No. 212 - ADAM AND THE ANIMALS

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*

When God created the first man and woman, He told them to exercise

"dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,

and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis

1:28). This divine stewardship of mankind over the animal

kingdom, under its Creator, involves many responsibilities, and

has never been vathdrawn.

Before discussing this stewardship, however, we need to

answer two objections that have been lodged against the Biblical

account of the animal creation and its relation to mankind. The

first is the charge of skeptics that the two accounts of creation

(Genesis 1 and 2) contradict each other, the main "proof" of this

charge being the inference in Genesis 2 that Adam was created

before the animals, whereas the order of events in Genesis 1

clearly indicates that Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day,

after all the animals had been created. The controversial passage

reads as follows:

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the

field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to

see what he would call them: And whatsoever Adam called every

living creature, that was the name thereof" (Genesis 2:19).

If there were a real contradiction here as to when the animals

were created, it is strange that their Creator, the Lord Jesus

Christ, seemed unaware of it! In answering a question about the

permanence of marriage, He quoted from both Genesis 1 and 2

together, with no intimation that the accounts were not perfectly

complementary.

He which made them at the beginning made them male and female

[quoting Genesis 1:26], and said, For this cause shall a man

leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: And

they twain shall be one flesh [quoting Genesis 2:24] (Matthew

19:4,5).

In the more detailed account of the forming of man and woman in

Genesis 2, there was no need to mention the animals at all until

they were to be brought before Adam to be "introduced" to him, as

it were, and then named by him. The superficial contradiction is

removed simply by noting that there is no distinction in Hebrew

between the past tense and the perfect tense, the context determining

which to use. By replacing the past tense ("formed") by the perfect

("had formed") in Genesis 2:19, one can read the verse as follows:

"And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the

field. .. ."

Some commentators have argued against this translation, but

its legitimacy is verified by Dr. H.C. Leopold, Professor of Old

Testament Exegesis at the Capital University Seminary (Lutheran)

in Columbus, Ohio, in his masterful two-volume commentary on

Genesis.

It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate

Vatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: 'He had molded.' The

insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the

result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at

as many points as possible" (Exposition of Genesis, 1950,

Vol. I, p. 130).

The two accounts are complementary, not contradictory!

But then, say the skeptics, it is absurd to think that Adam

could name all the animals in part of a single day. This argument

is also used by those Christians and Jews who believe the Bible in

a general way, but who insist that "science" requires us to

believe that the days of creation week were long ages instead of

literal days.

It cannot be "absurd," however, since God has made it quite

plain that the "days" were literal days (note, especially, Genesis

1:5 and Exodus 20:8-11). This particular criticism ignores two

very important facts: (1) Adam was much more intelligent than we

can even imagine today; (2) he did not have to name every species

of animal, but only the distinct "kinds" of animals that were of

immediate interest and access in his daily activities.

Adam had been created in the very "image" of the omniscient

God, and that image had not yet been damaged by sin and the

curse. Scientists today recognize that modern man actually uses

only a very small part of his brain's potential, but Adam, with

his mental capacity just then created by a purposeful, wise,

loving Creator, perhaps could have used it all! He could surely

have recognized, almost instantly, the distinctive qualities of

each pair of animals as the different kinds passed before him, and

then given them appropriate names.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of

the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there

was not found an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:20).

Note that the animals so named included only the cattle, the

birds, and the field animals. Not included were the "beasts of

the earth," the "creeping things" and the "fish of the sea"

(Genesis 1:24,26). Thus the vast multitudes of marine animals and

insects, as well as reptiles and amphibians, were excluded. The

cattle evidently were the domesticable animals (horses, sheep,

cows, etc.) and the "beasts of the field" were animals that would

live in the wild in the Garden of Eden and its nearby fields. The

"beasts of the earth" were presumably to live throughout the earth

and would only have infrequent contact with man, so were not among

those to be viewed by him at this time. Nor were the "creeping

things," those animals built low to the ground, which,

while necessary to a functioning ecology, were not of direct,

personal importance to human life. In the context, the purpose of

this assignment to Adam by God was both to acquaint him with the

animals likely to be associated directly with his normal

activities and also to show him that, while he was to have

dominion over them, none were qualified to be a "helper like him."

Only a woman, also made in God's image, could qualify for this

role.

