Source critics spend their time in this passage with assigning authors and dates. I personally think there is a better way to spend my time here. For whatever reason God chose to give us two accounts of creation, he obviously wanted us to compare them. Even if you don't read them simultaneously, if you read them both at all, you cannot help but think of how they approach the same subjects in different ways. Isn't this the same experience you have when you read the accounts of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke? How much more so, when the two accounts aren't in separate books of the Bible, but right after each other in the same book!
So what are some of the differences that strike you here? Well, this may seem trivial — maybe not — but doesn't the author now reverse the sequence of "the heavens and the earth" (see Gen 1:1; 2:1, 4a) to "the earth and the heavens" (Gen 2:4b)? What does this say about the point of view of this second account? And where is all the focus on the "expanse" and the "waters above the expanse" that we saw in Gen 1? In fact, the focus is even a bit narrower than just excluding the heavens: it seems to exclude consideration of the sea as well. The focus here is on the dry land ("earth" in its narrowest sense) and specifically on "a garden in Eden" (v. 8 — for next time).
There are peculiarities to the description here that we did not see in Gen 1. For one thing, the narrator wants his reader to see how the condition of the earth prior to the creation (and subsequent fall) of humans was different from how it is in the "now" of the reader. Thus he uses the "not yet" (or "no ... was yet") phrase several times. Some commentators sense that, since it is this account that leads directly into the story of the Fall, the stage is being set for that event already. If so, then we have to restrict the apparent reference of some of the terms found here. "Shrub of the field" and "plant of the field" may refer to the thorns and thistles that are part of the curse on the earth resulting from the Fall. The sending of rain may allude either to the irregularity of water supply typical of human cultivation of plants, as opposed to the regular supply of streams rising from the earth to water the ground typical of a wild state of nature, or to the rains that brought the Universal Flood in Noah's time (a little less likely, I think). "No one to till the ground" is an obvious anticipation of the agricultural labor ("sweat of your brow") consequent upon the sin of Adam (Gen 3:17-19). And since in 2:7 it is Adam (not Eve) who is first created, the curse/consequences of sin upon Eve/women, namely pain in childbearing, do not figure in the description of the pre-Fall earth here.
All of this oblique anticipation of the appearance of humans and their eventual Fall leads to the actual statement of their creation. Whereas in the earlier account the creation of the two sexes was viewed as one act, here the creation of the first man precedes that of the first woman. It is important here that we avoid two errors that are so frequently made in current biblical study. First, as faithful servants of God we should not allow ourselves to be condescending or critical toward the Word of God as we have it. We should not criticize it for having a degrading view of women. Throughout Scripture it is clear that God values both sexes equally, but has different roles in mind for each. We will see this repeatedly in Gen 2-3, beginning with God's design for Eve/woman as "a helper designed for him", who ironically helps him to disobey God, an obvious perversion of God's intent for her. Secondly — and here I must tread lightly — neither should we twist the wording (and the intent) of biblical passages to make them conform to our concepts of gender equality today. Scripture exists in order to guide and correct us, not the other way around. If the Bible always simply echoed contemporary values, there would be no need to read it. And indeed that is the (consequent) behavior of most people today: they either don't read it, or only do so rarely in order to use it to support some contemporary social cause. This is a misuse of Scripture.
Now, how does the description of the creation of Adam in Gen 2:7 differ from that of the creation of humans in Gen 1:26-27? First of all, let us clear the ground by noting a distinction it does not make: just because in 2:7 only man (Adam) and not woman (Eve) is created, this does not mean that the description there focuses on male distinctives. But the following differences of emphasis are valid: (1) in 1:26-27 the text emphasizes how humans are like God (i.e., are in His "image"), whereas this emphasis is totally lacking in 2:7; (2) 1:26-27 focuses on the role of unfallen humans as God's vice-regents, ruling the fish, the birds and the earth animals, a role which Hebrews 2:6-8 reminds us was not fulfilled by fallen humans but is fulfilled by Christ; and (3) 2:7 stresses the dual affinities of humans even after the Fall — a material affinity to the physical elements of the earth (soil, dust) and a spiritual affinity to their Creator because of the bestowal of life in the form of the "breath" of God. We see, then, a much stronger emphasis in 2:7 on humans in their fallen (i.e., post-Edenic) state — another anticipation and preparation for the story of the Fall that is to come.
But, if all this is a bit depressing to the reader as opposed to reading 1:26-27, let us not miss the fact that there is a much greater intimacy in the relationship between the Creator and his human creation here: instead of the exalted but somewhat more detached creation of humans by the verbal decree in 1:26-27, here God is portrayed as the Potter working the clay with his hands to craft an object much more graphically identified with his own manual skill. The potter image recurs in the prophets (Isa 29:16; 45:9; 64:8) and finally in St. Paul (Rom 9:21) to refer to God' the Creator's right to control his creatures. I find much comfort from this image of God. Yes, we are a fallen race, but we spring from the very loving "hands" of God.
We sing:
Have thine own way, Lord! Have thine own way!
Thou art the Potter, I am the clay.
Mold me and make me after thy will,
while I am waiting yielded and still.
(A. A. Pollard, 1902).
No comments:
Post a Comment