And yet we have Cain pleading with God about the danger he is in NOW… not eventually.
We have Cain marrying.
We have Cain building a city.
The text practically screams out that there are other people besides Adam’s family!
2 Likes
It’s a point… but it’s not just those immediately outside the Garden.
It’s the thousands of generations of human beings made in the image of God who precede Adam who don’t find mention that’s problematic.
Edit: This is even more problematic if we believe that the first human being to bear the image was someone who precede Adam by tens of thousands of years without being mentioned.
A huge silence to Assume.
Some people just get carried away thinking Genesis is good history.
It is not a problem if the creatures preceding HAADAM were not endowed with the Imago Dei. In that view, there was no reason to mention them because HAADAM was the first Image of God creature.
Modern day readers tend to expect Genesis to answer our most urgent questions about the beginnings of the world. But Genesis tells the story of the beginnings of God’s chosen people. For that purpose, HAADAM can be seen as the suitable beginning.
1 Like
Yes, I agree.
However, in such an interpretation, wouldn’t genesis 1:26 be referring to Adam (or atleast a group of people represented by Adam, and hence not far removed from Adam in time)?
Referring to Adam: yes.
“Not far removed in time”: I don’t think one can make chronological arguments from Genesis 1:26 when understood within its genre (a hymnic tribute to the sole creator of all things.)
1 Like
Would it be appropriate to say, genesis 1 is describing the creation of humanity in precis, while genesis 2 goes on to give a more detailed description (whether we see it as literal, or as more allegorical; it’s still more detailed).
That is certainly a popular viewpoint. I see the two pericopes as coming from very ancient oral traditions—two separate descriptions of beginnings—and the author(s) of Genesis chose to weave them into the BARASHIT (“in the beginning”) written text.
1 Like
If Genesis 1 referenced the Tree of Life and the Tree of Good and Evil, I could see it as the same story.
If the appearance of “humanity” fit the same sequence as the appearance of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, I would be less resistant.
And if the story of Cain ended with Cain being cursed, instead of blessed… with no further mention of him, his wife, his child, his city … I would say your proposal would be the default proposal.
But none of these conditions are met.
1 Like
How is this relevant?
What do you think the two Trees are all about?
What do you see as the problem with the “sequence”?
Don’t get the problem you see here. What’s the issue?
Since you have compelled me to crack open Genesis 1 in order to answer your question, I can note some of the other issues:
A] When is Adam created? Genesis 1:27 says
Gen 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1 describes making creatures of the seas along with the birds… then plants; then the beasts.
Then Adam and Eve.
Genesis 2 ignores the creatures of the Sea, presumably because Eden is not on the coast. In fact, humans And yet there is no mention of the fish in the rivers. God makes the plants in Eden. Then he makes the Trees.
Let’s take a real close look at Genesis 2:
In Genesis 2, verse 5 says every plant and herb of the field was now “before it”.
-
- We must assume “it” is Eden.
Verse 7 says God made Adam; Verse 8 implicitly says there was Eden (the presumed “it”) and
- We must assume “it” is Eden.
-
- that God then added a Garden to Eden, and placed Adam there.
Verse 9 says God references the two Trees.
Verse 15 specifies that God assigns Adam to “dress” the garden part of Eden.
Verse 16-17, God mentions the prohibition on the Tree of Good/Evil.
Verse 19 describes making all the beasts and the birds!.. after Adam is created:
Gen 2:19
“And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air…”
- that God then added a Garden to Eden, and placed Adam there.
Finally, verse 21-22 describes making Eve from the rib.
Genesis 1 gives a different sequence, and makes no mention of any tree that is not free to be eaten. In fact it is quite adamant that all Trees can be eaten. To me, this tells me that Genesis 1 is saying: any tree you can get to, you can eat of it. God doesn’t mention the Tree of Good/Evil because he knows that is tucked away in the Garden of Eden, where humanity cannot access it.
Genesis 2 doesn’t mention water creatures, creates Adam separately from Eve, and creates “out of the ground” the beasts after Adam exists… but before Eve exists.
As for the Cain story … I can see the spiritual need to cover the circumstances of Cain and Abel, and of Cain murdering his brother.
But it serves no Earthly or Heavenly purpose to muddy the waters with a blessing of Immunity, with Cain’s marriage to an un-named person… and to his building a city with no mention of who would live there. In fact, the “genealogy” of Cain’s offspring seems to be a kind of proto-genealogy of Seth’s offspring. It’s as though the scribe of Genesis is co-opting another ancient story of an honored clan … and converting it over to his bigger story of Abraham’s ancestry.
Because the story would actually have been more coherent without mentioning Cain any further after his talk with God, leaving these other odd details seems to be an intentional way to draw attention to the reality that there were other people before Adam and Eve arrived on the scene.
