What if Genesis 2 came first?
What is your creation story? I don’t mean you individually, but where do you think we came from as humans? What is our purpose in being here? How should we relate to God, to one another, and to the rest of creation?
We’re not unique in asking such questions. Our spiritual ancestors had the same ones, as did those from other ancient civilizations. As a species, we’ve always tried to make sense of the world around us. We are fortunate in that now, with our growing body of scientific knowledge, we have a much better understanding of phenomena like the sun, moon, stars, land, seas, weather, and seasons than did those who lived thousands of years ago.
Those in antiquity who tried to explain such things through creation stories did not have the benefit of such knowledge. This is reflected in their writing, including the creation accounts found in the book of Genesis. Why do I say accounts [plural]? Because if you start at the beginning of Genesis you’ll find one story, and then a few verses into the second chapter a new voice emerges and the story begins anew.
If your creation story is exclusively scientific and deals only with the mechanics of how Earth and life and, eventually, people came to be, you might not find much value in these creation accounts. And you might be encouraged in that by those who claim that Genesis chapter 1 is intended to be read literally, scientifically, and mechanically.
For centuries, Bible scholars have asserted that such a reading is discouraged by the second creation account, which is found in Genesis chapter 2. That story was written by different authors about four centuries earlier than what we find in Genesis 1. (De La Torre, 39) It begins with the LORD God, יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים [yahweh elohim] in Hebrew, creating the earth, the heavens, a stream, and trees. יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים then forms a man “from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Then the LORD God plants a garden called Eden and puts the man there “to till it and keep it.” It seemed lonely for the man, though, so the LORD God went on to form animals and birds to keep him company. That didn’t do the trick, so the LORD God waited until the man was asleep, then created a woman from his rib. That ends the second creation account. Everything occurs in a day and a night, and not in the sequence you’ll find in Genesis 1.
If you read on in Genesis 2, you’ll find a creator who “is a divine farmer, planting the garden in fertile soil (2:8–9), walking through the garden to inspect it (3:8), and watering it with rainfall (2:5).” (Hiebert, 84) This creator reached hands into the earth — the Hebrew word is הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה (hā-’ă-ḏā-māh) — to create man, or הָֽאָדָ֗ם (hā-’ā-ḏām). This depiction of the creator would have resonated with an audience largely engaged in subsistence agriculture, whose lives depended on growing things from the soil.
The voice that finalized this part of Genesis is referred to as the Yahwist. I use the term “voice” because this story originated in oral tradition before being written down, and then went through edits before reaching the form that appears in our Bibles. The Yahwist had an intended audience, lived in a specific context, and championed this story of creation in opposition to other ancient accounts at that time. Bible scholar Theodore Hiebert describes this perspective, writing that
“the Yahwist views humans not as separated from nature but as oriented to the world and closely integrated into it. In the Yahwist’s creation story, the human is created not as the earth’s ruler or master . . . the human is created to serve the earth. . . . For this agrarian human, the earth is the measure and standard for human behavior. Cultivation and caring for the fertile soil means meeting the needs, limits, and demands of the soil itself. It means living within nature’s limits.” (Hiebert, 83)
As someone with a concern for the health of God’s creation, and who has seen some Bible passages used as justification for harming that creation, this leads me to wonder: What if, in the Bible, Genesis 2 came first?
It’s perhaps easy to forget that for most of our existence, most humans have devoted most of their time to food — searching for it, growing it, preparing it, and preserving it. And when I say “searching,” I don’t mean scouring the produce aisles to figure out where the parsnips are hiding. I’m talking about active engagement with the soil. It’s likely that, not too many generations up your family tree, you can find people whose vocation was farming. And perhaps those folks or their parents or grandparents actually grew and raised a lot of the food they ate.
For most of us in the United States today, there’s a separation between the food we consume and its source. Many of us don’t know where our food comes from: It appears on our plates in a restaurant, or in a bag from a drive-up window, or on a grocery store shelf. We might not know what a particular fruit or vegetable looks like while it is growing (does it come from a vine, a tree, or underground?), or even what country it comes from. (Note that I include myself in this generalization. I had to do a search to confirm that Kiwifruit are indeed grown on trees, but could not have told you where they’re raised.)
