Plant Creation Contradiction in Genesis?

Tim Keller—popular theologian and founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City—is outspoken about his belief in evolution. He’s a featured speaker at BioLogos conferences, along with other Christian leaders.1  The stated mission of BioLogos is to help the church come to grips with and accept the theory of evolution.  In their own words,

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.2

Contradiction in Genesis?

In 2012, Dr. Keller wrote a series of articles featured on the BioLogos website where he cites a discrepancy in the book of Genesis.  In his view, Genesis chapter 1 directly contradicts Genesis chapter 2 in regard to the order of plant creation.  He concludes from this that Genesis 1 should not be taken literally and was never meant to be taken literally.

Perhaps the strongest argument for the view that the author of Genesis 1 did not want to be taken literally is a comparison of the order of creative acts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 shows us an order of creation that does not follow a ‘natural order’ at all. For example, there is light (Day 1) before there are any sources of light–the sun, moon, and stars (Day 4). There is vegetation (Day 3) before there was any atmosphere (Day 4 when the sun was made) and, therefore, there was vegetation before rain was possible. Of course, this is not a problem per se for an omnipotent God.

But Genesis 2:5 says: “When the Lord God made the earth and heavens–and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, because the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to work the ground.”3 (emphasis mine)

Keller’s argument is straightforward.  According to chapter 1, plants were created on day 3, prior to the sun, atmosphere and rain. In chapter 2, however, plants don’t appear (ostensibly) until day 6, after the sun, atmosphere and rain are in existence.  Since both cannot be literally true, we’re left with a terrible choice.

….we may read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2 but not in Genesis 1, or (much, much more unlikely) we may read them as literal in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2. But in any case, you can’t read them both as straightforward accounts of historical events. Indeed, if they are both to be read literalistically, why would the author have combined the accounts, since they are (on that reading) incompatible?3

(Note: This same discrepancy is cited in the Skeptics Annotated Bible.  Were plants created before or after humans?)

Terrible Choices

Does Dr. Keller have a point?  Is there a plant creation contradiction in Genesis?  Do we really need to choose between these two accounts?

Let me just say, what a sad day it would be if Christians really had to make choices like these. What a tragic message to those looking for a reliable source of truth.

Genesis 1 and 2 contradict, but that’s okay.  Trust the latter, spiritualize the former and it all works out. 

The above is neither a defense nor an explanation of Scripture.  It’s a copout.  The only real message such an argument conveys is, we Christians really don’t trust our Bible….at least not all of it.  And you probably shouldn’t either. 

Vegetation vs. Plants of the Field

equivocation fallacy definitionThe good news is, there is no such contradiction in these early chapters of Genesis.  Dr. Keller has committed a simple equivocation fallacy, conflating two terms—vegetation (ch. 1) and plants of the field (ch. 2).  They are similar, but different.

Chapter 1 speaks of the creation of vegetation—a general term for all the plants of the earth.

Gen. 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (emphasis mine)

The Hebrew word is deshe’ (vegetation, grass). Most modern translations render it “vegetation” (NIV, ESV, NASB). It’s a broad term which would encompass the examples the author gives, like seed-bearing plants and trees.  It is very obvious from the context this refers to all the vegetation on the entire earth.  Vegetation was created on day 3 along with the land and sea, and, yes, it was created before the sun and before any rain had fallen on the earth. (The atmosphere, however, was created on day 2, being part of the expanse.  It was not created on day 4 as Keller suggests. And there was definitely a light source on day 1—God.)

Chapter 2, on the other hand, speaks of the plants of the field.

Gen. 2:5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground… (emphasis mine)

plants of the fieldNotice the additional words added to describe these plants.  They are not just plants, but plants of the field.

Fields, as the English term indicates, were relatively flat sections of land on which the original families of the earth planted their gardens and orchards.  They were ideal for cultivation, and, thus, cultivated plants and trees became known as plants and trees of the field.

This is not a reference, therefore, to the wild vegetation created on day 3, but to gardens—cultivated plants and trees, grown in fields.

The writer is conveying the simple idea that no gardens yet existed, because no gardeners yet existed (…no man to work the ground).

References to plants of the field in the Old Testament

If there is any doubt as to how this term was understood, a quick survey of its usage in the Old Testament should remove it.  All throughout the Old Testament we see sadeh (field) used in conjunction with plants to convey the idea of cultivated plants or crops.

Immediately after the Fall, God said to Adam,

Gen. 3:17 …cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. (emphasis mine)

God, here, is not telling Adam to go out into the wild and gather food, but rather to cultivate crops in fields and make bread. (note: our earliest ancestors were farmers, not hunter-gatherers)

Later in Genesis, you’ll recall Joseph’s dream in which several sheaves infield bowed down to a single sheaf (Gen. 37:6-8).  This was a clear reference to crops growing in fields.

