Were There Two Creations

Genesis 2:4‑7

Were There Two Creations?

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens — and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground — the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Liberal Christians have long argued that there are two accounts of Creation. They argue that Genesis One and Genesis Two are separate, even contradictory accounts of Creation. That position, clearly antagonistic toward those humble saints who avow the Word of God to be both accuracte and true, has been parroted by numerous individuals who think themselves wise because of their animosity toward the Word of God. Unfortunately that antagonistic view has even found its way into the churches of this day until a surprising number of pulpits openly doubt the Word of God.

Shortly after arriving in Canada I was invited to address a student assembly sponsored by a Christian organisation on the campus of the University of British Columbia. The topic assigned was Creation verses Evolution. The advertising for this lecture generated considerable interest and assured that we would enjoy a full auditorium for the lecture. I concluded my address on the day in question by inviting questions from those in attendance, a move which made a number of the sponsors visibly uneasy. Worried sponsors of the lecture had forewarned me that a number of faculty members from the department of zoology would be present. Throughout the previous week these same professors had openly stated their intent to embarrass me, exposing me as a fraud. How could a scientist, trained in modern science, maintain the accuracy of the Word of God in the face of the overwhelming sentiment favouring the neo-orthodox doctrine of evolution. Consequently, there was also in attendance a reporter for the Vancouver Sun who thought to record the spectacle since it might prove newsworthy.

When the opportunity to ask questions was extended a faculty member from the zoology department immediately asked what he apparently considered to be an unanswerable question. The tone of his voice, the relaxed body posture and the jaunty tilt of his head together with the sneer on his lips served to indicate that he considered the entire presentation to have been so much foolishness. He made it obvious that he did not concur with anything said to that point. His very attitude conveyed contempt for such an unsophisticated position which would hold the Bible to be accurate and trustworthy. His question was how I could ever hope to reconcile the two contradictory accounts of Creation. Some of his colleagues actually snickered loudly as he finished his query.

Since he was seated on the front row, I walked to where he was seated and dropped my Bible in his lap. “Show me,” I challenged, “where these two contradictory accounts are found.” He was clearly uncomfortable. Recoiling visibly from the Bible now situated squarely in his lap, he at last stammered out that he wasn’t certain where to find the accounts, but he was certain that they were there because he had read about them.

I used the occasion of his discomfort to instruct my listeners in one of the foundational points of scientific methodology. A scientist recognises and avoids whenever possible secondary sources. Scientific research preferentially cites primary sources whenever in support of a claim. Turning to my erstwhile interlocutor I chided him, “You have never read the primary source. You have never read the Bible, but you were willing to make pronouncements upon the veracity of the Bible based upon the statements of others who were themselves hostile to the Bible. Would you not agree that you were unscientific in your own research into this issue?” With that he agreed dumbly. “Would you not agree,” I continued, “that you have asked a question for which you are unprepared to debate?” Again he nodded dumbly.

His embarrassment still begged the question. Were there two creation accounts? Do liberal critics have a basis for such a claim? The charge that there are two creation accounts has been advanced for at least two hundred years by antagonists of the Bible. Why should those who accept the accuracy and veracity of the Word of God not agree to this charge of multiple accounts of the origin of all things? What evidence keeps conservative Christians from succumbing to the allure to discredit the Word of God? That is the focus of our study during this message.

Critical Challenges — The liberal view of Scripture, and especially the higher critical view of the Creation account, was well articulated by the Eighteenth Century. Jean Astruc noted in 1753 that in the Hebrew text of Genesis, God is designated by two different names. The first is Elohim… The other is Jehovah. He explained this by arguing that the Genesis account was from materials which had been transmitted orally or in written form over several centuries. The material containing these names came from at least two separate sources, he proposed. To substantiate his point of view he claimed that Genesis presented duplicate creation narratives (to say nothing of duplicate narratives of the Flood). These narratives were distinguished, according to Astruc, by distinctions in the divine names. For instance, the Name used for God in Genesis 1 is !yhil¿a>, whereas the name used for God in Genesis 2 is hw:hyÒ. Thus Astruc postulated that these chapters had different origins and represented different views.[1]

The source theories advanced today are certainly more elaborate, but the idea is the same. Critical scholars speak of four source documents, processes, or schools which underlie our current texts. These proposed documents are those containing the names Jehovah or Elohim, designated J and E respectively. In addition there are presumed to be a priestly document or process which is designated P, and a source attributed to a deuteronomic school which is referred to as D. Genesis 1 is argued to be a priestly document and therefore reflects the outlook of that school, whilst the second chapter is a combination of a Jehovah and Elohim text reflecting the outlook of those documents.