Whereas the diets of our ancestors were largely determined by what was in season and what could be grown locally, we have year-round access to many of the foods we enjoy. You might even say that what we eat is driven by what we like to eat. Certainly our grocery stores contain a diversity of options.
But what really determines what appears on store shelves? I’d assert that it’s not driven by seasons, nor by local food producers, nor by what’s healthy, nor even by what we want to eat. No, because those factors ignore the role of money and politics in food production.
I grew up surrounded by fields of corn and soybeans, which is what you’ll find growing in most of the fields in the Midwest. Why corn and soybeans? Not because they taste good. Not because they’re healthy. Not because they’re good for the soil. Rather, it’s largely because there are billions of dollars in subsidies available to those who grow corn and soybeans, more than for any other crops. (USAFacts Team) Most farmers have little choice but to grow what offers the largest subsidies.
The corn growing in these fields is not the corn we enjoy eating off the cob in the summertime. This corn ends up feeding cattle, or in processed food. So by devoting tax dollars to corn, we’re subsidizing everything from beef production to fast food restaurants to junk food producers. This despite the fact that raising cattle is one of the most inefficient methods of using land to produce food, and one of the largest contributors to climate change.
And that’s not the only way our tax dollars exploit the land. Farm subsidies are dwarfed by the federal money allocated to fossil fuel subsidies, which exceeded $35 billion in 2021. (U.S. Energy Information Administration) Fossil fuel production and consumption pollutes land, water, and air, makes people sick, and warms the planet. This leads to more intense and more frequent disasters such as the fires we’re seeing destroy communities in Los Angeles. Sustainable energy options are available, but they don’t have the lobbying power of wealthy corporations behind them.
Do I think most of us should be subsistence farmers like our ancestors were? Of course not. And I’m grateful for those who raise the food that feeds us. But our disconnect from the earth allows us to more readily overlook its exploitation. Our manner of living is a far cry from what our creator intended.
I asked earlier why the creation account in Genesis 2 doesn’t appear first despite being much older than the Genesis 1 account. The answer is simple: The voice behind Genesis 1 had the last word. Whereas the Yahwist voice was recorded when our spiritual ancestors were a settled people, the voice of Genesis 1 was finalized much later, after our spiritual ancestors had suffered occupation and exile. Bible scholars refer to this later writing as the Priestly voice. It dates to the 6th century BCE and refutes Babylonian theological claims. (Brueggemann, 24–25)
You might be more familiar with this creation account, in which אֱלֹהִ֑ים [elohim] speaks into existence light, darkness, and everything else from nothing across the span of six days. And knowing the audience to whom it was written — a people in exile who probably felt powerless following the Babylonian invasion — helps us better understand that voice and the need the audience had for divine encouragement.
Bible scholar Miguel De La Torre offers the following interpretation:
“The author of Genesis is not interested in pinpointing the exact moment of creation; rather, the author is attempting to convey certain metaphysical truths concerning the faith of its readers, in the hope of answering certain cosmic questions that arise from human existence. What then is the fundamental truth that the opening verses of Genesis wish to convey to the believer? ‘In the beginning … God created the heavens and the earth.’ With this simple declaration, several cosmic questions are answered. How did we get here? Is there someone or something greater than us? Who made all that I see? How did existence begin and who began it? And more importantly for the original readers, is my God powerful and capable enough to sustain me in the midst of dislocation and disenfranchisement? These are the questions that the author wrestles with, seeking answers to these cosmic mysteries. To ask of the text how the earth was created or the process by which reality came into being is to ask the wrong questions. Not how but who, not process but purpose — these are the concerns of the author.” (De La Torre, 12)
One of the more frequently referenced verses from Genesis 1 is verse 28. Here’s a common translation, and as I read it, notice which words stand out: “God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’” Do the words “subdue” and “dominion” stand out to you? They certainly did for those wishing to justify colonialism, and they have for those who wish to exploit the earth for profit.
