world. No one else like him existed.

God was now in the position to meet the need. He caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, took one of his ribs, and fashioned a woman. He then brought her to the man and presented her to him. Adam’s response takes the form of the first poem to be composed by any human being.

She is bone of my bones,
Flesh of my flesh,
She shall be called Ishah,
Because she was taken out of Ish.

Adam’s poem draws attention to the likeness between the man and the woman, which in turn provides the basis for the intimacy that God intended them to enjoy. This is an expression of ecstatic joy. Not only did the Creator notice the need before Adam was aware of it, but He also met the need in a way that was beyond anything Adam could imagine.

The Creator God—our God—is absolutely worthy of our trust. He is good and benevolent by His very nature. He desires our trust and obedience, but He does not compel it. To worship God by our trust and obedience is that for which we were made. It is our highest good, and no lesser good can satisfy us.

By Night When Others Soundly Slept
Anne Bradstreet (c.1612‐1672)

BY night when others soundly slept
And hath at once both ease and Rest,
My waking eyes were open kept
And so to lie I found it best.
I sought him whom my Soul did Love,
With tears I sought him earnestly.
He bowʹd his ear down from Above.
In vain I did not seek or cry.
My hungry Soul he fillʹd with Good;
He in his Bottle put my tears,
My smarting wounds washt in his blood,
And banisht thence my Doubts and fears.
What to my Saviour shall I give
Who freely hath done this for me?
Iʹll serve him here whilst I shall live
And Loue him to Eternity.

Discussion

Kevin, I appreciate what you said, but I will ask the questions I find important as well.

Alex made this statement:

If I am right, this early record was written on clay tablets after years of oral trans mission and kept by the Hebrews. Moses’ part, with divine guidance, was the authentication and compiling of the record.

Whether you considered my point a rant or a concordance drive by isn’t all that important. Alex’s statement has no basis in Scriptural text. I simply pointed out from the actual text of Scripture that Moses is considered the author. I couldn’t find any verses about him being an editor. At least with Luke, we are told that he utilized many resources, so they are not comparable.

To be sure, the Moses as editor view is better than others and falls within what is conservative, but is that what we want to settle for? The entire Bible witnesses that Moses is credited for Genesis, but never mentions him as an editor. That is witness enough for me.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

I simply pointed out from the actual text of Scripture that Moses is considered the author. I couldn’t find any verses about him being an editor. At least with Luke, we are told that he utilized many resources, so they are not comparable.

But Luke is still considered the author, not an editor. So the use of sources does not have any necessary connection to attributions of authorship.

Furthermore, we do have explicit reference that Moses used at least one source (the Book of the Wars of the Lord).

So the use of sources (of whatever type they may be) is not incompatible with authorship.

Larry, Luke said that he did research. Even in his case he didn’t say he organized the material of others. What he did is similar to what we do when we do research papers. I happen to believe he had access to at least Matthew, but it is clear he didn’t copy Matthew.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

As you point out, Luke doesn’t say he organized the material of others, but it is clear that he did (since his work shows organization). Which makes the point is that the use of sources is not a necessary reflection on authorship. It is clear that Moses used sources. The text explicitly says this. How he used them is a matter of some debate, but it does not necessarily minimize inspiration or Mosaic authorship to say so. Luke is inspired evidence of this.

Let’s use another example: Matthew 1. It is indisputable that Matthew used a source (genealogical record) and edited it (since it omits certain names). Yet no one argues that Matthew wasn’t the author or that Matthew’s authorship is disputed because Matthew didn’t include a verse telling us that he used sources.

So if your argument is that the Pentateuch is not largely or primarily the work of unnamed people that was later arranged by Moses, then I doubt that any conservative disputes that, certainly not here.

But if your argument is that Moses used no sources, then that simply will not stand. How many sources and how he used them is of some debate.

As a side note, that there is a final form of the OT text with updated names/places is widely acknowledged (similar to the supplementary hypothesis) even by conservatives.

