Questions in Genesis: On Theistic Evolution and the Genesis Accounts

Questions in Genesis:

On Theistic Evolution and the Genesis Accounts

            There is no room in the Genesis creation narratives for the coming into being of the earth and all the creatures in it through an evolutionistic process devoid of God.  “In the beginning God,” simply precludes the notion that Genesis could present the world coming into being apart from the activity of God.  Yet, the text certainly could be read in a manner that supports a theistic evolutionary model.  The wording used in the creation account of Genesis 1 could be read from a theistic evolutionist perspective without engaging in exegesis anymore fanciful than that of the Young Earth position. 

            This reading works with the plants, the animals, and humans.  In Genesis 1:11, God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth."  After God says this, we read in verse 12 that the “earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”  In this account God speaks and the earth then brings forth the plants.  The activity of God is seen in his saying that these plants and trees should come into being and then seeing that the finished product was good.  The means by which this plant life came into being from the text is a work of the earth.  Therefore, one could read this as god speaking the divine plan for plant life and then evolution producing the result at which point God looks at this product and declares it to be good.

            This method of creation is repeated in 1:24-25, “And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds - livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.  And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”  Again, God called for an inanimate object (the earth) to produce animate creatures.  This is how God created the land animals.  The creation of the sea creatures and flying birds appears to be different.  Although the waters are told to swarm with living creatures, the birds lack such a starting point and are simply made.  Yet, such could be taken as an outlier and that the reader should assume that God used similar methods. 

THE PROBLEM OF HUMANITY

            The Genesis 1 creation account lacks any specificity regarding the origin of humanity.  However, the creation account in Genesis 2 could give some difficulty to the evolutionist position on the origin of humanity.  The creation of humanity is given in some detail that, at face value, appears to preclude the idea that humanity came from another creature.  Genesis 2:7 states, “then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”  This statement presents the origin of humanity as dirt. 

            It could be possible to interpret this “dirt” that God formed humanity out of to involve the creatures that God commands the earth to bring forth.  But that would require reading one creation account into the other creation account.  This may well be a valid practice, but requires one to hold to a unity of these accounts that supercedes the minor difference between these accounts.  This reading would also run afoul of a strong Patristic consensus that viewed the creation of humanity as a unique event in creation that explains the very nature of what is means to be human and sets the theological foundation from salvation is viewed.  I am not saying that it is impossible to account for the text of Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers while explaining how humanity evolved from creatures.  I am saying that it is exceptionally problematic.  All this to say that I can see how a theistic evolutionary reading of the Genesis accounts could easily correspond with text and tradition until one arrives at humanity.

Questions in Genesis: Death Part: 3 Patristic Consensus, Eschatology, and the Goal of Creation

Death Part 3: Patristic Consensus, Eschatology, and the Goal of Creation

            As far as I can tell, there is no patristic consensus on the subject of death prior to Adam’s sin.[1]  The lack of consensus does not mean that the Fathers did not make substantial arguments for or against the existence of death before the fall.  Basil the Great presented the idea that animals were originally created mortal and belonged to a different realm than humans.  Therefore, death among animals was divinely intended in creation prior to Adam’s sin.

            Irenaeus took the position that animals were originally created to all be vegetarians and that the new heavens and the new earth will simply be a return to this original creation.[2]  Irenaeus’ argument is supported by the eschatological passages, particularly in Isaiah, which present a world in which prey and predator live peacefully and consume plants (Isaiah 11:26 and 65:25).  Augustine hinted that the clearly carnivorous creature would have been content to eat fruit fed them by mankind if mankind had not sinned.  It should be noted that both Augustine and Irenaeus make mention of other Christian interpreters who understood these passages to have allegorical meanings as the intended meanings.  They did not refute the allegorical interpretations while asserting that simultaneously the literal reading of the text should be understood as factual.