But is that what our creator intended? For the wealthy and powerful to profit from the land, even at the expense of others, even at the expense of creation itself? Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann disagrees, writing that
“the ‘dominion’ here mandated is with reference to the animals. The dominance is that of a shepherd who cares for, tends, and feeds the animals. . . . The task of ‘dominion’ does not have to do with exploitation and abuse. It has to do with securing the well-being of every other creature and bringing the promise of each to full fruition.” (Brueggemann, 32)
De La Torre also takes issue with “an inhumane reading of Genesis 1:28. To claim that this verse justifies domination is to misread the passage. . . . No word for nature as a separate realm from humans or creation exists in Hebrew. . . . Humans are part of, not separate from, nature.” (De La Torre, 30)
It makes you wonder if those who interpret Genesis 1 as a justification for domination ever read to Genesis 2.
I hope you don’t take today’s reflection as a pitting of one creation account against another. The poetry that begins Genesis was intended to be a theological statement, not a sequential accounting. Regardless, as when confronting other Biblical discrepancies, I think it’s best to look for common themes across seemingly contradicting passages. Both accounts make it clear that God’s creation is good and divinely inspired. Both convey the importance of companionship, harmony, service, and responsibility. Hiebert suggests that “the Priestly writer believes the human, having been made in God’s image, functions as God’s representative on earth and rules at God’s direction. . . . If God brings a flourishing world into being, it is the human’s primary work to ensure that the world continues to flourish as God created it and wishes it to flourish.” (Hiebert, 85)
For millennia, our ancestors lived in a sustainable fashion. Thanks to their connection to the earth, they could see firsthand the damage that occurred when things were out of balance. They understood how to use the tools and technologies at their disposal to live in a sustainable fashion.
That relates to an emerging theme I’ve noticed more often in books and other offerings related to eco-justice. Many environmentalists have changed their message from warning about what will happen if we don’t change our behaviors, which has become all too clear as we witness intensifying and more frequent disasters. What I’m seeing more often now is how a better future is within our grasp. Not only do we have the wisdom, tools, and technologies of our ancestors; we’ve only scratched the surface of what we can do with newer and improved methods of producing energy and food.
I enjoy apocalyptic fiction, and that’s what I expected when I began reading Kim Stanley Robinson’s book The Ministry for the Future. It takes place in a world where inaction and late-stage capitalism have brought about climate catastrophe. There is political corruption and corporate greed at play. Marginalized people suffer the most, while the ultra rich are able to maintain luxurious lifestyles. The novel begins with an extreme heat event the likes of which we’re likely to experience in the near future. Conflicts erupt. Nations bicker. Those who wish to effect change feel powerless.
And then the story evolves. A will to reduce suffering grows. Sustainable solutions are implemented in earnest. Cooperation increases. People realize that living in harmony with the rest of creation is not only possible, but preferable.
It turns out the differences between the world depicted in The Ministry for the Future and our own are actually minor. Technically, it’s a science fiction novel, but there are no futuristic solutions involved in healing their world. The technologies depicted already exist in our reality. What’s missing is the will, and the recognition that we are all intertwined.
De La Torre writes that “Man was placed in the garden to attend to it, to till its soil and bring forth its fruit. The ancient question, ‘Why do I exist?’ is answered: to partner with God on a task of maintaining the integrity of the planet.” (De la Torre, 47)
Jesus-followers know what it means to have dominion; we witnessed it in the One we follow. Selfishness is subdued, not the needs of others. Ruling means serving. Lordship means being willing to lay down your life to save another.
Sisters and brothers, I ask again: What is your creation story? What is our purpose in being here? How should we relate to God, to one another, and to the rest of creation?
We’ve been blessed with a good and abundant world, and continued goodness and abundance are within reach. Realizing a better future begins with following the example of the One we follow, and embracing who we were meant to be.
Thanks be to God.
Amen.
Works Referenced
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. (Interpretation: a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching). Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1982.
De La Torre, Miguel A. Genesis. BELIEF: A Theological Commentary on the Bible). Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Kindle edition.
Hiebert, Theodore. “Genesis.” In The Oxford Handbook of The Bible and Ecology, edited by Hilary Marlow and Mark Harris. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2022.
Robinson, Kim Stanley. The Ministry for the Future. United States: Orbit, 2020.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Years 2016–2022.” August 1, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
USAFacts Team. “Federal farm subsidies: What the data says.” USAFACTS. October 5, 2023. https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-data-says/
