In this post we get to the second account of creation found in Genesis 2.4-25. In this and the posts that follow, we will see that it has a different focus than the first account and that we learn quite different things from it. In this post we will consider the relationship between the two accounts in addition to addressing some issues that arise from Genesis 2.4-7.

Hebrew text:

4 אֵ֣לֶּה תוֹלְד֧וֹת הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם וְהָאָ֖רֶץ בְּהִבָּֽרְאָ֑ם בְּי֗וֹם עֲשׂ֛וֹת יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם׃

5 וְכֹ֣ל׀ שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכָל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח כִּי֩ לֹ֨א הִמְטִ֜יר יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹהִים֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאָדָ֣ם אַ֔יִן לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃

6 וְאֵ֖ד יַֽעֲלֶ֣ה מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְהִשְׁקָ֖ה אֶֽת־כָּל־פְּנֵֽי־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃

7 וַיִּיצֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַֽיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃

Transliteration:

4 ’êl·leh  ṯō·wl·ḏō·wṯ  haš·šā·ma·yim  wə·hā·’ā·reṣ bə·hib·bā·rə·’ām;  bə·yō·wm, ‘ă·śō·wṯ Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm  ’e·reṣ wə·šā·mā·yim.

5 wə·ḵōl  śî·aḥ haś·śā·ḏeh,  ṭe·rem yih·yeh ḇā·’ā·reṣ,  wə·ḵāl ‘ê·śeḇ haś·śā·ḏeh ṭe·rem  yiṣ·māḥ; kî lō him·ṭîr Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm  ‘al- hā·’ā·reṣ, wə·’ā·ḏām ’a·yin, la·‘ă·ḇōḏ  ’eṯ- hā·’ă·ḏā·māh.

6 wə·’êḏ  ya·‘ă·leh min-  hā·’ā·reṣ; wə·hiš·qāh  ’eṯ- kāl- pə·nê- hā·’ă·ḏā·māh.  

7 way·yî·ṣer  Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm  ’eṯ- hā·’ā·ḏām, ‘ā·p̄ār  min- hā·’ă·ḏā·māh, way·yip·paḥ  bə·’ap·pāw niš·maṯ ḥay·yîm; way·hî  hā·’ā·ḏām lə·ne·p̄eš ḥay·yāh.

NIV:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground,

6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Study:

How do the two accounts of creation relate? Many Christians attempt to make the two accounts fit with each other, offering various solutions and schemes for dealing with the various differences in the accounts. Some differences ought to be mentioned. The first account takes seven days, while the second seems to happen in a single day. The first account had animals created before humans, while in the second the man is found to be alone and animals created in response to that. In the first account men and women are created together, but in the second account the woman is created after the man. There is no honest way in which these differences can be reconciled. The NIV, along with other translations, attempts to smoothen things out, thereby doing a grave disservice to the text. We shall address this in relevant future posts that deal with those issues.

The interesting thing is that the second account clearly indicates that we should not attempt to harmonize the two accounts. While introducing the narrative, we read, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth.” But we have just read another account in Genesis 1.1-2.3! How then can this second account be the account of the heavens and the earth? Simply put, the two accounts, though placed one after the others, are not intended to interpret each other. They are not intended to be harmonized. There are differences and we need to be willing to accept and live with them.

One major difference between the two accounts is how God is referred to. In the first account, the word אֱלהִים (elohim) is used, while in the second account God is referred to as יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים (Yahweh elohim). As suggested by the Documentary Hypothesis,¹ it is likely that the two accounts had different authors. Of course, at some point an editor put them next to each other and had no problem doing so.

The first verses of the second account of creation give us an indication of its focus when we read, “Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground.” We know, however, that most plants grow without human intervention. Hence, it cannot be literally true that there was no vegetation because there were no humans. Rather, we realize that the focus of the second account of creation is that of explicating the role of humans. The humans are made to ‘work the ground’. The dominion that humans have with respect to the ground is that of making it productive by working it. God created the grounds to be productive, giving it the potential to bring forth vegetation of all kinds. And God created humans to bring that potential to fruition.

The account then describes the formation of the man (adam) from the ground (adamah) using a play on words. The human is the one from the humus. While the text says that God formed the man from the dust of the ground, we are not to take this as a literal description. Rather, the text is emphasizing the intrinsic connection humans have to the Earth. Glorious as we are, we have not been dropped onto the Earth from the skies but have been made from the Earth. We are earthlings through and through for our essence is earth.

The statement about God’s breathing into Adam the breath of life, making him ‘a living soul’ (לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה, lə-ne-p̄eš ḥay-yāh), is often taken to defend the dualistic view that humans have a separate soul. This is untenable from the text for even if נָ֫פֶשׁ (nephesh) means ‘soul’ here the text says that the man became a soul. Moreover, God breathes into the man the breath of life, not a disembodied ‘soul’ and the man then does not have a soul but becomes one. Since it is quite obvious that humans cannot be said to be literally their souls it is clear that the text is not describing a dualistic nature of humans.

Rather, this statement should be seen as simply stating that humans are living beings because God has made them alive. They are not just living but alive to their true nature as those made as God’s image and alive to the divine vocation to which they have been called.

Now does this mean that only humans have this breath of life from God? Quite a few Christians conclude this. However, this too is untenable. Just because the text describes something that happens to humans it does not mean that this did not happen for the rest of creation. The text is simply focusing on the humans and hence need not make any claims about the other animals. After all, no one would claim that animals were not made by God just because the text is silent about it! We need to interpret the text always with a consistent hermeneutic. And what we glean from the text is that humans were made to be productive and that we are alive to our productive potential because we have been animated by God’s breath.

Prayer:

Our almighty, loving Father. You are the one who created us with a glorious vocation. You are the one who made us like yourself. And just as you are a productive God, so also you have called us to be productive, giving us different gifts as you deem fit. We ask you for the wisdom to know how you want us to use the gifts you have given us. And we ask you to daily make us alive to the vocation for which you have created us. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

---

^{1. Documentary Hypothesis. New World Encyclopedia. (Accessed on 26 December 2018).↩}