Reading the arguments of advocates of the source theory you might conclude that the evidence for the names of God were clear-cut. This would be an incorrect assumption, however. The name of God given in Genesis 2 is actually !yhil¿a> hw:hyÒ which is translated in our Bible as the Lord God. The name used in Genesis 1 is !yhil¿a, the most general term used to speak of God. This is the most appropriate term to use in this chapter, however, as this is a general account of creation.

The introduction of hw:hyÒ, the personal name of God, in chapter two is likewise appropriate as we are focusing on the personal relationship between the Creator and man. Throughout the Bible, reasons for these different names can be suggested by differences just as those noted in these two chapters.

There is another great difficulty associated with this particular critical theory. Professor E. J. Young called it a psychological difficulty. He developed his thoughts in this manner.

If it is correct that the Pentateuch does consist of a number of documents which were finally pieced together by a redactor, then it must be acknowledged that the Pentateuch is a very remarkable work. It is not the kind of writing that very many people could produce. Undoubtedly it is one of the greatest writings in existence, and whoever was responsible for it was an artist and a genius… But if [this] is so, then why did he make such a blunder at the very beginning as to put together two contradictory accounts of the creation? If he was such a genius, would he not have realised that it was not very sensible to put two conflicting accounts of creation together?[2]

The problem should encourage an individual to look closer at the two accounts to see if there is not a good reason, perhaps several reasons, why they exist in the form in which we find them. We should be encouraged when we realise that until the rise of modern critical scholarship no one seemed to have noticed that these two accounts were in conflict. Assuredly there were plenty of critics about before these days late in the age. Throughout the whole of history there have been opponents to the Word of God.

Creation Account — Strictly speaking, the account in Genesis 2 does not begin until verse four. Genesis 2:1-3 is an account of the seventh day of creation and therefore properly belongs with Genesis 1 as part of the account of the acts of God on the various days. The second account (whether “contradictory” or not) begins with verse four: This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

This fourth verse appears to be rather simple and straightforward. Perhaps you consider the verse to be unimportant. Actually, it is a key verse and a battleground for two conflicting opinions. Some scholars regard the verse as a conclusion to all that has gone before. The technical term for this is subscription (from sub meaning under and scriptus meaning written). Others consider the verse to be a superscription (from super meaning over and scriptus meaning written). In other words, this verse is either a summary of all that has preceded or it is a caption for what follows. The reason this is a key verse and the reason this is so important is that there are eleven such verses throughout the book [Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2]. Each of these occasions is intended to summarise or introduce sections of the book.

Good Christians have disagreed over whether Genesis 2:4 is a subscription or a superscription. Some have appealed to the fact that each of these eleven instances involves a name (the account of Adam, the account of Noah, the account of Shem, etc.) and that the story of each of these individuals is in the verses immediately preceding. They consider that a verse such as this is something like a signature verifying the data.

The problem with this view is that it fails to deal with the precise meaning of the word which the New International Version translates account and which the older Authorised Version rendered generations. The word in question, twdol]wto, comes from a root meaning to bear or to beget. No doubt the translators of the NIV felt the word generations was too old-fashioned, but in this instance the word is more accurate than that which was chosen. What is involved is the descendants of the person named. Strictly speaking, then, the sentences in which this word occurs introduce descendants. The reference in Genesis 5:1 introduces the descendants of Adam. The reference in Genesis 6:9 introduces Noah and his descendants. The reference in Genesis 10:1 introduces the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth. So on through Genesis. Because of this literary device we could say that Genesis is divided into two parts. The first, very short, part runs from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. This is the account of Creation. The second, much longer, part runs from Genesis 2:4 to 50:26. It is the account of the generations, showing what came from each of the key personalities around whom the account of the race develops.

The bearing of this on the problem of whether or not there are two accounts of creation is that the sentence This is the account [generations] of the heavens and the earth when they were created settles the issue for us. The words are a superscription, as is apparent from the other similar references later on. Each time the reader is alerted by the formula twdol]wto hL,ae. The formula tells us that what follows is not a second account of creation, but rather it is the account of something that came from the creation of the heavens and the earth — namely man and woman. I find it intriguing that though the NIV uses the word account (likely in an attempt to be contemporary), the translators nevertheless chose to place the phrases or sentences in which the formula occurs at the beginning of the sections as a superscription rather than as a subscription.

