Why are there two different accounts of Creation? I typed the question into Google and got 62 million links! And no wonder – it’s been puzzling people for thousands of years. Why are there two, especially two that seem to contradict each other?
In particular, mankind is created after the animals and plants in chapter 1, but before them in chapter 2. Scholars tell us the two accounts were written at very different times by different people – but that hardly answers the nagging doubts the contradiction raises. “How can they both be right?” we wonder. How can both be true? And if they’re not – is the Bible really inspired?
Those questions are too big to answer fully in a single post, but here are a few things to keep in mind:
1. Genre matters.
Genesis wasn’t written by a scientist or a modern historian. Chapter 1 is pure poetry. Genesis 1-11, “pre-history,” is couched in figurative language. We read news differently from editorials and poems; we must do the same when we read the Bible, and adjust our expectations and reading “lens” to the literary form.
For more details on interpreting Scripture, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 109-119.
2. The author’s intent matters.
The questions of our age are scientific: HOW did the world begin? WHEN did it come into being, and by WHAT exact process? WHICH came first and how did the next being evolve?
The questions of the ancient world were different: WHO created? WHO’s in charge? WHY am I here, and HOW do I relate to other beings? WHY is there evil and can anything be done about it?
OK, we have those questions too – and those are the ones we should ask of Genesis, because those are the questions it sets out to answer. In Dei Verbum, the Church tells us that the Bible teaches “solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (emphasis added). It teaches not scientific truth; but spiritual truth.
3. Context matters.
Genesis 1 and 2 are both parts of a larger story—revealed in Scripture and Tradition—and can’t be fully understood apart from it.
Taking these things into account, I offer a few thoughts:
Genesis 1 is about God’s action and purpose, not the science or calendar of creation.
God is named 32 times in 31 verses and every time he’s the subject of the sentence, acting, intentionally building something “good.”
The “days” of creation are symbolic.
Genesis 1 is poetic, and poetic structure has meaning. Sequential days are not there for themselves, to show time sequence, but rather to show order and hierarchy. (If the goal had been sequence, the sun would come before the light!).
Notice that all begins in darkness, formlessness, and emptiness. On “days” 1-3 God banishes the darkness and brings order to the chaos: heaven and sky, earth and land. On “days” 4-6 God fills the void, populating each realm in the same order. God makes people only after everything is ready for them to live in and rule. They are the “end” as in purpose, not sequence, of the created universe.
The march of days also forms a sort of literary “arrow” pointing to chapter 2 and the seventh day. It reveals the grand purpose of creation: that everything is ordered to the Sabbath and worship of God (See CCC nos. 345-348, 2169, and 2171).
Genesis 1 is a prologue to the rest.
How fitting that this poetic tribute, which was probably written much later than chapter 2, is placed at the start of Genesis. It functions like an “Entrance Hymn” to the great drama of salvation. While it is sung, God fills the stage and the other players take their place around him as created things and beings, each with its own dignity within its own sphere. All is in order and very good.
There’s a perspective shift between chapters.
In Genesis 1, the reader’s a distant observer of the creation of the universe. Genesis 2 zooms in for a close-up on the “man” God created everything for.
Sequence shows relationship in chapter 2.
Once again, sequence is not about time. Events are arranged to show truth about humanity in relationship to God, the animals, and the world. Chapter 1 told us man was created in God’s image, given dominion over the earth, and told to be fruitful and multiply. What does that mean, and how are we to understand it? By starting—not ending—with the creation of man, the author is able to show many things, among them:
- Man is made from dust. He does not evolve from something else and no other being is used to create him; there is nothing else.
- Vegetation is for man’s food and pleasure and to teach obedience – he is creature, not creator, and must learn to relate to God.
- The animals are created so man will know his special status – that he’s made for more. He doesn’t come from them, they are brought to him and he names and rules them.
- Man is only complete when God brings from his body another, the woman. Side by side, they will not only rule, but fill the earth. Together they are in God’s image: male and female; ruling the earth; fruitful. They live in harmony with creation, with each other, and with God.
The first creation makes sense only in light of the new creation in Christ.
So Genesis 1 and 2 give us two complementary accounts of creation that together help us begin to understand the “whos” and “whys” of our existence. But they are part of a larger story and we can’t fully understand them without knowing the end and purpose of the whole.
Perhaps that’s why John started his gospel with another creation account. “In the beginning was the Word,” he wrote. “All things were made through him […] The light shines in the darkness […] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
John’s deliberate use of language from Genesis helps us see the coming of Christ as a new creation. It also helps us understand God’s purpose in Creation from the start.
Why did God create? Pope Benedict XVI brings it all together:
“God created the universe in order to be able to become a human being and pour out his love upon us and to invite us to love him in return.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “‘In the Beginning…’” 1995, p 30)
Only when we read all of God’s word in light of his Word (Jesus), can we truly understand.