Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?

Wayne Jackson, MA

Alleged Discrepancies

Q.

Genesis 1 and 2 provide accounts of what God did during creation. But these two chapters don’t seem to agree. Are there two different accounts of creation under discussion in Genesis 1 and 2?

A.

It is common for liberal critics of the Bible to assert that the book of Genesis contains two accounts of the creation of the Earth and mankind. Allegedly, these two accounts reflect different authors, different time periods, etc. It further is charged that the narratives contradict each other in several particulars.

The two records are supposed to involve Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. One author has written: “It is evident that the Pentateuch cannot be the continuous work of a single author. This is shown by the existence of two differing accounts (doublets) of the same event: thus e.g. the story of the creation in Gen. 1 and 2:4ff…” (Weiser, 1961, pp. 72-73, emp. in orig.). This view of Scripture is not the exclusive property of the radically liberal theologians; it has made its presence felt in “conservative” circles as well. Some religionists speak of the “two different creation accounts” (Murray and Buffaloe, 1981, p. 7), or the “two ‘creation hymns’ ” (see Manis as quoted by Thompson, 1986, p. 16).

One of the foundational assumptions of this so-called “higher critical” viewpoint is that the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) was not authored by Moses. Supposedly, several ancient writers contributed to this collection. These authors are referred to as J, E, P, and D. Some scholars subdivide them even further, e.g., J1, J2, etc. “J” stands for “Jehovah,” since that name for God was prominent in certain sections. “E” signifies Elohim, another divine name allegedly identifying certain portions. “P” purports to be a “Priestly Code,” and “D” identifies what is known as the “Deuteronomic” writer. The critics claim that all of these writings eventually were collected and combined by a “redactor” (editor). This theory, known as the Documentary Hypothesis, became popular in the 19th century when Jean Astruc, a French physician, claimed that he had isolated certain “source” authors in the Pentateuch. His views were expanded and popularized by others so that by the end of the century numerous biblical commentators had gravitated to this liberal concept. Though this approach is circulated widely and defended frequently, it will not bear the weight of scholarly investigation. [For further discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis, see the author’s article, “Destructive Criticism and the Old Testament,” (Thompson and Jackson, 1990, 4:1ff).]

In the case of the “two creation accounts,” Genesis 1 is said to be a “P” document (dating from the Babylonian or post-Babylonian captivity period), while Genesis 2 is supposed to be a “J” narrative from the ninth century B.C.

The arguments in support of this radical viewpoint are twofold. (1) It is claimed that the two creation stories show evidence of different styles of writing. (2) It is argued that the accounts conflict in that they reflect divergent concepts of deity and a mismatched order of creation. Let us give these assertions brief consideration.

STYLISTIC VARIATION

Professor Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool has noted, “stylistic differences are meaningless” (1966, p. 118). Such differences may as much indicate a variance in the subject addressed as the suggestion of multiple authors. On the basis of archaeological evidence, Kitchen has shown that the “stylistic” theory simply is not credible. For example, a biographical inscription of Uni, an Egyptian official who lived about 2400 B.C., reflects at least four different styles, and yet no one denies the unity of its authorship (Kitchen, 1966, p. 125).

The plural authorship of the “creation accounts” is supposed to be indicated by the use of two names for deity in these sections. “God” (Elohim) is employed in Genesis 1, whereas “Jehovah” (Yahweh) is found in 2:4ff. In response it may be observed, first, that solid biblical research has clearly shown the use of different appellations for deity to possibly reflect a purposeful theological emphasis. For example, Elohim, which suggests “strength,” exalts God as the mighty Creator. Yahweh is the name that expresses the essential moral and spiritual nature of deity, particularly in terms of His relationship to the nation of Israel (see Stone, 1944, p. 17). Second, the multiple employment of titles was common in the literature of antiquity as a device of literary variety. Archaeological discoveries have amply illustrated this point. Consider Genesis 28:13. The Lord speaks to Jacob and says: “I am Jehovah (Yahweh), the God (Elohim) of Abraham, the God (Elohim) of Isaac.” Would one argue for the multiple authorship of this single sentence upon the basis of the use of two Hebrew names for the Creator? Hardly. One scholar pointedly observed:

To conclude that differences in style or vocabulary unmistakably indicate different authors is invalid for any body of literature. It is well known that a single author may vary his style and select vocabulary to fit the themes he is developing and the people he is addressing. It goes without saying that a young graduate student’s love letter will vary significantly in vocabulary and style from his research paper (Davis, 1975, p. 23).

