# Two Creation Accounts



## Ravens (Dec 16, 2006)

I wanted to run this by the board for feedback and/or correction:

Let me first say that I believe in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and do not believe that the two Genesis accounts came from two different pens, or that they are contradictory.

Usually people seem to take two different approaches in affirming the orthodox opinion, namely, demonstrating that there are no contradictions between the two "texts", and showing the absurdity of positing separate authors just because separate names were used.

I've been thinking about this for the last couple days, and wondered if we're (or probably just me... I'm not as up to speed on things as many on here) missing something in Scripture in an overreaction to the critical view. 

As in, if all of Scripture is inspired and planned out meticulously, is there a theological reason for the shift from Elohim to YHWH? I haven't fully arrived at an understanding of Exodus 6:3, but in my half-cooked ideas I've always thought of YHWH as, in some sense, a particularly covenantal name of God. 

So by using Elohim when talking about the creation of "everything", and switching to YHWH in the more personal account of God forming man from the dust of the earth, is Moses making the point (via the name-change) that God sustains a different or more special relationship to man than He does the rest of the creation?

And, if in some sense (and I probably need corrected on this point) YHWH is the covenant name of God, would the fact that YHWH is used in the creation account undergird the fact that God always relates to man via covenant, and possibly endorse the Covenant of Works? 

Or is that a stretch?

I'm not just wondering if its "compatible"... but if that's actually what Scripture is actually teaching.

P.S., and if all that is true, wouldn't it be helpful to point that out to various critical scholars, as in, showing a rationale for the change, instead of just saying, "Moses is free to use whatever words he wants"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 16, 2006)

For my part, that is how I would understand the variation in usage between Genesis' first and second episodes. In the second, the God who is creating/forming further defines himself in the context of a focused presentation related to man-as-responsible--defines himself as the covenant making, covenant keeping God.

Furthermore, we recognize that the creation narrative and subsequent episodes of Genesis are being presented in a particular format. Whatever extant materials Moses had to draw upon, and whatever guidance he received directly from the Holy Spirit, _this_ presentation was intended for the lasting possession of the Covenant People, which through inspiration and preservation of the Word would be the main source of spiritual life for the people of God in all generations. Therefore, we comprehend this passage in its literary context, historic event context, in the context of the original recipients, and in the context of the remainder of Scripture.

Having said that, I think that someone who does not hold to Covenant Theology a priori might refuse the "covenantally informed" interpretation of the text. In other words,, observationally the interpretation _itself_ does not *prove* the correctness of the interpretation. We may agree that Covenant Theology is the macro-paradigm that makes Scripture throughly coherent, across the ages and the Testaments. But especially the higher critics will deny the concept of "biblical theology" from the get-go.

Here's what they say: "What do you mean, one theology, a single God-concept across time? We subscribe to a history-of-religion, to primitive religious evolution. Biblical-theology is fundamentalistic wishful thinking!" So, pointing out to a critic that MOSES could have had (and certainly did have) a _theological_ reason for writing as he did will only make him shake his head, wondering why in the 21st century there are still people who hold to 1) Mosaic authorship, and 2) biblical authority generally.

The problem is not about good explanations. The problem is about having or not having genuine faith.


----------



## MW (Dec 17, 2006)

I think it is best not to regard Gen 1 and 2 as providing two creation accounts. Gen. 1:1-2:3 provides the creation account, viewing man as a significant part of the glorious work, but pointing beyond man to the glorious rest of the Creator. Gen. 2:4 introduces the "generations" (toledoth) of the heavens and of the earth, a word that is easily understood by its usual occurrence in Genesis in reference to what we would call history. In this history man is viewed as the centre of divine activity. This provides a rationale for the distinctive use of YHWH at this point.

There is no doubt that the distinct introduction of the name YHWH would invoke covenantal ideas in the minds of the Israelite community who initially read and received the Genesis narrative. Already chapter 1 would have reminded them of the tabernacle as the glorious dwelling place of God. Chapter 2 likewise would undoubtedly convey the significant idea of the promised land as a gift of their covenant Lord, and of the covenant community's responsibility to enjoy that land and its bounty in thankful submission to the commandments of God.

The question which arises is this: may the particular arrangements described in Genesis 2 be understood according to the later development of the covenant idea in relation to the nation of Israel? My own opinion is that great care should be taken to preserve the unique character of Genesis as a narrative written to provide the pre-history (toledoth) of the theocratic nation. It is legitimate to understand the covenant idea as resident in the narrative, but only if the idea is recognised as being "tacit" or "latent." Here we find the seed being sown, and we should recognise it as such, but we should not make the narrative say more than it does, or interpret its latent covenant overtones according to its later development.

It is appropriate to speak of a covenant made with Adam within the context of the fulness of history, and in order to show the purpose of God throughout the ages. In Gen. 2 itself we find a picture of man as earthy. The covenantal overtones of the narrative should be understood in this light. We are in the realm of type. The earthy garden and Adam's earthy life are a pattern of a heavenly reality. The picture is temporal, and must therefore fade in comparison to the greater eternal reality which it points to, namely, what we see realised in Rev. 21, 22.


----------