            With important Fathers[3] in disagreement on this point, I view this as a point that we can fairly disagree about.  Therefore, despite my deepest respect for Irenaeus and Augustine, I think that Basil’s understanding on this topic is a better view.  Basil’s position makes more sense because of the points I made in the first two posts on this topic and because I find the eschatological position behind Irenaeus’ position to be lacking.  Implicitly behind Irenaeus’ view of animal death and predation before the fall is that the eschatological expectation is a return to the pre-fall Edenic state.  I am convinced that the eschatological expectation is a state greater than Eden.  I find the view of St. Symeon the New Theologian quite helpful on the eschatological goal of creation.

           

            St. Symeon the New Theologian understood that humanity was created for the purpose of becoming spiritual beings.  He even commented that had Adam and Eve not sinned, that there would have been no death (understood as physical death) and mankind would have been immortal.  There would then have been a great multitude of people who would have become transformed into spiritual beings and through their virtues would have also transformed the world.[4]  However, the sin of Adam brought both physical and spiritual death to humanity.  Yet, despite the sin of Adam, Symeon understood that the example of Enoch and Elijah demonstrate that God would spare righteous men the pain of death if they chose to follow Him.  This reveals that death (both spiritual and physical) is a choice that every human makes in their own life.

            Symeon viewed the eschatological goal of humanity to be the same as God’s original goal- the transformation of the human into a spiritual being in communion with the Creator.  The new creation of the entire world is more than simply a return to the original state of creation, but the consummation of the goal that God had in mind for the original creation.

           

            With this eschatological goal in mind, there is no pressing need to posit that the vegetarianism of predators in the eschaton (if such passages are meant to be interpreted literally) requires that such was the case in Eden.  Rather, it could point us to the goal of peace and order God ordained that his creation should become.  This goal is of course even better than that which was originally created.  Besides, I am quite convinced that the New Heavens and the New Earth will have many other things which will be quite distinctly different from those encountered in this present age and earth!

---

[1] I have not made a thorough study of this topic. If you want a thorough study of this topic, feel free to write the dissertation on this issue.  I promise that I will read it when you send me the pdf.

[2] Adversus Haereses 5.33.

[3] This is especially the case when there are very estimable Fathers such as Irenaeus and Basil in disagreement on a minor point.

[4] Saint Symeon the New Theologian, First Ethical Discourse.

Questions in Genesis: On Death Before The Fall, Part 2

On Death Before the Fall, Part 2

            I prefer the answer that this design of predation and the cessation of life was part of the original plan as it makes more sense of how the Bible speaks about death and how we see the world actually functioning.  Indeed, if death did not exist before the fall, it would seem rather inappropriate for God to warn Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he would die.  This statement by God assumes that Adam knew what death was and that it was something he knew that should be avoided.  Further, the idea that the “death” Adam and Eve experienced was a physical event not only ran into the problems previously mentioned in Genesis, but these same problems are compounded by St. Paul in his letter to the church in Rome.  Below is a rather long quote so that the context of his statements can be slightly more evident.

           

 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned- ¹³ for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.  ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.  ¹⁵ But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.  ¹⁶ And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.  ¹⁷ If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.  ¹⁸ Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” (Romans 5:12-18, English Standard Version)

            For our purposes, the contrast in verses 17 and 18 are terribly important.  The trespass of Adam brought death, but the free gift through Jesus brings life.  What is the life that Jesus brings to all humanity?  It is certainly not a physical immortality.  Or else, the followers of Jesus would be clearly evident by the fact that they just do not die as every other human being.  Therefore, the life which Jesus brings is not a matter of physical life (at least at this time).  If this life which Jesus brings to solve the problem of death started by Adam, it would appear that St. Paul certainly understood the death of Adam speaks primarily to the spiritual state of humanity before God. 

            From a larger biblical perspective there is also a clear connection made between spiritual death and physical death.  Once Adam and Eve were expunged from the Garden, God separated them from the Tree of life lest they eat of it and live forever (Genesis 3:22-24).  And so the genealogies in Genesis repeat the theme of death as nearly everyone in the list died.  So also St. Paul picks up on the same theme by noting that death reigned from Adam to Moses.  Yet, we also see in this statement that St. Paul is not speaking of physical death alone, or else he could have extended death until Jesus not stopping at Moses.  By stopping at Moses we have a clear hint that spiritual death is what Paul means when he speaks of death here.

