Genesis Exegesis

Before time, God was. A God that does not serve time, but rather created it. A God Who not only sums up perfections but exists as the summation of perfections. This Perfect God decided to create ex nihilo a creation that He presents as center stage of a drama in which a narrative about God and man begins:

“The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed”(Gn 2: 15-25 RSV).

The first act of creation “sets the stage for the drama that follows, introducing the story's central characters: God, man and woman.”¹ All that has been created is good, and our story is about to reveal the model of goodness and the creation that God chose to reveal Himself by. This particular creation account is the description of the gift of land from God to man, the relationship between man and creation, the relationship between man and woman, and the relationship between God and man prior to the fall. Thus, the creation account allows for us to understand the divinely revealed idea of why man was made, our earthly duties, and our duty to our Creator.

God made man and placed him in the garden of Eden. The passage places tantamount importance on the idea that man was taken and physically placed in the garden. It implies that prior to this moment Adam was somewhere else. Looking at the prior verses, the passage describes a picture of four rivers that set up the borders for the garden of Eden. Adam lived between the Pi'shon, Gi'hon, Tigris, and the Euphrates. Thus, the stage has been set in modern-day Iraq. The verbs “took” and “put” imply that despite the fact that man is a rational and free entity, in his beginnings he was placed and taken to a place. When God takes and places Adam into a location it does not only express something Adam experienced, but something all men undergo in their own particular creations. God creates man by parents not chosen by him, but by God. Thus, the first line expresses the first step into the human experience, which is vulnerability to a prior creator. Thus far in the Creation account, God is the sole creator.

Immediately, the author states man's purpose in the garden: “to till it and keep it.” Thus far, God made man and placed him in a garden. God placed man in this garden to “till it and keep it.” God places Adam in Eden. The name Eden is very important because behind it, as with most names in Old Testament literature, is a very blunt meaning to its manner or essence, in this case a “fertile plain.” If the land is fertile, then the land must constantly be looked after. This richness implies a fullness of life: an allegory for both life with and in union with God. Although the Hebrew states a name that is a “fertile plain,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops utilizes an interpretation that also makes sure to keep open the consideration of a word that sounds similar to Eden in Hebrew that “means “delight,” which may lie behind the Greek translation, “The Lord God planted a paradise [= pleasure park] in Eden.””² Despite the fact that some assert that creation was made for man. The USCCB's commentary suggests that God did not make the garden for man, but rather for Himself. Therefore, the call to “till and keep it” leads man towards the end of honoring God by serving Him to delight Him.

With the understanding that we are tillers of God's Garden, it only comes natural to understand that the Lord can command man to do His Will. Thus, it is appropriate and good when God commands by stating, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Gn 2:16-17). Within the context of understanding the current scenario, the Lord explains, as a father explains to a child, what is permissible and impermissible to do in this creation. In this explanation, the Lord explains that the food is free. The explanation draws us back to the point that the garden is not man's but God's. The Lord grants permission for man to be both a steward and to share in the creation. Simply put, God fully possesses while He fully shares.

As God continues to concern for the parameters of man, the Lord continues with speaking by stating “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gn 2:18). This line presents itself interestingly. Initially, the piece provides strong consideration to whom God is speaking. This moment isn't God simply speaking to man, rather it seems that the Lord within Himself is speaking to Himself: a reflection of His Trinitarian Existence.

After looking within Himself and speaking to Himself, “out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” (Gn 2:19). This shows that the Lord is not simply sharing, He wishes for us to have authority over creation. Adam is not simply a slave to his call, but rather Adam acts within his authority, and thus out of his own generosity. When God permits Adam to name the animals, it shows that man is over animal within the same spirit of understanding that the garden is God's first, and is presented to man as a gift to be cared for.

Continuing with the story, “The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not a helper fit for him” (Gn 2:20). The motif of naming expresses, from the Old Testament lens, a metaphysical superiority and an authoritarian role for man amongst the other creatures. Man possesses both a gift and a duty within and towards creation, which is not truly his to possess of his own accord. According to the USCCB's commentary the literal translation for this line states “a helper in accord with him.”³ As the authority over all of the creatures within God's Paradise, man was given the authority to name the animals. Naming is significant because it signifies that there is a type of relationship between the person and the other being named. This phenomenon goes to reiterate that man and animal participate in a unity centered in being, but a hierarchy exists. Although very subtle, this particular passage is important to understand why animal worship is so far from the human person's call as seen in all of Israel's history. Simultaneously, God identifies Himself with this term “helper” in Deuteronomy 33:7 and Psalms 46:2. This “helper” is someone who will be made for Adam, but is compared to a self-identification of God. This quiet response describes the upcoming character in this story. This new being that Adam seeks represents how “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gn 1:27). This very strong allusion leaves us in proper suspense: something amazing is about to take place!

