Read Genesis 2:4-25.
All references to “the Lord” are transliterations of the Hebrew יְהוָה (YHWH – usually pronounced “Yahweh” if spoken, though Jews consider the name as too holy to pronounce).
- This creation story has a completely different “feel” to the story in Genesis 1 which we studied last month. What are the main differences for you?
- Look at verse 7 – the creation of the first human being. What does this say to you?
- The story takes places on Earth in a very particular location (verses 10 to 14) identified by specific rivers two of which still carry the same names today (in today’s terms, the location is almost certainly in modern Iraq). Is a specific location important? Would you be be just as happy if (for example) the creation story were set in a distant planet and humans only came to earth after many centuries of developing civilisation elsewhere?
- This whole story is set in a garden (verses 8, 15). Is this significant? Would the creation story be just as moving if it were set in a desert or an industrial wasteland?
- Do you feel God has set you in a garden? In particular, what are today’s parallel’s with the trees (v9, 16, 17) – are there trees we can eat and trees which are so powerful that we must keep away, lest we betray our creator?
- What is the significance of the man naming things (verses 19-20)? Does God ever give us the task of naming aspects of creation? If so, does it give us a sense of power? (Consider, for example, a researcher who creates a new drug and gives it a name, or an astronomer who names a newly found star, or fashion designer who names a new type of clothing.)
- In the sequence of this passage, the man is created first (v7), then the trees (v9) birds and animals (v19-20) and only at the end the woman (v21-22). The sequence has been used for centuries to support views of male primacy. Why do you think the author put the sequence like this? How do we understand this today? Would it make any difference if the order were reversed?
- Read verses 21-22. Does it make any sense for us to think the female being created out of the male? Is this notion offensive? Or does it express some sort of fundamental unity between the sexes?
- The woman is created as “helper” for the man and also as “partner” (v18). What do these terms mean to us?
- Read verses 23 and 24. These verses are often seen as expressing the origin of human sexuality. They are quoted no less than four times in the New Testament (twice in the synoptic gospels in Jesus’ teaching in divorce: Mt 19:5, Mk 10:7 and twice in Paul’s letters regarding sexual behaviour: 1 Cor 6:16 and Eph 5.31).
- What do these verses say to you about the nature of human sexuality?
- “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (v25). This story is set in the Garden of Eden before the Fall (which does not come until the next chapter). If we are embarrassed about nakedness is this, therefore, the result of sin?
Supplementary questions
- The imagery in this passage, and especially in verses 18-25 is a profound expression of heterosexual attraction – and has been used extensively in Church teaching to stress the union of man of woman and heterosexual marriage as the building block of society (e.g. CSD 219). Can you find any good news in this passage for those whose attraction is to those of the same sex? How can we affirm gay and lesbian people are being truly part of God’s creation?
- The sexuality of this passage seems to be non-procreative. It is only two chapters later, in Gen 4:1 – after the Fall – that children are mentioned. What does this say to us?