            This lengthy excursus into Romans does help to clarify the idea that the death which appeared in the sin of Adam is primarily a spiritual death.    Since this death is primarily a spiritual death, then it frees one from the difficulty of postulating how creatures who appear to be highly efficient killers came to be highly efficient killers instead of vegetarians trying to adapt to a world in which meat/carrion is now a food source.  Indeed, it allows one to wonder at the creative work of God who designed the (now) largest mammals to swim through the water and filter living creatures out of the water.  

Questions in Genesis: Death before the Fall

On Death before the Fall

            One of the theological reasons Young Earth Creationists hold to a young earth is because of death.  The logic of this position goes as follows: before Adam and Eve sinned, there was no death; therefore, any position that holds to ages and death occurring prior to the sin of Adam fails to understand the consequence of sin as presented in the biblical text.  This is an erroneous position for several reasons the foremost of which is that there is an implicit understanding that when God created the world and called it very good what God meant was that the world was created perfect.  The world could not have been created perfect, or else perfect means capable of breaking itself.  However very good implies that things were made the way that they were supposed to turn out and that things are operating as they should.  This is not perfection.  This is very good.

            The assertion that there could not be death and suffering before Adam and Eve ate from the tree is awkward on several different levels.  First, it operates as though the death God spoke of was physical death.  This either a) makes God a liar because on the day they ate of it they did not physically die or b) means that “day” refers to all the years that Adam and Eve lived after they ate of the fruit.  Neither one of these are good options for a Young Earth Creationist perspective.  Second, it makes God seem absurd since He threaten Adam with a punishment that Adam could not understand.  However, if Adam had seen other creatures die, the threat of death would be a real and comprehensible threat.

            Allow me to suggest that “death” is not speaking of a physical but a spiritual reality; a reality of being separated from God.  This happened when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Physical death appears to be the consequence of being separated from the tree of life, which is why we are told that a cherubim with a flaming sword guards the entrance to keep Adam and Eve from eating of the Tree of Life.  This then should cause one to question “Why, if Adam and Eve were made perfect and there was no death, was there a tree of life in the middle of the garden?”  Perhaps it would be better to understand that Adam and Eve were not created immortal but that immortality was conditional on their continued access to the Tree of Life which is also then seen to be conditional on keeping God’s commands not to eat from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 

            This then gets to the heart of a very important matter.  Since the death which Adam was warned about is a spiritual state, then it is right to affirm that there was no death anywhere in creation prior to Adam and Eve’s disobedience?  What of plants?  What of microbes?  What of viruses?  What of insects?  Imagine a world in which plants never died and bacteria never died.  You are now in a world that is very different from the world we are in now.  This then profoundly undermines the Intelligent Design argument for observing the order and function in the created order as proof of a divine/intelligent creator.  Because the world was not created in the way we can observe it.  Pause for a moment and consider how much of life requires at its most fundamental level the death of other creatures.

Example 1:

            Baleen Whales are perhaps one of the most destructive creatures on our planet.  In their lifetimes they kill untold millions/billions of living sea creatures which we collectively lump into the term “krill.”  Indeed, even a young earth creationist will argue that they were perfectly created to eat krill.  Yet, krill are living creatures.  And so, for the baleen whales, who from a human perspective are peaceful creatures, their life requires billions of living creatures to die.

Example 2:

            Imagine a world where the creatures upon which nearly all other creatures prey would breed without predation.  Grasshoppers would eat every plant upon the face of the earth given enough time.  That is unless the mice and rats got there first.  (And one can only shudder at the thought of immortal mosquitoes…)  If this were the case, then it is a very good thing that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and brought predation into the world or the plant life would not have sustained such continuous and exponentially growing predation.  This would certainly have destroyed life as we know it on the planet.

            From this order of life requiring the cessation of life in other entities, we can arrive at the conclusion that either: A) God created a world in which entities would cease to exist for the sake of other creatures to live and this by design, B) God recreated the natural order after the sin of Adam and Eve (and there is no textual support for this assertion beyond the function of thorns and thistles), or C) With the introduction of death, creature evolved in profound ways (from not requiring the cessation of life in another life form to exist to fully requiring the cessation of other life forms to exist at all) into the relationships we now see.