I would be remiss if I failed to note that the repetition of an event of major proportions is not unknown in other biblical accounts. When Solomon built the Temple we are provided with two accounts. In 1 Kings 6 we have an account of the building of the Temple, concluding with the notation that The foundation of the temple of the LORD was laid in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv. In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it [1 Kings 6:37,38]. After an interlude in which we are told of the building of Solomon’s palace we are told again of the building of the Temple in greater detail in chapter seven. These two accounts are not contradictory, but rather complementary.

In similar fashion the two accounts of creation are not in conflict, but rather they complement one another. We would not have a full understanding of what God intended without the two accounts. The first account is chronological, giving an orderly unfolding of the events which make up creation. We see a systematic and purposeful unfolding of the mind of God as He prepares for the apex of creation – man. In the second account we see an emphasis on man in his relationship to God the Creator. We would not know of God’s love except of this second rendition emphasising His love for man.

Creation’s God — Again turn to Genesis 2 with me. There we discover that the emphasis is indeed on man and not on other aspects of the creation. Two lines of thought make this apparent. First, there is more detail about the creation of man (both male and female). Second, there is an emphasis on God’s special provision for the man and the woman. This is where references to the other aspects of creation come in.

The emphasis upon man and woman is apparent from the chronology of Genesis 1. Throughout the earlier chapter we saw a careful chronology, a succession of events in the order of their occurrence. Now the succession is ignored and a topical approach to the creation is adopted. Critical scholars must have difficulty reading, much less thinking, because they have concluded that Genesis 2 must be chronological, just as Genesis 1 is chronological. If they are correct, there are indeed two contradictory accounts.

If we should view Genesis 2 as presenting a strictly chronological sequence of events, we would have a strange account of origins. First we would have the creation of man, followed by the planting of a garden, in turn followed by God putting the man in the garden, and then God causing trees to grow in the garden. After this is a description of the rivers of the garden, after which man is again placed in the garden, and so forth. Even a cursory reading of this should inform a reader that there must be a problem with such an interpretation. What is important to the writer of this chapter is man. Chronology is not in view in this chapter, but man is the focus of the chapter. Everything else is introduced for its relationship to man.

Another way in which we can notice the emphasis in Genesis 2 is the further detail to man’s nature. God was interested in all creation and pronounced a benediction after each stage of its completion (God saw that it was good). However, the first chapter gives us nothing comparable to the picture of God bending down to form Adam from the dust of the earth and then gently placing His mouth to Adam’s mouth and blowing into him the breath of life. Critical scholars gravely err at this point, saying that this portrait is anthropomorphic, meaning that someone with very limited understanding of the grandeur and transcendence of God has imagined Him to be like man in having a human body. They prefer the distant, formless God of Genesis 1, but they are the losers for their rejection of God’s revelation of Himself.

How great is God’s care for His creation! Especially are we compelled to note God’s great concern for man whom He created in His image. God is not distant and remote; He is intimately concerned for the welfare of man whom He created. The description given us portrays God in His transcendence. Who are we to say that God did not actually form man from dust? Who of us can say with confidence that there was no preincarnate manifestation of the Second Person of the Godhead who literally breathed into the nostril of the man the breath of life? We will discover that in the days following the creation God actually walked with man and spoke with him face-to-face.

Each of these points — the ordering of events, the additional information regarding man’s nature and the special attention of God to His creation — reveal that we are not dealing with a mere second account of the creation but with man, the creation about whom and for whom the book is written.

Note also the emphasis of Genesis 2 on God’s special provision for the man and the woman. God specially prepared the garden in which Adam and Eve were to dwell. When this chapter speaks of the rivers, the trees and the animals, it is not speaking of these as successive stages of creation, as was the case in chapter one. Each of these aspects of creation is spoken of in the past tense as something God had already formed. It is not the water, plants and animals of the entire earth which are in view, but only those waters, plants and animals which God placed in the garden. These waters, these plants, and these animals were the ones which had bearing on Adam’s life in Eden. The point of this information is to teach us that these were made for man’s delight!

When I speak of delight I am taking special note of the garden which God provided the man. To those of us living in Canada, a lush, well-watered, land of abundant greenery, the existence of a garden is not remarkable. You must remember, however, that Genesis was originally written, not to people living in such lush climate as we enjoy here in Canada, but it was written to people living in a desert environment. For those people a garden would have been an exquisite delight. It would be virtually a symbol of heaven. To say that God prepared Adam a special garden complete with trees (not just shrubs) and with rivers (not mere brooks) was to say to a reader in those desert countries in the clearest possible terms that God loved Adam. To those first readers the very construction of this second chapter was evidence that Adam was recipient of rich bounty from the Lord God.