It must be concluded that arguments for “two creation accounts” in Genesis, based upon a subjective view of “style,” are speculative and unconvincing.

SO-CALLED CONTRADICTIONS

As mentioned earlier, the alleged discrepancies between chapters 1 and 2 involve an imagined difference in the perception of God on the part of the hypothetical “authors,” and the alleged contradictory order of events mentioned in the respective records.

First, it is supposed that in Genesis 1 the Creator is a transcendent Being, majestically and distantly bringing the creation into existence. In Genesis 2, however, He is characterized by naive anthropomorphisms (human terminology applied to deity) which imply an inferior status. For example, in Genesis 2 the writer says that Jehovah “formed,” “breathed,” “planted,” etc. (7-8).

While it is true that such expressions are found in chapter 2, what the critics have failed to notice is that anthropomorphic terminology also is employed in Genesis 1:1-2:4. In that section, God “called,” “saw,” “rested,” etc. (1:8,12; 2:1). There is no validity in this argument, and one is not surprised that serious scholars have labeled it “illusory” (Kitchen, 1966, p. 118).

Second, as indicated above, some reversed language order, as seen in the two chapters, is also supposed to demonstrate conflicting creation accounts. E.A. Speiser has written: “The first account starts out with the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ (1:1). The present narrative begins with the making of ‘earth and heaven’ (2:4b).” Speiser goes on to emphasize that in the first record heavenly activity is in focus, while in the latter account man is the center of interest. He thus concluded: “This far-reaching divergence in basic philosophy would alone be sufficient to warn the reader that two separate sources appear to be involved, one heaven-centered and the other earth-centered” (Speiser, 1964, pp. 18-19). This argument for a dual authorship of Genesis 1 and 2 is truly unconvincing. Let us carefully note Genesis 2:4. “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” In this one verse there is contained the heaven/earth and earth/heaven motif. [Does this mean that two people must have written this one sentence?] Even the critics do not so contend!

Third, the claim is made that in chapter 1 man is represented as having been made “in the image of God” (27), yet in chapter 2, he is merely “formed…of the dust of the ground” (7), thus suggesting a distinct contrast. The point of comparison is too limited, hence, unfair. As professor John Sailhamer observed:

…we should not overlook the fact that the topic of the “creation of man” in chapter 2 is not limited merely to v. 7. In fact, the topic of the creation of the man and the woman is the focus of the whole of chapter 2. What the author had stated as a simple fact in chapter 1 (man, male and female, was created in God’s likeness) is explained and developed throughout the narrative of chapter 2. We cannot contrast the depiction of the creation of man in chapter 1 with only one verse in chapter 2; we must compare the whole of the chapter (1990, 2:40-41, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Fourth, Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty.

Some suggest that in Genesis 1 the original creation of the botanical world is in view, while in Genesis 2 the emphasis is upon the fact that plant reproduction had not commenced, for as yet there was not sufficient moisture, nor a cultivator of the ground, which factors are remedied in verses 6-7 (Jacobus, 1864, 1:96).

Others agree that entirely different matters are in view in these respective accounts. In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. It has been observed “that the words rendered plant, field, and grew, never occur in the first chapter; they are terms expressive of the produce of labour and cultivation; so that the historian evidently means that no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man were yet in existence on the earth” (Browne, 1981, 1:39, emp. in orig.).

Another view is that Genesis 2:5 does not refer to the condition of the Earth at large; rather, the writer simply is discussing the preparation of the beautiful garden in which man was to live (Young, p. 61). In any event, we must stress this point: whenever there is the possibility of legitimate reconciliation between passages that superficially appear to conflict, no contradiction can be charged!

Fifth, it is argued that Genesis 1 represents animals as existing before man (24-26), yet Genesis 2 has Adam created before the animals are formed (19). The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology. The critic is reading something into the text that simply is not there. William Green pointed out that when noted scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), an advocate of the Documentary Hypothesis, first authored his famous commentary on Genesis, he employed this argument as a proof of a discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2. However, in the last edition of his work, after his knowledge had matured, he repudiated this quibble and argued for the harmony of 2:19 with chapter 1 (Green, 1979, p. 26).

THE REAL EXPLANATION

Are there differences in the inspired narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Of course there are. But differences do not necessarily imply contradictions, much less multiple authorship. The real question is this: Is there a purpose to these variations? Indeed there is. Furthermore, there are a number of factors that militate against the notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are independent and contradictory accounts of the creation.