Sequentially, the “Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man” (Gn 2:22). Once more, the Lord uses very strong action verbs to describe his motions in creating man. “Caused” implies that all exists within His Own Person. All these actions find their beginning and source in Him: existing by Him, through Him, and with Him. The Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon man. Sleeping is a constant motif throughout scripture. It can be both good and bad as we see with Noah in the field, which later leads to the sin of Ham. In this particular case, the sleep was a good type of sleep: it resulted in new life and another person, Eve. It shows the type of response that man ought to have to God's Will. Adam, in his ordered nature, is subject to the Lord and does not resist, but cooperates. Similar to resting in music, it might not seem that Adam is doing anything at all, but it is just as important for man to rest as it is for him to tend to the field, just as it is for some instruments to rest during particular points of different pieces.

Continuing, the Lord presents an important motif that He utilizes quite frequently: a gift of self. The Lord, in order to provide a good for man (a new person), requires that man give of Himself. Once more, the Lord reveals Himself through His Creation: the Lord shows how He gifts Himself and makes Himself a gift to Himself analogously to the man providing a woman for new life. Additionally, this is a covenant establishment: a type of quid pro quo. The Lord takes Adam's gift and makes a good for Him.

At this point, God responds to Adam's generosity with a gift. Adam's generosity lies in his obedience, commitment, and fulfillment of his role: to till and keep the Garden. Adam steps outside of himself for the service of others prior to the Lord providing woman. Within the spiritual sense of the anagogical lens, the Lord shows that man is not meant to be alone: he is to have a helper. This helper does not bow down and simply subject themselves to man, but rather helps as God aids man. God creates and shows how He co-creates with our gift of self: Adam gave a piece of himself for another to exist. This mentality forms the mindset for true covenant relationship between one another and God.

Finally, Adam cries, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gn 2:23). The text is leaping off the page with joy. The man who once was alone without a fulfillment has found his companion: an accompanying sojourner. The Lord, in His Goodness, provided for man an assistant with his mission: to till and care for the Garden.

The final piece provides an understanding of the purpose of the second creation account, which can be found in the final two verses of the chapter:

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they

become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

The finale has summed up that man's purpose lies entirely for God in matrimony: a divine union of persons three in one, and one in three. Blessed John Paul II declares that the final experience between man and woman in Genesis 2: 25 as:

The innocence of reciprocal experience of the body. The sentence, 'Both were naked, the man and his wife, but they did not feel shame,' expresses precisely such innocence in the reciprocal 'experience of the body,' an innocence that inspires the inner exchange of the gift of the person, which concretely realizes the spousal meaning of masculinity and femininity in their reciprocal relation. Thus, in order to understand the innocence of the mutual experience of the body, we must try to clarify what constitutes the inner innocence of a person. This exchange constitutes, in fact, the true source of the experience of innocence.⁴

To further the claim, the acknowledgment of man's nakedness while not being ashamed points towards the theological points of the preternatural gifts: immortality, integrity, and infused knowledge. This shows how “Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is 'in the image of God'; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created 'male and female'; (IV) God established him in his friendship.”⁵

Modernity has provided a severely skeptical lens for the modern reader of scripture. For example, Joshua Moritz argues that men and women who believe in a creation story hold an “anthropocentrism of the gaps.” This lens allows for the religious person to avoid the possibility of evolution and other human-like creatures that once roamed the earth. As Mortiz states:

As the tide of empirical findings washes up new discoveries every day that call into question the singular status of human culture and behavior, the scientific gaps currently filled with a faith in anthropocentrism must give way to an acknowledgment of the reality of evolutionary continuity. In our discovery of the fact that at one time we, as human beings, were not alone in the universe, we ironically come closer to a more ancient understanding of the human place in the cosmos. Though Neanderthals may now take the taxonomical place of “the mighty men who were of old,” the “unique” human species may once again be regarded as one among many. The fact of finding ourselves once again among the company of other creatures raises a number of challenging theological questions surrounding the meaning of the imago Dei. Such questions need not, however, be cause for fear. For new questions—in time—provide occasions for new answers and bring us closer to the truth.⁶

Without going into much detail, Moritz equates burials and other similar rituals to existing as the same as rationality. Despite his belief that finding these coincidences amongst our two separate species, habits do not imply rationality, nor does it prove that the other “hominids” are thinking. This can not and should not debunk a creation account due to the fact that it proves nothing other than that there are shared characteristics between the two species. The particular worldview is entirely either unaware or does not care to acknowledge that Adam and Eve were made in the image and likeness of God and made with the purpose to glorify and serve him by “tilling and keeping” God's Eden. This requires that rationality be the likeness. Moritz deals with image and characteristics, but does not provide an argument for rational likeness.

