Paul’s Different Uses of Genesis 2
Observations Before Interpretation
In the previous study, we asked a methodological question:
Who should explain Genesis?
We argued that, while Genesis must first be read on its own terms, Christians should also allow the inspired interpretation of Genesis given by Jesus and the apostles to shape their understanding.
This raises another important question.
When Paul appeals to Genesis, what should we do first?
Many readers instinctively ask:
“What does Paul mean?”
That is an important question.
However, before attempting to answer it, there is another question that deserves our attention:
What exactly has Paul chosen to bring forward from Genesis?
Rather than treating Genesis as a single undifferentiated source, Paul appears to select particular features of the creation narrative according to the point he is making.
The following observations are offered simply as observations and questions arising from the text itself. They are not presented as final interpretations.
A later article will consider how these observations may help us understand Paul’s argument.
Observation 1
Paul distinguishes several different aspects of Genesis in 1 Corinthians 11
Rather than referring generally to “creation,” Paul develops several distinct statements.
• Verse 8 — Woman is from man.
• Verse 9 — Woman was created for man.
• Verse 11 — Neither woman is apart from man, nor man apart from woman, in the Lord.
• Verse 12 — Woman is from man.
• Verse 12 — Man is through woman.
• Verse 12 — All things are from God.
At the very least, these statements suggest that Paul is making several related, but distinct, observations from the creation narrative.
Observation 2
Origin and purpose are distinguished
Paul writes:
• Verse 8 — Woman is from man.
• Verse 9 — Woman was created for man.
These are not identical statements.
One concerns origin.
The other concerns purpose.
Whether these should ultimately be understood ontologically, functionally, relationally, or in some other way is an interpretive question.
Before asking that question, however, it is worth noticing that Paul himself distinguishes them.
Observation 3
Paul qualifies his argument, but not by simply reversing it
In verses 11–12 Paul introduces an important qualification.
Rather than writing:
• woman for man,
• therefore man for woman,
• or
• woman from man,
• therefore man from woman,
Paul writes:
• Verse 11 — Neither woman is apart from man, nor man apart from woman, in the Lord.
• Verse 12 — Woman is from man.
• Verse 12 — Man is through woman.
• Verse 12 — All things are from God.
This raises an important question.
What exactly is Paul balancing?
Is “man through woman” intended to balance only the statement of origin?
Or does it qualify the whole preceding discussion?
The text itself invites us to ask the question before attempting to answer it.
Observation 4
Verse 11 deserves careful attention
Rather than quoting Genesis 1:27,
“Male and female he created them.”
Paul writes:
“Neither woman is apart from man, nor man apart from woman, in the Lord.”
Why does Paul choose this wording?
Why does he not simply repeat the language of Genesis?
Does the phrase “in the Lord” introduce a specifically Christian dimension while still remaining within a creational discussion?
Whatever answers we eventually reach, the wording itself deserves careful attention.
Observation 5
Paul uses Genesis differently in Ephesians 5
When discussing marriage, Paul does not appeal to:
• woman from man,
• woman for man,
• man through woman.
Instead he explicitly quotes Genesis 2:24:
“The two shall become one flesh.”
This immediately raises another observation.
Paul appears to draw upon a different feature of the Genesis narrative because he is addressing a different theological question.
Observation 6
Paul’s use of Genesis appears to be selective
Based simply on observation, Paul does not appear to appeal to Genesis in exactly the same way every time.
For example:
Whether this proves to be a consistent pattern throughout Paul’s letters remains an open question worthy of further investigation.
Why these observations matter
Only after identifying Paul’s own sequence of thought are we in a position to ask how these observations should be understood and how they contribute to his argument.
If, instead, we simply notice Paul’s reference to Genesis and immediately turn away from Paul in order to decide for ourselves what Genesis means, we run the risk of bringing our own interpretation of Genesis back into Paul’s argument. In doing so, we may unintentionally obscure the very point Paul is making.
This is a curious approach to interpretation.
After all, it was Paul’s own appeal to Genesis that first alerted us to its relevance.
If we trust Paul enough to tell us where Genesis is relevant, should we not also pay careful attention to how he himself uses Genesis?
This does not mean that Genesis should not be read carefully in its own right. Indeed, Genesis should first be understood within its own literary and historical context.
Nor does it mean that Paul replaces Genesis.
Rather, once Paul begins to explain Genesis, responsible interpretation should first seek to follow his inspired argument before substituting our own reconstruction of Genesis in its place.
Otherwise, we risk allowing our interpretation of Genesis to explain Paul, rather than allowing Paul’s interpretation of Genesis to illuminate his own argument.
Conclusion
Before asking,
“What does Paul mean?”
it may first be helpful to ask,
What exactly has Paul chosen to bring forward from Genesis?
Careful observation should precede theological synthesis.
In a later article, we will explore how these observations may help us understand Paul’s argument. But unless we first observe what Paul actually says, we may end up answering questions that Paul was never asking, while overlooking the very features of Genesis that he deliberately chose to develop.