The creation of Adam
After God had created the animals, he created Adam and then caused the garden of Eden to grow and placed Adam in it to cultivate it. The text then states that God saw that it wasn’t good for Adam to be alone, and brought the animals to him to be named. This latter segment is introduced with the term vayahi, which, as already noted, represents an antithetical connection with what precedes it.{i} There is thus a conceptual break—a space to mentally “catch your breath”—between Adam’s assignment to tend the garden and God’s statement that it wasn’t good for him to be alone. This suggests that the latter didn’t immediately follow the former. Therefore, Adam probably tended the garden for a while, and then God brought the animals to him to name.
A similar line of argument is that Adam would have been very content in the garden, since God created Eden especially for him (and it was paradise after all). But God’s statement to the effect that “It is not good for the man to be alone” and Adam’s exclamation “happa’am” (“now at length”; see below) upon seeing Eve, clearly imply that Adam was not completely content in it. Therefore, he was probably content at first, but then grew discontent because of his lack of human companionship.
Naming the animals
Gen. 2:19 states that God brought the animals and birds before Adam so he could name them. We can see several ways that the number of animals he had to name might have been limited: first, the word nephesh which describes the animals Adam named, means “soul” and can refer to human beings, life, desire, etc.{ii} When it’s used to describe animals, it may only refer to “soulish” animals, or animals with the capacities of mind, will, and emotion. If this is the case, it probably would only refer to mammals and birds.{iii} Second, Adam may have just had to name the animals in the garden of Eden, and not in the entire world. Third, in Gen. 1:30 God tells humanity that the nephesh animals eat plants, which could imply that they only eat plants, and are (thus) herbivores. Since the “humanity” which God is addressing in this passage is Adam and Eve before they sinned, the animals in question are those who live in the garden of Eden. In other words, there were no carnivorous animals in the garden. Fourth, Adam may not have had to name every single species, but only more general types.
However, there are three factors that counter these: first, the fossil record testifies to the creation of half a billion to a billion species of life before the creation of human beings. Second, God created humankind to specifically live with and rule over the animals (Gen. 1:26-28), so it seems reasonable to think that the number of different kinds of non-carnivorous mammals and birds in the garden must have been immense. Third, the narrative is clearly meant to explain how the animals received the names the original audience of Genesis knew them by, so (again) it seems reasonable that it would at least refer to the animals known to the ancient world. If God only expected Adam to name one tenth of one percent of one percent (0.001%) of the at least half a billion species that he had created (5,000 animals), and Adam had twelve hours (the daylight period of a calendar day) in which to do it, this would mean that he had to name over 400 animals per hour. This comes out to Adam having to name six to seven animals per minute, or one animal every nine to ten seconds.
Now, some might think that if the animals were all lined up and Adam just named them arbitrarily, it’s possible he could have accomplished such a feat. However, in the Bible, as well as the ancient world in general, the act of “naming” was not a simple, cursory process, but rather one which was intended to characterize the nature and essence of the object being named; as such, it required considerable thought as well as extensive knowledge of the object. “[Naming the animals] was, then, not just an occasion where labels were pinned on the animals like identification numbers. It represents—as ‘names’ were understood in ancient times—Adam’s (humankind’s) insight into the natures of the various creatures, an insight needed to make his governing possible.”{iv} Moreover, the name was meant to reflect the relationship between the object and the one doing the naming, and this presupposes the passage of a sufficient amount of time for the one to have a significant impact on the other. “Ancient thought attached much greater importance to the names than we do. Words were more than a means of communication and the use of appropriate names was anything but arbitrary. Naming an animal properly indicated that one had understood and characterized its properties, that one had established a relationship with and one’s rule over it.”{v}
Additionally, this was done so that Adam could find a suitable helper and this would make him all the more attentive to his duty—as would the fact that Adam, in his unfallen state, would take great care to fulfill any God-given task.
“Now at length”
However, Adam found no suitable helper. So God put Adam to sleep and created Eve out of his side. When Adam awoke and saw Eve, he exclaimed in 2:23 “happa’am,” or, “now, at length,”{vi} a term which “functions as a terminating expression for an emotional build-up which has been developing within a person over an extended time.”{vii} Other examples of this term can be found in Gen. 29:34-35, 30:20, 46:30, Exod. 9:27, Jdg. 15:3 and 16:18. This term is also used with the adverb ‘ak in Gen. 18:32, Exod. 10:17, Jdg. 6:39 and 16:28. In these latter cases it means “this once”{viii} which doesn’t seem to imply the passage of time as much as when happa’am stands by itself (although it should be noted that in all of these verses except Gen. 18:32 it is expressed after a considerable amount of time has passed).
As has already been stated, God created both Adam and Eve on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:27). It is exceedingly difficult to see how Adam could have tended the garden in paradise long enough to grow dissatisfied, named all of the animals, and grown lonely enough to exclaim “happa’am” within the daylight period of a 24-hour day.
