One of the questions we have to answer in chapter 2 is, where are we at in the timeline? Man was already created in chapter 1, and God was resting from being done with everything already. And yet, we find the creation of humans back in focus. I’ve seen atheist arguments against Genesis for being bad history because it can’t get its creation story right. But this accusation is based upon a shallow reading of the text and an expectation of how the story is being told that isn’t grounded in reality. This recorded story has been around for anywhere between 7,000 to 10,000 years and the world’s 3 major religions are based upon it. Certainly it takes some level of arrogance to believe that none of them caught on to the fact that the creation of man shows up again in chapter 2. Yes, we’re all aware of it. But this isn’t a linear history, it’s storytelling (true stories, yes) but we are to learn true things by how the story is told.
So, what’s going on here? We’re zooming in. Chapters 1 and 2 are complimentary accounts. We see God initially as a sovereign Creator who sits above His creation. Now, the picture deepens, it becomes richer, and we see an intimate and relational God, planting gardens and personally “breathing” life into the unique creature that bear His image. With it, we get a change of name. The Hebrew word translated as God up to this point has been ‘elohiym. When we zoom in, though, we get His name, “Yahweh”, translated in most texts as LORD. Thus, in 2 v.4 we get LORD God (Yahweh elohiym).
Also, it’s not clear in the English translation but in Hebrew there is a clear connection between man and the ground in the wording used (adama – ground, adam – man). In v. 15, it’s clear that man is especially suited to tend to the ground, work is a good thing and it is fruitful and rewarding for man to do it. And yet, they are dependent upon each other. If something happens to the land, it puts man’s existence at risk. Keep these things in perspective for chapter 3.
Greg touched on this, but to expand upon the trees just a bit. I think what we’re seeing is a tree of life that they are free to eat from as it provides the fruit that they may live forever (as long as they can keep eating it). Then you have the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I think this is a merism again, meaning it’s the tree of knowledge of everything (this makes sense with how the snake ultimately talks about it). If they eat from this they will surely die because part of the knowledge they get will be bad (meaning morally corrupt) and they will die (eventually) because they will be cut off from the tree of life, no longer able to live forever. I believe that’s where the warning comes together with the reality of dying.
Finally, on the creation of woman, a few things to note. Adam is put into a deep sleep as God takes his rib to form the woman. Note that the man has done nothing here, he has no claim of creation of the woman, they both stand equal before God (as noted in chapter 1). We see the woman described as a “helper”. This word is similarly used to describe God’s relationship to humanity, so if your first reaction is to think of “helper” as somehow subservient, you’ll need to take your rendering of that relationship up with God and see who comes out on top. (I’ll note that the feminist perspective that woman is the last thing created so is the most refined and obviously superior creation over all that have come before is also an incorrect rendering.)
In general, we can rightly see that man is intended to be with the woman, in fact he is “completed” and they are restored to one flesh when they are together. Certainly, the specific nature of this description makes it clear the expectation of human relationships, comparing to polygamy in the ancient world and any number of alternative relationship options that exist in our day