First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:

There are different emphases in the two chapters…but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).

This type of procedure was not unknown in the literary methodology of antiquity. Gleason Archer observed that the “technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance” (1964, p. 118). These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis 1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere in biblical literature. Matthew’s account of the ministry of Christ is more topical, while Mark’s record is more chronological.]

Second, there is clear evidence that Genesis 2 was never an independent creation account. There are simply too many crucial elements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the Earth, and there is no reference to the oceans or fish. There is no allusion to the Sun, Moon, and stars, etc. Archer has pointed out that there is not an origins record in the entire literature collection of the ancient Near East that omits discussing the creation of the Sun, Moon, seas, etc. (1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis 2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former and is built upon it.

Even Howard Johnston, who was (at least in part) sympathetic to the Documentary Hypothesis, conceded:

The initial chapter [Genesis 1] gives a general account of the creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the light of the general plan, that is not an accurate statement. Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man. There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the story to man (1902, p. 90).

The following summary statement by Kenneth Kitchen is worthy of notice:

It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, pp. 116-117, emp. in orig.).

CONCLUSION

One final but forceful point should be made. In Matthew 19:4-5, the Lord Jesus combined quotations from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. He declared: “He who made them from the beginning made them male and female [1:26], and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh [2:24].” If the liberal viewpoint is true, how very strange that Christ should have given not the slightest hint that the two accounts involved a multiple authorship and contradictory material! Obviously, the Son of God did not endorse the modern Documentary Hypothesis.

When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been considered carefully, one thing is clear: an objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics. It is wise to remember that the Word of God was not written for the benefit of “scholars,” but for the common person. The Scriptures assume that the average person is able to understand the message and to know that the source is divine.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason (1964), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody).

Archer, Gleason (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Browne, Harold (1981), The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint).

Davis, John (1975), Paradise to Prison—Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Green, William Henry (1979), The Unity of the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint).

Jacobus, Melancthon (1864), Notes on Genesis (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication).

Johnston, Howard Agnew (1902), Bible Criticism and the Average Man (New York: Revell).

Kitchen, Kenneth (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament (London: Tyndale).

Murray, N. Patrick and Neal D. Buffaloe (1981), Creationism and Evolution: The Real Issues (Little Rock, AR: The Bookmark).

Sailhamer, John (1990), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Speiser, E.A. (1964), “Genesis,” The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday).

Stone, Nathan (1944), Names of God (Chicago: Moody).

Thompson, Bert (1986), Is Genesis Myth? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press). In this volume, Dr. Thompson reproduces a document, “Research in Genesis,” authored by Archie Manis, who was at that time a biology professor at Abilene Christian University. Dr. Manis has since left the University.

Thompson, Bert and Wayne Jackson, eds. (1990), Essays in Apologetics (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Weiser, Arthur (1961), The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development (New York: Association Press).

Young, Edward J. (1960), An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Romans 10:9-10: Going Beyond Salvation Slogans Video 50 min

 Romans 10:9-10: Going Beyond Salvation Slogans - Apologetics Press

Please click on the link above and follow the paths provided,

10 Key Bible Verses on Being Happy

 

All commentary notes adapted from the ESV Study Bible.

1. Matthew 5:2–12

And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” Read More

Blessed. More than a temporary or circumstantial feeling of happiness, this is a state of well-being in relationship to God that belongs to those who respond to Jesus’ ministry. The poor in spirit are those who recognize they are in need of God’s help. theirs is the kingdom of heaven. It belongs to those who confess their spiritual bankruptcy.

The Beatitudes all begin with “Blessed are …” They are called “beatitudes” from Latin beatus, “blessed, happy” These short statements summarize the essence of the Sermon on the Mount.

2. Psalm 1:1–2

Blessed is the man
      who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
      nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
      and on his law he meditates day and night. Read More

Blessed. The truly happy person is happy because God showers him with favor. Jesus uses the Greek equivalent in Matt. 5:3–11; cf. also James 1:12. The Latin translation, beatus, is the source of the word beatitude. the man. A specific, godly individual (Hb. ha’ish, “the man”) is held up as an example for others to imitate. Such teaching by use of a concrete example is common in OT wisdom literature. wicked … sinners … scoffers. These are people, even within Israel, who refuse to live by the covenant; the godly person refuses to follow the moral orientation of such people’s lifestyle. Some have seen an increasing level of sinfulness in the terms “wicked-sinners-scoffers,” together with an increasing loyalty in the metaphors “walk-stand-sit”; however, it is likely that the terms “wicked” and “sinner” here are equivalent, while a “scoffer” is certainly more committed to evil.