Furthermore, he did not have to name all the species of even

this limited number of animals, but only the kinds-which is a much

broader term, possibly comparable, in many cases, to our modern

taxonomic "family." Although we cannot calculate the actual number

of animals involved, it was not inordinately large, and Adam, with

his vast innate mental abilities, could surely have named them all

in a reasonable part of one day's time.

The animals were created for various purposes. Some would

serve for transportation (e.g., horses), some for labor (e.g.,

oxen), some as house pets (e.g., dogs), and in various other uses.

We can derive various spiritual lessons and analogies from all of

them (note Proverbs 30:24-31 and Job 12:7,8). God also foresaw

the entrance of sin, of course, and therefore the future use of

some animals for clothing (e.g., sheep, for their wool).

Eventually, after the great Flood, God even allowed men and women

to eat "every moving thing that liveth" as long as it was not

"flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof"

(Genesis 9:3,4). Note also I Timothy 4:4.

Initially, however, human beings were to have lived strictly

on "every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the

earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding

seed," and land animals were to have lived on "every green herb"

(Genesis 1:29, 30). Even animals that are now carnivores were

originally herbivores (for that matter, they can still survive on

a herbivorous diet, if necessary-as can people!). The sharp teeth

and other structures that are now used in eating flesh seem to be

"horizontal" variants, or mutants, of structures originally used

in gnawing bark, tough roots, and the like. It may even be that

God accomplished genetic engineering on the animals to forever

remind Adam and Eve of the awful consequences of sin, as suggested

also by the introduction of "thorns and thistles" as a part of the

curse (Genesis 3:17, 18).

Note that, while people were permitted by God to eat the

flesh of animals after the Flood (and thus, by extension, to use

them also for clothing or research or other worthwhile purposes in

the service of mankind, under God), animals were not given

permission to slay people (note, e.g., Genesis 9:6; Exodus 12:28).

Although animals are objects of God's loving concern and care (Job

39; Luke 12:6), they are not related to man by evolution, as most

present-day animal-rights activists allege. The divine rejection

of this age-long heresy of the "great chain of being," of

evolutionary continuity with the animals, is perhaps one

additional reason why God has made such a clear distinction as

this between them.

An additional very significant use of certain animals-defined

as "clean" animals-was for sacrifice. The shedding of the blood

(representing the life) of an animal upon a sacrificial altar,

when presented in faith by its owner as a substitute dying for his

personal sins, was accepted by God as an "atonement" (that is, as

a temporary "covering" until Christ would come as the "Lamb of

God" to take away the sin of the whole world) for his own soul

(see Leviticus 17:11).

The efficacy of such atoning sacrifices depended implicitly

upon the recognition that death was God's judgment upon sin. The

death of any of God's creatures containing the "breath of life"

and the "living soul" (Genesis 1:21; 9:22)-and this includes at

least all the higher land animals-was therefore not God's natural

order in His "very good" original created world (Genesis 1:31).

Animal death, as well as human death, entered the world only when

man brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12). This is one very

cogent reason why Bible-believing Christians should reject the

concept of long geological ages with unnumbered billions of

animals (even human-like creatures) suffering and dying in the

process of evolution, struggling for their existence and seeking

to be among the fittest who survive. For, if the speculations

concerning death preceded sin, death is then not the penalty for

sin, and Christ's death paid no penalty for sin.

Now, although man indeed is still to exercise dominion over

the animal kingdom, and though he does indeed have the right to

use animals for food and other needed purposes, even when it

involves their death, God still cares for the animals, and so

should we. This is made especially clear in the divine monologue

at the climax of the book of Job, when God-instead of dealing with

the mystery of human suffering as debated throughout the previous

chapters of the book by Job and his friends-dealt exclusively with

the evidences of His creation and His providential care of all His

creatures. He "causeth it to rain on the earth where no man is"

and "provideth for the raven his food" (Job 38:26,41). He has

"given the horse strength" and enabled the eagle to "make her nest

on high" (Job 39:19,27). Christians have no business

participating in animal or nature worship, but, likewise, have a

clear command to wisely use and manage nature and animal kind.

Finally, in the great Kingdom age yet to come, God says:

In that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts

of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the

creeping things of the ground: And I "fill break the bow and

the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them

to lie down safely (Hosea 2:18). The wolf also shall dwell

with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid;

and the calf and the young lion and the fatting together: And

a little child shall lead them.. .. They shall not hurt nor

destroy in all My holy mountain: For the earth shall be full

of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea

(Isaiah 11:7, 9).