It is, therefore, on such basic grounds as these that we must insist that Genesis 1 was not intended by either the Divine Author or by the human author (Moses) to teach that the whole work of creation took only six calendar days to complete. … Moses never intended the creative days to be understood as a mere 24 hours in length, and the information he included in chapter 2 logically precludes us from doing so. It is only by a neglect of proper hermeneutical method that this impression ever became prevalent among God’s people, during the post-biblical era. Entirely apart from any findings of modern science or challenges of contemporary scientism, the 24-hour theory was never correct and should never have been believed—except by those who are bent on proving the presence of genuine contradictions in Scripture.{ix}
Objections and responses
Objection: This simply requires us to believe in a miracle which shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who believes that God created the heavens and the earth. God could certainly do all of these things in a 24-hour period if he wanted to.
Response: Of course he could, but this is irrelevant: the question is whether Adam could have done all of these things in a 24-hour period.
Objection: Adam, in his unfallen state, wasn’t limited by the confines of sin and could have performed these tasks at super-human speed.
Response: We simply have no biblical grounds for making such an assertion, and, in fact, we do have biblical grounds for denying it: Jesus was a perfect human being,{x} but he didn’t perform his tasks at superhuman speed. He was able to perform miracles, but this was because he was enabled by the Holy Spirit, not because he was perfect. Regardless, Jesus’ miracles can’t be considered parallel because while God brought the animals to Adam to be named, there’s nothing in the text to suggest that Adam’s role, the naming of the animals, was a miracle. Rather it is represented very simply and in a straightforward manner. Thus, this objection is completely ad hoc, and at face value it seems absurd.
Some well-meaning Christians have taken this a step further. They think that the biblical text obligates them to believe that the sixth day was a calendar day, and that the only way to reconcile this with Gen. 2 is to assert that Adam and Eve had, essentially, super-human powers. From this, they speculate that Adam and Eve created an advanced society before the fall, complete with space travel, which has not left any trace of its existence.{xi} I don’t mean to insult these people, and I certainly do not question their sincerity or devotion, but these speculations are so bizarre that I find it impossible to take them seriously. But if this objection were valid, they would be reasonable possibilities. Since they are clearly not reasonable possibilities, this objection is not valid.
Objection: The text does not tell us that Adam grew dissatisfied with Eden, or that he tilled the garden before God brought the animals to him to name.
Response: This is true—the text does not state this explicitly. However, the fact that the section after the one in which God places Adam in the garden begins with the term vayahi implies a conceptual break with what precedes it. Furthermore, it would be unusual if God said it is not good for the man to be alone if Adam was still satisfied with his responsibilities in the garden; it would be unusual if Adam had become dissatisfied so quickly in the paradise God created for him; and it would be unusual for God to put Adam in the garden to cultivate it, but then give him another extensive duty to perform before he had a chance to start. Thus, Adam probably tended the garden in paradise long enough to lose his initial thrill over it, although this is certainly debatable.
Objection: Adam may have only had to name a few animals.
Response: While we can certainly limit the animals he had to name to some extent, the text says that God created humanity to live with and rule over the animals (Gen. 1:26-28). This clearly implies that a significant number of the animal types created in Gen. 1 were brought before Adam on this occasion. And the fact that he said “happa’am” upon seeing Eve implies that he had named a significant enough number of animals to feel some stress about finding a helper. Besides, the point of this story is to explain to the original audience how the different kinds of animals known to them came to have their names. While this certainly limits the number of animals, it doesn’t limit it to a number that could have reasonably been named with a period of a few hours. Even Henry Morris admits that Adam must have named a few thousand animals.{xii}
Objection: The passage of time is only an incidental aspect of the word “happa’am.” If the various Hebrew terms that can refer to periods of time only do so incidentally, and are not appropriate to delineate six undefined time spans because of this, then we can’t conclude anything from the author’s use of happa’am either.
Response: “ha” is the definite article and “pa’am” is a word for time. Together they simply say “this time.” The passage of time is not incidental here, since it presupposes the passage of previous events leading up to “this time.” Events are temporal phenomena. The question of context comes in when we note that it is used after the passage of a significant number of previous events, and thus of a significant amount of time. In Adam’s case the previous events were the naming of the animals before he “finally” found a helper. So his exclamation of “happa’am” implies that he had named a significant number of animals, and consequently a significant amount of time had passed.
Notes:
{i} E. Kautzsch (1910), 327.
{ii} BDB, 659-60 (1-3); TWOT, 587-91 (1395).
{iii} Hugh Ross (1998), 49-50, 196.
{iv} Dallas Willard (1988), 49. By saying “Adam’s (humankind’s) insight…” Willard is not challenging whether Adam was a historical individual, but is pointing out that he refers to us typologically as well.
{v} Aldert Van Der Ziel (1965), 59.
{vi} BDB, 822 (3d(2)).
{vii} R. John Snow (1977), 133.
{viii} BDB, 822
{ix} Gleason Archer (1984), 329.
{x} Although, we must remember that he took on “the likeness of sinful man” (Rom. 8:3).
{xi} Emil Gaverluk and Jack Hamm (1974).
{xii}