Contrasting Sources of Values. The truly happy person guides his life by God’s instruction rather than by the advice of those who reject that instruction.  Despite the repetitiveness of the natural world (Eccl. 1:4–11), the Preacher can see that God has made everything beautiful in its time. The problem is that God has also placed eternity (that is, a sense that life continues beyond this present existence) into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. The word “find,” or “find out” (Hb. matsa’) has the sense of “figure out, comprehend by study” in this verse and other places in the book (Eccl.7:14, Eccl. 7:24, Eccl. 7:26, Eccl. 7:27, Eccl. 7:28, Eccl. 7:29; Eccl. 8:17). The Preacher thus realizes that both his desire to understand all of life, as well as the limitations on his ability to do so, have been ordained by God.

Rather than becoming embittered by what God has not granted human beings (namely, the ability to comprehend all of reality), one should enjoy the gifts that God has given.

4. Philippians 4:4

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice. Read More

Rejoice. The joy that Paul calls for is not a happiness that depends on circumstances but a deep contentment that is in the Lord, based on trust in the sovereign, living God, and that therefore is available always, even in difficult times.

5. Proverbs 15:13–15

A glad heart makes a cheerful face,
      but by sorrow of heart the spirit is crushed.
The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge,
      but the mouths of fools feed on folly.
All the days of the afflicted are evil,
      but the cheerful of heart has a continual feast. Read More

These proverbs focus on the heart. A cheerful face indicates a positive attitude toward life; this comes about when the inner self is healthy (Prov. 15:13a). Such a person has inner joy all the time (Prov. 15:15b). But circumstances, whether internal (Prov. 15:13b) or external (Prov. 15:15a), can rob a person of tranquility. The key to gaining a joyful heart is in Prov. 15:14: seek knowledge.

6. James 1:2–3

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. Read More

Joy in Trials. Trials are designed to produce spiritual maturity and should therefore be counted as joy.

Trials are “tests” that challenge faith (James 1:2–5). When trials occur, one should count it all joy—not meaning mere worldly, temporal happiness, but rather spiritual, enduring, “complete joy” in the Lord who is sovereign over all things, including trials.

Testing of your faith defines the meaning of a trial for the Christian: as Jesus was “tested” in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1–13), so believers are tested. The Greek dokimion (“testing”) denotes a positive test intended to make one’s faith “genuine” (cf. 1 Pet. 1:7). The result is steadfastness, a life of faithful endurance amid troubles and afflictions.

7. 1 Peter 4:12–13

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. Read More

Beloved marks the beginning of a new section of the letter (1 Pet. 2:11). Suffering is the norm for Christians, not a surprising exception. To suffer as a Christian is a call to rejoice as a disciple of Christ, and such joy is the prelude to the joy that is to come at the return of Christ (when his glory is revealed).

8. Psalm 37:4

Delight yourself in the LORD,
      and he will give you the desires of your heart. Read More

the desires of your heart. Some take “the desires” as referring to the feeling of desire, i.e., “God will shape your heart so that it desires the right things”; but the sense is rather, “he will give you what your heart desires.” It is safe to say this to those who embrace the advice of this psalm, because as they delight themselves in the LORD, their hearts will desire the right things (Psalm 37:16, 31).

9. John 15:10–11

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. Read More

Obedience is not to be equated with drudgery; it is all about joy. The OT prophets envisioned a period of great end-time rejoicing (e.g., Isa. 25:9; Isa. 35:10; Isa. 51:3; Isa. 61:10; Isa. 66:10; Zeph. 3:14–17; Zech. 9:9). God threatened judgment if his people would not serve him “with joyfulness and gladness of heart” (Deut. 28:47–48). that my joy may be in you. Just as Jesus had great joy in obeying his Father even in the midst of opposition, so Christians will have joy in obedience.

10. Romans 5:1–2

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Read More

Therefore, since we have been justified. Chapter 5 begins with a ringing affirmation of the objective legal standing of the Christian—that the Christian, through faith in Christ, has been justified and declared righteous by God, once for all. The result of this is that the Christian no longer lives under the fear of judgment and the wrath of God but has peace with God, which is not merely a subjective feeling but an objective reality.