Despite scientific struggle with understanding Genesis from a proper interpretive lens, Erin McMulen, a scientist of the journal Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science exemplifies how faith and reason are nestled together in a tight, with very little room for error, but organized fashion stating:

For those who believe in a Creator, God is active at all moments in the history of the universe, not just the first one. Thus a believer is entitled to describe the ordinary workings of the laws of nature as themselves a testimony to creation, at one remove admittedly, hence 'derivative.'⁷

With the Genesis account providing two stories for creation that seem to be contradictory, the modern man, as Joshua Moritz shows, could choose to throw out the creation stories, choose one or the other, or entirely throw the entirety of scripture out. Simply put, there is no need, the believer synthesizes what one knows scientifically with what has been divinely revealed to come to the understanding that God created and creates continuously, which shows that confining the scripture to a finite, literal moment would be fallacious. Rather, the allegory shows how man within his relation to nature, other men, and God continuously work in God's paradise, His Creation.

With a purely literal understanding of scripture, Genesis competes with its own ideas. Thus, the Church in Her Wisdom asserted:

For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)⁸

Thus, men can not interpret scripture without looking at both the literal and spiritual senses. The literal allows for man to see scripture as it presents itself in meaning. Concurrently, the spiritual sense amplifies scripture by providing an anagogical, tropological (moral), and allegorical understanding. With these provided, the man peruses through the ideas such as that of Moritz, despite seeming rational flow, and address and quite possibly even understand scripture from a hermeneutic of continuity.

Therefore, God made man in His image and likeness. God provided us with a gift of land. This land is to be cared for, because it is not truly ours, but rather a gift that we must care for and, as a consequence, share in. The Lord provided Adam with Eve, a “helper” like God, upon Adam's gift of himself with his rib. Thus, God finalizes and shares a family life with man. With creation established, the Lord solidifies that creation works around the family and He works through and with them, because He too is present. Thus, the Lord shows that the covenant relationship between God and man is modeled off of the initial parents relationship with God in Eden. This serves as both a beginning and leaves room for an even greater end, for life in and with Christ is even greater than living in the Garden.

Bibliography

Cavins, Jeff, and Tim Gray. Walking with God: A Journey Through the Bible. 1^st ed. Pennsylvania: Ascension Press, 2010.

Catechism of the Catholic Church , 2^nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1997).

Ernan, McMullin. "Responses to Darwin in the Religious." DARWIN AND THE OTHER CHRISTIAN TRADITION, JUNE 01, 2011. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=640720a7-e67b-48fc-bda5-bb989d6ca3f7@sessionmgr12&hid=8 (accessed November 19, 2013).

John Paul II. Man and Woman He Created Them. Vatican City: Pauline Books and Media, 1986.

Moritz, Joshua. "HUMAN UNIQUENESS, THE OTHER HOMINIDS, AND." (2012): 65-96, 92-93.

Paul VI, Dei Verbum. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Genesis, Chapter 2." Accessed November 19, 2013. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2.

1. 1 Cavins, Jeff, and Tim Gray. Walking with God: A Journey Through the Bible. 1^st ed. Pennsylvania: Ascension Press, 2010.

1. 2 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Genesis, Chapter 2." Accessed November 19, 2013. http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2.

1. 3 Ibid., http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2.

1. 4Man and Woman He Created Them, (Vatican City: Pauline Books and Media, 1986).
   

1. 5 Catechism of the Catholic Church , 2^nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1997), 335.

1. 6 Moritz, Joshua. "HUMAN UNIQUENESS, THE OTHER HOMINIDS, AND." (2012): 65-96, 92-93.

1. 7Ernan, McMullin. "Responses to Darwin in the Religious." DARWIN AND THE OTHER CHRISTIAN TRADITION, JUNE 01, 2011. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=640720a7-e67b-48fc-bda5-bb989d6ca3f7@sessionmgr12&hid=8 (accessed November 19, 2013).

1. 8Paul VI, Dei Verbum (1965), 12, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.