During the seven years of plenty in Egypt, Joseph gathered food to the cities from the fields that surrounded them—another clear reference.

Gen. 41:48 and he gathered up all the food of these seven years, which occurred in the land of Egypt, and put the food in the cities. He put in every city the food from the fields around it. 49 And Joseph stored up grain in great abundance, like the sand of the sea, until he ceased to measure it, for it could not be measured. (emphasis mine)

You’ll recall, later, God sending hail and locust to devastate the plants and trees of these fields owned by the Egyptians, a clear reference to crops and orchards.

Ex. 9:22  Then the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand toward heaven, so that there may be hail in all the land of Egypt, on man and beast and every plant of the field, in the land of Egypt.” ……. 25 The hail struck down everything that was in the field in all the land of Egypt, both man and beast. And the hail struck down every plant of the field and broke every tree of the field. (emphasis mine)

Exodus 22:5 speaks of paying restitution from the best of one’s field—an obvious reference to produce.

God commanded the Israelites to offer their sowings and gather from their fields.

Ex. 23:15 “….None shall appear before me empty-handed. 16 You shall keep the Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor. (emphasis mine)

You’ll recall levitical laws prohibiting the mixing of seeds in the field (Lev. 19:19)—an obvious reference to cultivated plants.

There’s the story of Ruth gleaning ears of grain in the fields of Boaz (Ruth 2:2), an obvious reference to his farmlands.

And let’s not forget the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 who purchased fields for the purpose of planting vineyards.

Proverbs 31:16 She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard. (emphasis mine)

Missing the Point

To the contextual reader, the mention of plants of the field in Genesis 2 makes perfect sense.  The author is telling us that manmade gardens had not yet come into existence, because man was not yet made (….no man to work the ground). Genesis chapter 2 is not speaking of the absence of plants, but rather, the absence of gardens. We are then introduced to the first Garden, planted by God, Himself.

There is no contradiction and no need to spiritualize anything.  The accounts are given from different perspectives, but fit together seamlessly.

Perhaps the saddest commentary on all of this is that Dr. Keller and others have missed the point of Genesis 1 and 2, and missed the blessing of hearing and believing God’s word.  Chapter 1 (through 2:4) is a wonderful account of the miraculous creation of the universe.  Chapter 2 (starting in verse 5) is a more detailed account of the events of day six, including the creation of Adam and Eve and the planting of the first cultivated field.  Both accounts are straightforward, complementary and historically reliable.

Final Thoughts

Since the birth of the church, Christians have incessantly desired acceptance from the majority-scientists of their day.  We saw this in Galileo’s day when geocentrism was the majority science and many theologians read geocentrism into the Text.  I think we’re seeing the same thing today with evolution, evidenced by organizations like BioLogos.  I’ll let Dr. Keller speak for himself.

Many believers in western culture see the medical and technological advances achieved through science and are grateful for them. They have a very positive view of science. How, then, can they reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution with their traditional theological beliefs? Seekers and inquirers about Christianity can be even more perplexed. They may be drawn to many things about the Christian faith, but, they say, “I don’t see how I can believe the Bible if that means I have to reject science.”3

There is no doubt in my mind, this is the driving force behind Dr. Keller’s (and others’) approach to Genesis.  He sees the straightforward account as an attack on science. To embrace the origins story of the Bible is to deny all the wonderful things science has accomplished.  That’s a powerful emotional driver. But it’s not a logical one, nor a theological one.

Miracles, by definition, are violations or additions to natural processes.  The Resurrection can never be reconciled with science.  Nor can any other miracle. If one is perplexed by miracles, he’ll find the entire Bible to be a stumbling block.

Scientific reconciliation should never be an interpretive driver.  Given Dr. Keller’s influence, I can only hope and pray he’ll rethink his approach.

Further Reading on Tim Keller

Planting ConfusionWere plants created on Day Three or Day Six?
Tim Chaffey – Answers in Genesis

A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople’
Lita Cosner – Creation Ministries International

An Understanding of Genesis 2:5
Michael J. Kruger – Creation Ministries International

Further Reading on Biologos

Throwing the Bible Under the Bus
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Purpose-driven Drift: Francis Collins and the Doctrine of BioLogos
Lawrence E. Ford, Sr. – Institute for Creation Research

Footnotes

1. BioLogos “About Page—Our History” (http://biologos.org/about/history)

2. BioLogos “About Page—What We Believe” (http://biologos.org/about)

3. Tim Keller, “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople” BioLogos, February 23-March 30, 2012 (http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf)

2 Comments

  • Timothy Stone says:

    Thanks for clearing that up. For centuries, Christians have been subverting Scripture in the name of science only to find out later that their science was in error.

    • Terry says:

      you either have faith and believe that God is God and doing the impossible is what He does best. No discrepancies in the word of God only finite minds of humans with little faith.