The grace in which we stand refers to the secure position of the believer’s standing (as a blessing of justification), and the hope of the glory of God refers to the promise that Christians will be glorified and perfected at the last day—a hope that results in joy.

The Sinner's Prayer Video 5 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/the-sinners-prayer/?utm_source=brevo&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Online%20Video%20The%20Sinners%20Prayer 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Foreknowledge: The Moon Is a Witness Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/foreknowledge-the-moon-is-a-witness/?omnisendContactID=6a57d9f6ed4cc0212444ca52&utm_campaign=campaign%3A+Newsletter+8-31-2026+%286a67e0412a2ab8096802053f%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=omnisend 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided,  Enjoy

What's going on!! Video 1 min

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1567616477878017 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

The Word of the Lord Endures Forever (Audio) 50 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/the-word-of-the-lord-endures-forever-audio/?fbclid=IwY2xjawUDxwpwZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAGJyaWQRMUZFdjZZREhHcTkzMDdFRlJzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeSWQ8SPefVYahfY77DOyKkxhOOHRi8p8CDrnObHofn1kut70f3x5ioI1fSM4_aem_4mja5WVlvNr_CezPOTTetg 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

WHY DID GOD CREATE MAN IF HE KNEW WE WOULD FALL?

 WHY DID GOD CREATE MAN IF HE KNEW WE WOULD FALL?

This is the question atheists love to hurl like a weapon, and quite a few Christians may not know how to properly answer this.

“If God is all knowing and He knew mankind would sin, why create us at all?”

They think it exposes a flaw in God. It does not. It exposes a misunderstanding of love.

Every parent understands this instantly. You know your child will disobey. You know they will make mistakes, rebel, and sometimes break your heart. Yet you still choose to have them because love is worth the risk. God did not create robots. He created image bearers with the power to choose. Love that is programmed is not love. Obedience that is forced is not devotion. For love to be real, rejection had to be possible. God knew the cost of freedom and He chose to pay it.

And He paid it in blood. Before Adam ever took a breath, the cross was already in God’s heart. The fall was not a surprise. Redemption was the plan. God allowed sin so He could reveal something greater than a sinless world ever could. Mercy. Grace. Sacrificial love. The Creator stepping into His own creation to rescue the very people who would reject Him.

So when atheists ask why God made man knowing we would fall, the answer is devastatingly simple.

He made us because love is worth the risk.

And He proved it by sending Jesus.

You were not created by accident.

You were created for reconciliation.

“And God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8 And this must be told to all, anytime we have the occasion to do so.

 

10 Things You Should Know About the Book of James

by: David Gibson

This article is part of the 10 Things You Should Know series.

1. James has one controlling theme that holds everything together.

It misreads James entirely to suggest there is no coherent vision linking the whole letter together. In fact, James has one grand preoccupation from start to finish: the undivided life of God’s people. He is so consumed with this theme that it runs like a golden thread through every section of his letter. James writes to show us what the person wholly devoted to God believes and to display how they think, live, speak, and pray. The key to James is not merely to look for certain linking words but to look for certain words fleshed out in story form. For example, “You adulterous people” (James 4:4) is a dramatic and powerful pictorial description of the letter’s key theme: the believer who is divided is two-timing God.

2. James’s key diagnosis is “double-mindedness.”

The Greek word for double-minded (James 1:8) is dipsychos—literally “two-souled”—and it appears to be James’s own coinage, a term he invented to name the precise malady he sees in the churches he is addressing. The double-minded person is not the ordinary Christian who wrestles with doubt or struggles to obey; it is the person who is fundamentally divided in their loves. One foot is planted with God, the other is still touching down in the world. They love Jesus on Sunday and the world’s way of thinking by Tuesday. Their speech, their treatment of the poor, their attitude toward money, their planning and their praying—all of it reveals a fractured self, a soul going in two directions at once. James wants to name this disease before he prescribes the cure.

3. James is much loved by ordinary believers but tends to be much avoided by preachers.James is hard-hitting and direct, clear-eyed and vivid, and therefore many of us love it for its straight-talking world of colorful images. It is not hard to hear the voice of God in such a black-and-white treatment of difficult topics. But expository preachers have sometimes struggled to find a coherent argument in James—it can feel like preaching from the book of Proverbs, where punchy sayings are followed immediately by something completely different. Martin Luther dismissed it as “a right strawy epistle,” accusing the author of “throwing things together chaotically.” Commentators have often treated James as a loosely assembled collection of moral instructions—practical, yes, but without the sustained theological logic we find in Paul. This says more about us as preachers than it does about James.