God also gave Adam special work to do; he was to name (or classify) the animals. This divinely appointed task should not be dismissed as readily as some are prone to do. We have all heard jokes about the naming of the animals, such as the story Mark Twain wrote about Adam coming home one night to a somewhat critical Eve. “What did you call that big animal out there?” she asks.

“I called it an elephant.”

“Why did you call it an elephant?”

“Because it looked like an elephant,” Adam answers testily.

If we think about the task assigned, it was no small job to name the animals. Presumably Adam named all other parts of creation as well, but we are certain from the text that he named the animals. To name something is in a sense to know that thing. If Adam was to name the animals wisely — which we must assume he certainly was called to do — then he had his work cut out for him. He was the first and greatest of all zoologists and botanists. He was charged with the task of surveying creation and dividing up every plant and animals by genus, species, subspecies, and variety.

Pastor Boice quotes John Gerstner to illustrate this issue. Professor Gerstner tells of a German ditty that Cornelius Van Til used to teach his students to explain the problem Adam would have had trying to name the animals Warum heisst der Loewe, Loewe? (Why is the lion called a lion?) Weil er durch den Walde lauft. (Because he runs through the forest.) The thought hinges on a pun between Loewe and lauft. You call him a Loewe because he lauft. That seems reasonable. But then the ditty continues. Warum heisst der Tiger, Tiger? (Why is the tiger called a tiger?) Donner wetter! Sie kannte ja nicht alle Loewe heissen. (You can’t call them all lions.) Classification is no mean problem. The most fundamental knowledge of the human species ultimately is in the dictionary. When we have a definition for anything, when we have really studied its nature to the point that we can say that it is this and not that, we have achieved knowledge.[3]

This is the nature of the work assigned to Adam. Though we tend to rebel against work, Adam embraced work as good and as divinely given. We regard work as undesirable, onerous, and a burden. Since the Fall work has acquired burdensome overtones (By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground [Genesis 3:19]). Nevertheless, even now work is good. It is good to work and it is good to have work to do. In Eden, it was another perfect element in God’s wise and gracious provision for Adam.

The third element in God’s provision for Adam was Eve, the point with which the chapter closes. Already we have been told that man was created male and female and that dominion over creation given to man was also give to the woman [cf. Genesis 1:28]. Now we are told how the creation of the woman came about. The two were not made in the same instant, though we might wrongly assume that from the first chapter. Instead, the man was made first and then the woman was made from the man. Man existed alone (whether a long time or a short time we are not told). God then said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him [Genesis 2:18].

Up to this point God has consistently said of His creation that it is good. Now for the first time He sees something which is not good: It is not good for man to be alone. In response to this observation God made woman from man and brought her to him as the greatest and most precious of His gifts.

The chapter concludes with man as the pinnacle of creation. Ensconced in a place of God’s choosing, the man and the woman are the apple of God’s eye. They exist in a special relationship to God, walking with Him and glorying in His love. Man has a place to live, has work to do, and has an ideal companion. All is well. There are forebodings, however. Chapter 2 is not only a development from chapter 1, it is a preparation for chapter 3 also. Everything in chapter 2 seems foreboding in view of chapter 3.

Man is formed from the dust of the ground and received God’s breath of life. However, he is soon to lose that life and return to the dust from which he came. Man is placed in the garden, a symbol of heaven, but he will soon be driven from that garden. The garden is lush with trees, but among those trees is one whose fruit is off limits to him. Eating of that fruit he will die, and he does eat. Most tragic, perhaps, is that fact that the one who was to be a companion in all things, helping even in spiritual matters as well as the running of the garden, would soon become a channel of temptation and thus instrumental in the Fall. He who was to be head and guardian would rebel, causing even the woman and all posterity to suffer the agony of sin and death.

The only bright spot is God, who never changes. He continues to love the man and the woman, providing for them even in their sin and depravity. Just so He continues to provide for us … life and peace through Christ the Second Adam. Our Lord did not fall, but He triumphed over death, hell and the grave and brought to all God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness to all His people [cf. Romans 5:17]. Amen.

----

[3] John Gerstner, cited in Boice, op. cit., pg. 94