            From a creationist perspective, the concept that creatures would evolve in such ways so as to adapt new physiological features to consume new types of food that they were not created to consume is irreconcilable.  Likewise, from a biblical perspective, the idea that God reworked creatures to now consume other creatures is without any biblical support whatsoever (let alone fossil records).

             This leads us to an even bigger problem.  If animals did not die before the fall, then we cannot argue for intelligent design from our observation of the world around us.  If God did not order the world so that animals would die, then one cannot look at the world where the death of creatures is seen to be fundamental to the continuance of life and affirm that God designed it.  Rather, we would see death in creation and recoil in how utterly wrong these creature are in their very function and design that they live off of the death of other creatures.

Questions in Genesis: On Days and Ages

On Days and Ages

            The time in which this creation event took place is an incredibly difficult thing to figure out.  First, “day” does not always equal a 24 hour time period.  If this were the case then the Bible would contradict itself because in Genesis 2:4 we are told “in the day God created the heavens and the earth”.  Indeed, it is difficult to argue this point with many Young Earth Creationists, because they will often be dogmatic that “day” must mean a 24 hour period of time in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and yet in Genesis 2:4 “day” refers to a period of time equal to the seven day account of Genesis 1:1-2:3.  This of course undercuts the certainty with which the days in Genesis 1:1-2:3 must be 24 hour periods of time.  Although, the better argument is that “day” means a 24 hour period of time in Genesis 1:1-2:3 because in each occurrence it is joined with evening and morning which clearly sets these uses of “day” apart from making reference to an indeterminate period of time.

            However, once one arrives at the position that the use of evening and morning require the “days” in Genesis 1:1-2:3 to be 24 hour periods of time, then one has to account for how there was morning and evening before there was a sun.  This is not a new observation.  Indeed, saint Augustine asked this same question some 1600 years ago.           The creation accounts in Genesis greatly puzzled Augustine and he wrestled with these accounts on and off throughout much of his life.  Augustine rightly noted that there is a problem thinking about the six days of creation as being six days as we would know them because it is not until the fourth day that the sun and the moon and the stars even existed.  You cannot have an evening and morning apart from the Sun.  This is quite clearly an important issue.  There cannot be a time know as evening or morning as we know them to be apart from the sun.  Indeed, Genesis 1:14 the sun, moon, and stars were given as signs to mark days and times.  This means that the creation account tells us that the sun, moon, and stars function is to mark days, times, and seasons.  Which means, that for the first three days the markers for days were not yet in existence and so could not mark the days as such. 

            The rejoinder to this that God made morning and evening with light and darkness apart from the Sun and the moon, is an argument that has no clear Scriptural evidence.  Quite simply, we are not told how anything like that happened only that light and darkness were separated and existed.  What we do have is an account that presents a rather strange way of marking the day; Evening and Morning.  The Jewish day is from sundown to sundown, that is evening to evening.  When we read through the Old Testament and the New Testament, we encounter the order of morning and evening to note the length of a day.  Yet, the system presented in Genesis for marking the day is evening and morning.  This is simply an odd way to count a day by any standards!  The only time we encounter evening and morning occurring together is when we read the accounts of burning the lamps in the tent of meeting during the night, and then the phrase is, “from evening until morning” (Exodus 27:21, Leviticus 24:3, etc…).  This means that in Genesis 1:1-2:3 we have a counting of days that we find nowhere else in the Bible.  Thus this anomalous use of “evening and morning” should give one pause when considering whether the event described was meant to be understood in the sense of a typical “day” as we would count it.