So it is hard to see what your complaint is other than that there is no verse telling how Moses wrote. But we don’t have verses for a lot of things that are apparent and accepted at face value. I would argue that the Scripture is pretty clear about Moses using at least one source and most likely others in some way (such as the books of the generations … Even Henry Morris, who no one ever accused of being liberal, says the geneaology of Gen 5 is a book perhaps written by Adam himself). Did Moses edit it to pick out certain names or generations that were useful to him? We simply don’t know, although we know that this happened elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Matt 1). So the possibility is there, at the very least. And it doesn’t compromise either authorship or inspiration.

Larry, let me point out again that it was this statement that I was objecting to:

Alex said, “If I am right, this early record was written on clay tablets after years of oral trans mission and kept by the Hebrews. Moses’ part, with divine guidance, was the authentication and compiling of the record.”

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Yes I know. But I think your argument against it (that we have no verse that says that Moses did this) is an inadequate argument. We do have record of Moses doing something very similar to this. Whether it involved clay tablets or not, we don’t know. How much Moses used, we don’t know. But we know that Moses used other records in his writing. Whether you like Alex’s wording or not, the concept seems beyond dispute, based on Moses’ wording which we should accept.

If I do a research paper, I am still the author despite alluding to and directly quoting others. That doesn’t make me an editor or compiler. It is that idea that I am objecting to. There is nothing within Scripture that indicates Moses did that. If there were outside sources (and by outside I mean not the Holy Spirit) that Moses looked at, it doesn’t make those writings authoritative or inerrant. In that case, Moses through the Spirit would have been moved to only write down what was actually inspired.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

[James K]… There is nothing within Scripture that indicates Moses did that. If there were outside sources (and by outside I mean not the Holy Spirit) that Moses looked at, it doesn’t make those writings authoritative or inerrant. In that case, Moses through the Spirit would have been moved to only write down what was actually inspired.

Whether or not there is any express indication in Scripture, what is wrong with conjecture (based on technical evaluation of the original text) that such a thing happened? Alex prefaced his with, “If I am right …” Fair enough, it seems to me. If the Spirit moved Moses to incorporate other sources wholesale, it’s inspired writing, no?

So James, it seems that you don’t actually object to anything that was said here. I don’t see where anything that anyone has said here, in the context of the doctrinal confines of SI, would elicit your response.

Wow Larry, it isn’t like I didn’t say it multiple times, but in case you didn’t see the previous times, here it is again:

“Moses’ part, with divine guidance, was the authentication and compiling of the record.”

There is nothing within the text of Scripture to indicate Moses compiled anything. The scripture is overwhelmingly in favor of Moses as author though. The comparison given is either this or dictation. And of course, dictation would just be silly. Surely Moses just had to have clay tablets.

David, have at it. Use conjecture all you want. I have personally never understood the draw of speculative theology. I think we should leave that to the covenantalists and amills.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

“Moses’ part, with divine guidance, was the authentication and compiling of the record.”

There is nothing within the text of Scripture to indicate Moses compiled anything.

If the observation is correct that the toledoth parts are records that Moses used (and it seems a most reasonable observation), then it seems beyond argument that Moses compiled them into a meaningful structure under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I suppose the alternative is that the Holy Spirit dictated names to Moses. In addition you have information from the Book of the Wars of the Lord that was included. And there may be more. I am not sure why you need a verse that explicitly says that in order to see it. But hey … that’s fine …

James,

I’ve already stipulated that Alex was careless (at best) in how he framed his position. I’m not particularly interested in defending his locutions.

Nevertheless, it seems evident that you and Alex (at least as he phrased himself) are committed to the same basic assumption, i.e., that there is a strong disjunction between “author” on the one hand and “editor/compiler” on the other. This assumption is what I wish to challenge, for a whole range of reasons. For the moment, however, I’ll simply adopt your own method of procedure. Can you produce a verse from the Bible that gives clear and compelling evidence for supposing that authors are never editors and editors are never authors?

