Genesis 2 is the proverbial elephant in the room. If you’ve been reading our Creation series from the beginning, I imagine one burning question remains for you. So, ask away.
Doesn't Genesis 2 affirm a material creation?
Sorry, no.
No? But Genesis 2 tells us God uses materials to create the man and woman. He "formed the man out of the dust from the ground" (v.7 CSB), and he "made the rib he had taken from the man into a woman" (v.22 CSB). Surely, that affirms a material creation?
Still, no. This is why I've not broached Genesis 2 with you earlier. Until now, I've been giving you the hard-sell on a functional reading of Genesis 1. Once you've seen how much sense that makes, it becomes much easier to accept Genesis 2 as a sequel. Without that groundwork, accepting Genesis 2 as a functional story is a tough ask when, as you say, materials were used.
But, at the very least, doesn't it make Genesis 1 and 2 both a material and a functional story?
Again, the answer is no. Ancient people simply didn't tell material creation stories. They only knew one way to tell the story (much like we've only known one way until now), and that's as a functional account.
Let me reiterate before we proceed: God made the physical world. We can continue believing this because the Bible teaches it outside of Genesis (e.g., Neh. 9:6). Therefore, we don’t need Genesis 2 to affirm a material creation in the same way Genesis 1 didn’t need to.
When we read Genesis 1 and 2, we have to be careful not to elevate our material view to a level the Bible never gives it just to ease our discomfort or to fulfil our modern assumptions.
That said, let me give you five reasons Genesis 2 is not a material story and is actually a sequel to the events of Genesis 1.