            Despite the problematic nature of describing “day” in Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a 24 hour period of time, there are two views which interpret “day” in this manner.  There are Old Earth Creationists who hold to the Gap Theory, and Young Earth Creationists.  The Gap Theory postulates that there is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.  This view can be dated back to the 1600’s.  This is important, because it places this view prior to Darwin.  Thus the Gap Theory cannot properly be called a reaction to Darwinian Evolution.  The Gap Theory holds that indeterminable amount of time passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.  The textual argument for this views is often obscured in the English translations which say, “the earth was formless” whereas it is perfectly possible to translate the same phrase as “the world became formless”.  This is an argument for a recreation.  That there was a world that became “formless” and God remade the earth in six 24 hour periods of time.  This then accounts for the random fossils and the (even pre Darwin) lingering suspicion that the world was older than 8,000-9,000 years that a literalistic reading of the biblical narratives would present.

            Young Earth Creationism holds to the entirety of creation being made in six 24 hour periods of time.  There are no gaps.  There are no missing ages.  Each “day” is a 24 hour period of time in which all the things described in Genesis 1:1-2:3 were created in the order recorded there.  As this work is a critique of Young Earth Creationism the details of this view are discussed throughout this work and need not be repeated here.

            There are two primary views that hold to creation taking place within more than six 24 hour periods of time.  There is the Day Age view that holds that the word “day” does not refer to a 24 hour period of time and that entire ages (equating to untold millions of years) passed in the account of the 6 days in the Genesis 1:1-2:3 account.  This view finds no problem reconciling the different uses of “day” in the two creation narratives in Genesis as in both places “day” refers to an indefinite period of time in which an event took place.  Within the day age view there are two distinct groups.  There are Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists.  The difference between these two groups is simple and profound.  The Old Earth Creationists hold to the means by which all things came into existence was through creation.  The Theistic Evolutions would hold that God used evolution as a tool to arrive at the finished product.  These are clearly divergent positions, yet both positions view the six “days” as indefinite periods of time.

            I am without a firm answer on this topic.  I do know that “day” as used in Genesis 1 does not require the interpretation of a 24 hour period of time.  In Genesis 1 the six days of creation were used to teach humanity about how to order their lives and that the Sabbath is a divine institution which God established by example at the beginning.

Harmonizing Genesis Creation account(s) with Plato

            The issue about how long creation took is the question I would like to address in this post.  To be blunt, it would be unsettling if God took six days to create everything.  How is God all powerful and yet creating this globe and the creatures herein took six days of work?  Indeed, it was this very problem that led some in the early church to posit that God created the world in one day following the statement in Genesis 2:4 "on the day."  If the act of creating the world took God six days, and then afterwards he rested, it gives the appearance that God is not exactly omnipotent. 

            To solve the riddle of two creation narratives and uphold the omnipotence of God, some in early church found an answer in Plato.  Plato understood that there were the “forms” which do not exist in physicality.  These forms are tiered, with the highest form being the form of “the good”.  Everything that exists corresponds in some way to its form which is the ultimate reality of that thing.  For example look at a chair.  What makes a chair a chair?  Plato would answer that a chair is a chair in so far as it physically expresses the form “chair.” 

            This brief and painfully simplified excursus on Plato is necessary because some Fathers found the conception of forms to make sense of the creation accounts and so harmonize them.  In Genesis 1:1-2:3 God created the forms and then in Genesis 2:4 he spoke the forms into physical existence.  This also got them around the problem of a six day creation followed by a rest which at face value is unworthy of the omnipotent creator who created and sustains the world through his Word.  This was one way of dealing with the variant creation narratives.

Questions in Genesis Part 1: Which Creation Account?

          Foreword: I have chosen to begin the blog with a series of articles that I had typed up entitled Questions in Genesis.  These articles were originally composed a few years ago as part of how I processed a visit to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

                    Questions in Genesis part 1: Which Creation Account?

        

The biblical narratives in the first few chapters of Genesis are taken by many to mean that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that all which exists was brought into existence in the span of six 24 hour periods of time.  More often than not this position is combined with the view that any other understandings of the text subvert the authority and veracity of the biblical text.  This essay will argue there are multiple readings of the creation accounts in Genesis that disagree with a six 24 hours periods of time creation and are in no way bowing to the pressure of society in doing so.