In fact, in the ancient world it was common for authors to pursue their task by means of what we would now call editing or compiling. To be sure, that is not the only thing that they did, but it is one of the things. A man could legitimately claim to be the author of a work that incorporated a good bit of preexisting material. Typically, he shaped this material according to his own interests and incorporated it in such as way as to support his own arguments. For that reason, even preexisting materials became contributing parts of his own work.

This is almost certainly what the authors of the Synoptics did, and there is no reason to suppose that Moses did not or could not. It is, of course, possible that God simply revealed to Moses directly all of the information that is incorporated into the book of Genesis, just as He might have revealed directly how Moses would die and that there would not be another prophet like him unto “this day”—though that theory seems to be freighted with more assumptions and contortions than almost any other that we could devise. The point is, we do not have biblical statements that tell us whether or not Moses was relying on sources and to what extent he stitched them into his text verbatim. Any position—including yours—is, to some degree speculative.

Whatever sources Moses may have used, and however he may have incorporated them into his text, he is the author of the Pentateuch. Earlier sources (if they existed and were employed) were simply uninspired documents or traditions. The biblical text is what is God-breathed, and its inspiration would have prevented Moses from incorporating any errors that existed in older sources.

You and Alex both seem to assume that if Moses were the author, he could not have been an editor/compiler, and if Moses were an editor/compiler, he could not have been the author. Alex chose one side of the disjunction (at least as he worded his position), and you have chosen the other. What I am asking you to do is to defend this disjunction biblically. Give me the verse that precludes authors from being editors and vice versa.

Now, one other thing. I am a pretty strong traditional dispensationalist, a premillennialist, and a pretribulationist. I think that covenant theology and amillennialism are significant theological errors. If, however, I were to accuse those men of mere conjecture and speculative theology, I should become guilty of bearing false witness. I don’t see how anyone who has read their writings with any degree of care could repeat this kind of insult. And I don’t see why anyone who has not read their writings with that kind of care would have the right to comment on their position.

Blessed Epiphany,

Kevin

It is one thing to say that Moses may have done this or that. You could compare it to ancient practices and make a reasonable observation. However, the Scripture is not some typical ancient document. My objection was to the absolute statement that Moses DID do something that Scripture is silent. That is speculative.

Kevin, the covenant of works, redemption, and grace, being unnamed and not mentioned in Scripture and theologically created are all speculative. We aren’t all right, with equal views about reality just because we are believers who can put together lengthy treatises. It is a sad reality that so much of scholastic thought has given way to that way of thinking. This just leads to more and more theological reductionism. Although I don’t know you well enough to say this is where you are, your statements did make me think of this.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

James,

From your tone, I think that perhaps I should be offended by what you just wrote. But to tell the truth, your meaning is not at all clear, and so I take no offense. Perhaps that is where we should leave it.

Kevin

[James K]

It is one thing to say that Moses may have done this or that. You could compare it to ancient practices and make a reasonable observation. However, the Scripture is not some typical ancient document. My objection was to the absolute statement that Moses DID do something that Scripture is silent. That is speculative.

Kevin, the covenant of works, redemption, and grace, being unnamed and not mentioned in Scripture and theologically created are all speculative. We aren’t all right, with equal views about reality just because we are believers who can put together lengthy treatises. It is a sad reality that so much of scholastic thought has given way to that way of thinking. This just leads to more and more theological reductionism. Although I don’t know you well enough to say this is where you are, your statements did make me think of this.

I apologize unreservedly for not defending what I wrote. This was not my intention, it was an oversight. I do not check this site every day and somehow missed this back and forth.

On the other hand, I do not wish to be a keyboard warrior in any sense either.

Kevin and Larry however contended much more eloquently for the position which seems most plausible to me: a supplement or fragment based on the tolodeths.

My position is that Genesis is God-breathed and authoritative. Moses authenticated the accounts. In my mind also (I find it reasonable) Ezra may have been the final authenticator by God’s Holy Spirit as the position of Allen McRae.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net