4. James is writing to churches in danger of dying.

We tend to read James as a bracing self-improvement manual—robust and direct, but essentially safe. In fact, James is writing to church fellowships on the edge of spiritual ruin. They are speaking angry words, drawing ugly social lines between rich and poor, and failing to back up their confessed faith with any visible compassion or good deeds. James moves through these symptoms—the unbridled tongue, the favoritism, the dead faith—not to give his readers a tidy to-do list, but to sound an alarm. The cadaver is on the slab, he says, and we need to look at what killed it before it happens to us too.

5. James does not contradict Paul on faith and works.

The apparent clash between “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24) and Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone has long troubled readers. Luther thought James mangled Scripture. But the two apostles are answering different questions. Paul is addressing the anxious sinner, asking, How can I be accepted before a holy God? His answer: faith alone. James is addressing the complacent believer, asking, Does it matter whether my belief changes anything? His answer: a faith that produces no fruit is not saving faith at all. They are not contradicting each other; they are complementing each other. James is deeply consonant with the gospel of grace.

6. The word “perfect” in James does not mean sinless—it means whole.

“That you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:4). This opening goal of the letter sounds impossibly demanding until you understand what James means by the Greek word teleios. It does not mean moral flawlessness. It means undivided, mature, complete—the opposite of divided, fractured, double-minded. The word group appears seven times across the letter—surely no accident, given that seven is the number of completeness in the Jewish Scriptures. James is not asking his readers to achieve sinless perfection in this life; he is calling them to a singleness of heart, a gathered life lived wholly toward God and wholly toward others. The goal is not an impossible standard; it is an integrated self.

The undivided life is not a solo achievement. It is a shared mission.

 

7. James’s vision of trials is one of the most counterintuitive things in the New Testament.

“Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds” (James 1:2). James does not say feel it all joy. He says count it—reckon it, think it through with a clear mind. The logic is this: testing produces steadfastness, and steadfastness produces an undivided life. God uses the furnace of suffering not to destroy us but to refine us, to kill off the dividedness inside us, to press the two halves of our souls back into one. The road to wholeness is the path of pain. This is not a comfort that removes suffering; it is a framework that explains it. C. S. Lewis captured the grand scale of what God is doing in our pain—he is not renovating a cottage; he is building us into a palace.

8. James’s diagnosis of the tongue goes deeper than speech.

The vivid images of James 3—the bit in the horse’s mouth, the ship’s rudder, the forest fire from a single spark—might suggest that James’s answer is simply to speak more carefully. But that is exactly what James says we cannot do. “No human being can tame the tongue” (James 3:8). His point is not that we need to try harder with our words; his point is that the tongue is the heart’s publisher. What the mouth produces is in perfect harmony with what lies at the bottom of the well. Angry words, gossip, blessing mixed with cursing from the same mouth—these are symptoms, not the disease itself. You don’t fix the symptom; you change the source.

9. James presents a God who is scandalously eager to welcome back his wandering people.

At the heart of James 4 is one of the most startling divine responses in all of Scripture. James has just called his readers “adulterous people”—they have been unfaithful to God, in bed with the world, two-timing the one who loves them. Any jilted lover would respond with cold anger, withdrawal, rejection. Instead, God says: “Draw near to me, and I will draw near to you” (James 4:8). He woos the ones who have betrayed him. He calls back the ones who have gone elsewhere. The medicine he offers is grace: “he gives more grace” (James 4:6). This is what makes James not merely a letter of rebuke but a letter of extraordinary tenderness. The surgery is painful because the surgeon is so very good.

10. James ends where he begins: with the preciousness of God’s people to one another.

The final two verses might appear to be a throwaway addition, but they are in fact the emotional climax of the letter. “My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death” (James 5:19–20). After chapters of diagnosis and prescription, James finishes with this: we are worth so much to each other that we must go after one another when we wander. Part of what divides us is our conception of ourselves as islands. The undivided life is not a solo achievement. It is a shared mission. We are healed, in part, by the faithfulness of brothers and sisters who love us enough to come and find us when we are lost.

 ^eCount it all joy, my brothers,² when you meet trials ^fof various kinds, 3 for you know that ^gthe testing of your faith ^hproduces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be ⁱperfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

David Gibson is the author of The Undivided Life: A Guide to Wholehearted Faith from the Book of James.