I cannot recollect the number of times that I have encountered the phrase "the biblical account of creation" or something like it.  This became particularly irksome to me as I meandered the halls of the Creation Museum.  I am naturally and often easily irked by things which I find to be dishonest and misleading.  Such is the case with this statement.  As one moves from the first verse of Genesis, one begins to read an account of God creating the earth and the heavens in 6 days and then resting on the seventh day.  This account in Genesis 1 is what Young Earth Creationists speak of when they use the phrases “the Biblical creation account” or “the Genesis creation account.”  The use of the phrase “the Genesis creation account” is disingenuous and begs the question. 

There is not only one creation account in Genesis.  There are actually two creation narratives in Genesis and they do not agree in the time or the ordering of creation.  This is problematic and was understood to be problematic in the early church as well.  In Genesis 1:1-2:3 there is one account and then Genesis 2:4-2:25 provides a second account.  In a way, I feel bad for the Genesis 2 account because it is often treated as though it does not provide a serious record of the creation account.  For example, when was the last time you heard the phrase, “the one day of creation” from a young earth creationist?  The six “literal” days of creation are spoken about at length, but never the one day of creation.  However, if we are going to take the biblical text seriously, we should give a careful examination to both accounts.  Below is a comparison of the two creation accounts of Genesis.

Genesis 1	Genesis 2
6 day creation, 1 day of rest	One day of creation
Order of creation Light and darkness created Waters separated, Heaven created Land and plants Lights in the heavens: Sun, moon, stars Aquatic creature and birds Lands creatures Humanity	Order of creation Dirt and mist already in existence Adam Plants Rivers Animals
Plants are given for food	Plants are given for food
God rests	Eve is made after none of the animals are found to be suitable helpers.
Creation is used to teach the importance of Sabbath keeping.	Creation is used to teach the importance of marriage.

The first thing that I mentioned is the difference in the time of the creation accounts.  The is quite important because the position of Young Earth Creationism is often based upon the understanding that “day” in Genesis 1 means “one 24 hour period of time” and yet in Chapter 2 we have the account of creation taking place in the space of one of these 24 hours periods of time.

The second thing to notice is that the order of creation is different.  Quite, and likely irreconcilably, different!  In Genesis one, humanity is made last.  In Genesis 2, Adam is made first.  The order of plants coming before animals remains the same as well as the giving of plants for food to humanity.  Yet, the place of humanity in creation is markedly different and sets these two accounts in opposition to each other regarding the ordering of creation.

Thirdly and quite importantly, there are theological/pedagogical purposes in both creation accounts.  The first account centers on the importance of Sabbath.  The second account centers on the importance of marriage.  The emphasis in the Genesis one account is on keeping the Sabbath.  This is how the account ends, with God blessing the seventh days and making it holy.  The reason creation is presented in a seven day period provides an example for how the Israelites ought to live their lives.  They were to work six days and rest on the seventh day following the example which God had set in his work of creation.

In the Genesis 2 account, the theological emphasis is one the very nature of marriage.  This is evident in the fact that Adam names all the creatures that God brings before him and yet none of these creatures was found to be a suitable helper for Adam.  Then, God creates a helper from Adam, a woman.  She is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.  And we are told in Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”  This statement just like the statement about resting on the Sabbath is a rather strange interlocution, unless the point of these creation accounts was more than simply providing a “scientifically accurate” account of the origin of all that exists.  This of course is the point that I wish to make: the creation accounts are presented in their forms for the purpose of instructing the readers that 1 God is the creator of all things, and 2 either A) Keep the Sabbath because God set the example for rest after creation, or B) treat your spouse as your own body and join yourself to your spouse above all other family members because that is God’s design for marriage.

The overarching theological points that the Genesis creation accounts make are very rarely viewed as the central issues regarding the first two chapters of Genesis.  I view this as an example of societal pressures discerning the meaning and significance of the text instead of allowing the text to present its focus on marriage and Sabbath.  Likewise, attempting to read the first two chapters of Genesis as a scientific explanation of life will run into the same problem.  These chapters outlining the creation narratives of this world were focused on presenting narrative of creation that served very practical purposes which were not focused on a scientific (especially as we would understand this word in a post enlightenment context) explanation of the world.