Actually Genesis 2 seems to focus on plants/herbs and animals and birds of the field.
It seems more connected to domestication imo. That’s why Adam naming them is important. In a certain sense, he is shaping them by naming them.
The sequence of Genesis 1 and 2 are about different things.
The introduction of the trees of good and Evil is important because it’s the first time a moral Law if introduced to human beings. Even before he ate of the tree,Adam had moral obligations placed on him (even though it was limited to not eating from one tree).
Eating of the tree itself is not an act of Evil. However Adam/Eve proved that they were incapable of obeying moral laws when they violated God’s command and ate of the tree. And of course, beings that couldn’t keep up a simple code (of not eating from one specific tree) were totally unprepared to live up to the moral expectation of doing Good and avoiding evil.
Genesis 1 not referring to the tree is not so surprising. The main point is not edibility. It’s the introduction of a moral command.
This is not an issue. The issue is whether there were many generations of human beings before Adam/Eve who bear the image of God. The text does not indicate that. At best you can think of Adam/Eve as a couple that introduces the image of God to the communities outside.
- Gen 1:27 is clear. The image of God is carried by a plurality (i e both Adam and Eve).
It’s the union of Adam and Eve as one humanity that reflects the image of God.
Genesis 1:27 gives good reason to think of the image of God to be about community.
Reflecting the union in the trinity. While I do think qualities like intelligence, creativity , the ability to have a relationship with God etc are important indicators of what the image of God is. I also think the unity of man & woman in marriage and the love in a community is also a part of it.
So Cain marrying, and forming cities etc might have strong spiritual significance. However if we place Adam/Eve 6000 years ago, the image of God looses it’s significance and people will have to argue for humanity bearing God’s image to precede Adam and Eve for tens of thousands of years.
Says who? Quite a large number of people think it does indicate people outside the garden in the image of God. You certainly can’t just blindly assert your view in this manner.
2 Likes
I am not blindly asserting my view on this. I am pointing out why I think it’s problematic. Take an Adam/Eve that existed 6000 years ago.
Let’s assume the people outside the garden bear the image of God.
What about their ancestors going one generation back? Two generations?
When do we say the image of God came into being? Since there is not much difference between the people outside the Garden and those who roamed the earth 50kya… do we accept that humanity had the image of God for 1000’s of generations before Adam?
Who is the first person who bore the image and why is he/they not mentioned in any genealogy?
All these become very difficult questions.
Just because they are difficult questions for you doesn’t mean they are difficult questions. Frankly, I find them to be easy questions.
Why not explore many of the possible answers? It isn’t like there are none obviously available.
I note also you have not defined what the Image of God is.
1 Like
I know there are solutions available. Like seeing Adam as a “federal head” of humanity…
As the first priest/prophet of God etc.
But it’s not necessary to have a de Novo creation of Adam for any of these options. De Novo creation becomes redundant imo.
It’s not easy to define. I lean towards two understandings of the image of God. I will explain both in brief below -
-
The image of God is community. The unity between man and woman in marriage and the family unit itself reflects the unity of God in the trinity.
-
The ultimate image of God is Jesus. And the image of God points to a potential/hope to be like Jesus. Again union is very important here as we are all transformed from glory to glory because of our union with God in the Spirit brought about by faith in Christ.
End of the day, I don’t see qualities like intelligence, creativity etc as reflecting the image of God If it doesn’t promote a community living in love.
I see the two greatest laws that Jesus spoke about in the image of God.
That is not the answer I’m thinking of. You may have a lot of catching up to do…
These are uncommon definitions, but there is no indication they must be unique to Adam and Eves lineage.
Fair enough… can you be less cryptic?
Or should I wait for the book 
I know. Which is why I lean towards an understanding of Adam/Eve as existing much earlier. I see them as having a unique capability to love/live in community.
However i don’t see how intelligence can be the image of God. We are nowhere near as intelligent as God.
I can agree that the image of God is definitely difficult to define.
It seems very much that this is a difficult set of questions for you because you have pre existing ideas about the theology that can’t actually be found in Genesis. Perhaps if your learned more about the theological traditions here, and looked and what scripture taught, it might become easier.
If you are referring to idea of the image of God, it’s right there in Genesis-
Gen 1: 27 God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.
See the plural there? The image of God finds meaning in community. We find a similar plural in verse 26-
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
We see a glimpse of the trinity in verse 26. And the fact that God appoints us to rule as a group indicates the ability to function as a group.
This is an unfair accusation. If you can make your point pls do.
Frankly, the idea of the image of God I mentioned has far more scriptural support than the logos theology. I do think it gives one aspect of what the image of God is, though it’s not the main point imo.
1 Like