 

Why We Shouldn’t Cancel the Supreme Court

Jonathan Turley

Author, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution

 

• Download PDF

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on August 6, 2026, in Washington, D.C., at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

Nothing quite says popular justice like a good old-fashioned guillotine. Across the country, protesters have dragged around makeshift guillotines as they call for “radical” and “revolutionary” changes to our constitutional system. The symbol of the French Revolution remains a chilling reminder of how revolutions devour their own. What is even more unnerving than these prop guillotines is the increase in calls for radical and revolutionary changes—including the elimination or the packing of the Supreme Court, trashing the Electoral College, and doing away with the U.S. Senate—by establishment figures on the Left.

Today’s attacks on the American judiciary do indeed harken back to the rhetoric that raged before the advent of “The Terror” in revolutionary France—the rhetoric that gave rise to the kind of “mobocracy” that the Founders sought to avoid by designing our constitutional order as they did.

To help understand this, it is useful to recall the fundamental differences between the American Revolution, which led to the world’s oldest and most prosperous republic, and the French Revolution, which led to a short-lived, blood-soaked tyranny. Both revolutions were based on Enlightenment ideas. But America’s revolution was closely tied to the political philosophy of John Locke, who held that our rights come not from the government, but from God. The institutional arrangements of the Constitution, including the independent court system, were designed to protect these God-given individual rights.

Conversely, the French Revolution was inspired in the end not by Lockean principles but by the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rosseau, which extolled the “general will” of the people and opposed institutions (including courts) that interfered with that will. This concept of a general or popular will served as a license for French revolutionaries like Robespierre—who declared that “Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible . . . a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy”—to unleash a torrent of executions that would eventually come to turn on the revolutionaries themselves.

There is a radical movement rising in the U.S. with chilling parallels to the French Revolution. Demands for the elimination or packing of the Supreme Court and other measures are ripped from the French revolutionary handbook. Most worrisome is the surrender of establishment figures, particularly in promising to make radical changes to the Supreme Court. Indeed, offering the Supreme Court up to this movement has become a litmus test for Democratic presidential candidates. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, and U.S. Representative Ro Khanna have embraced it. Harris and California Governor Gavin Newsom have characterized reluctance to change the Court as “nostalgia” and have warned that “nostalgia is not working.” The platform of the increasingly influential Democratic Socialists of America calls both for dissolving the Supreme Court and for creating a unicameral legislature by eliminating the U.S. Senate.

Much of this is animated by undisguised power politics. Here’s former Attorney General Eric Holder arguing that packing the Supreme Court should be made a priority: “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.” And Democratic strategist James Carville: “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. . . . Eat our dust. Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.” Harvard Law School Professor Michael Klarman has laid out an agenda by which the Democrats can guarantee that they will never lose another election but warns that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything [that agenda consists of].”

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has characterized the Court as illegitimate because it has rendered decisions against what she sees as “widely held public opinion.” Former U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell similarly objected that the Court “defies the will of the people.” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is now leading in some Democratic presidential polls, asks why we even have a Supreme Court: “How much does the current structure benefit us? . . . I don’t think it does.”

The irony is that those calling to pack the Court say it will make the Court “less partisan.” Buttigieg has suggested not only expanding the Court from nine to 15 justices, but also having each party appoint five members, with those ten justices then selecting the remaining five. Such a court would then operate like the Federal Election Commission currently does, with party loyalists voting the party line.

***

This way of thinking runs completely counter to our nation’s founding principles. A non-partisan, independent judiciary serves two essential purposes: it plays a vital role in preserving the separation of powers, which prevents all government power from being concentrated in one place, and it stands as a bulwark in defense of minority rights against a majority faction. To ensure its ability to perform these essential roles without being threatened by the political branches—the Congress and the executive branch—the Constitution gives federal jurists life tenure and salary protections.

Despite these structural protections, early in our nation’s history there were few professional standards governing the American court system. Courts were openly biased, with Federalist judges becoming virtual grand inquisitors of Jeffersonians under the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts passed during the presidency of John Adams. Judges and justices routinely ran for political office and openly engaged in political commentary from the bench. But this would change. The first university-based law school in the U.S. was founded in 1779 at The College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, and America’s first independent law school was created in 1784 in Litchfield, Connecticut. Relatively quickly the partisanship that characterized the courts came to be tempered by professional standards that eschewed political associations and advocacy.

Even today, regardless of the charges hurled against the Supreme Court by both the Right and the Left, what critics call partisanship is actually deep and good-faith jurisprudential differences on both ends of the Court. This was also the case when, for a period of many decades, the Court had a liberal majority. And during that period—even during the years of the Warren Court in the 1950s and ’60s, when conservative precedents were overturned in large numbers and conservatives were often outraged—there were virtually no calls to pack or eliminate the Court.

During the confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch in 2017, I had an exchange with a Democratic senator who rattled off a series of 5–4 decisions to show that conservative justices were robotic partisans. I asked the senator if the four liberal justices showing the same consistency in dissent were also partisans. The reaction was disbelief. After all, the liberal justices were right in his eyes.

In reality, the attack on the Court as partisan is entirely disconnected from its actual voting record. It is a too-little-known fact that 44 percent of cases that come before the Supreme Court are decided unanimously. When you include nearly unanimous cases—those decided by 8–1 and 7–2 margins—that figure jumps to over 60 percent. It is also common for liberal and conservative justices to vote with colleagues on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. In a case this year, for example, conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh joined liberal Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in the majority decision, while liberal Justice Kagan joined Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett in the dissent.

Liberal justices from Stephen Breyer to Elena Kagan have refuted claims that today’s Court is a partisan institution. Justice Kagan, as reported in Politico, spoke recently on this topic and “reject[ed] claims that the high court’s conservative majority is in President Donald Trump’s corner.” The fact is that the ongoing enthusiasm for packing or eliminating the Supreme Court is based less on the voting records and views of the justices than on the idea, as Senator Warren put it, that the Court should follow what she perceives as “widely held public opinion.”

For those on both ends of the political spectrum, judicial restraints on their favored policies can be frustrating or even infuriating. And sometimes, as history shows, the Court can get things wrong. On the other hand, those restraints often represent a firewall for natural rights.

Consider the attacks on free speech that came to a head during the Biden administration, when a coalition of forces in government, academia, and corporations created the largest censorship system in the history of our country. Free speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment has been understood throughout our history, almost universally among Americans, as a bedrock principle essential to all our rights. Yet there was an aggressive campaign between 2020 and 2024 to curtail free speech on the Internet and elsewhere by labeling it “disinformation,” “misinformation,” “malinformation,” or “hate speech.” Those standing in defense of free speech were dismissed, in the words of one law professor’s book, as members of a “cult of the Constitution.” This campaign followed a trend in Europe, where speech is increasingly criminalized. But European laws never understood free speech as a natural right, and Europe’s courts have never aggressively protected it.

Here in the U.S., on the other hand, one of the greatest triumphs for free speech came in the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which held that Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, could refuse to provide services for a same-sex marriage. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, argued that “the framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’ . . . They did so because they saw the freedom of speech ‘both as an end and as a means’ . . . an end because the freedom to think and speak is among our inalienable human rights.”

Had 303 Creative been decided in a different way, states and cities could compel or curtail speech according to whatever their leaders viewed as discriminatory elements under public accommodations laws. Instead, the Court adopted a bright-line rule that business owners could decline to create expressive products from cakes to websites. The counter-majoritarian function of the Court worked in the 303 Creative decision to protect natural rights. Regardless of whether it reflected the will of the Colorado majority, it upheld the right of free speech.

***

We are living in a time of rage. It is not the first such time in our country. Indeed, America was born in rage. It was rage that fueled the Boston Tea Party. It was righteous rage, but rage all the same. It is especially during such periods that the judiciary must stand in defense of our individual natural rights. It is also especially during such times that we must stand as a people to prevent extremists of any ideological bent from politicizing or destroying our constitutional judicial system.

Ironically, those establishment figures trying to cancel the Court today are delusional in not foreseeing that they will be undermining their own freedom and security should they succeed. They might recall the answer of Abbé Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès, often described as the Thomas Paine of the French Revolution, to the question of what he had done during the Revolution. “I survived,” he said.

The history of canceling courts is a history replete with unhappy endings. Courts are by necessity one of the first targets of revolutionaries. Following the October Revolution that brought the Bolsheviks to power in Russia, one of their first decrees was the “Abolition of Existing Legal Institutions.” Soon after came the establishment of the infamous People’s Courts. In revolution after revolution, newly-established courts carried out the purported will of the people with terrible consequences. In an age of rage, it is too often reason itself that is canceled.