2.1 Introduction

The second creation account Gen. 2, 4a – 25 is attributed to the source J “Jahvist”. attributed. 

Already linguistically it has a completely different character than the first  one. It shows more narrative joy than theological conceptuality. While in  the first one water is rather the threatening element that has to be held  back, here it is the longed-for wet that makes the arid earth fertile. Above  all: The first creation report shows the beauty of the earth in its godly  order of creation. The second now explains why the earth, above all  mankind, is as it is: fallen nature. It is designed as a narrative in contrast  to the first, which is more of a teaching. 

Not least from the fact of two different trees (tree of life – tree of  knowledge), some commentators conclude that there are two different  underlying narrative strands. However, both are brought together again in  2, 22. The role of the tree of life is strangely lost. 

2, 10 – 14 is clearly recognizable as an insertion. Here, too, scholars  argue about whether one must conclude from this that there is another  source. This is possible, but by no means compelling. More important  than this dispute is the indication that the beginning of the Bible is taken  up again by the seer John in the last chapter of the Bible (Rev. 22, 1f)  and surpassed in a magnificent way. The path of the entire chapters of the  Holy Scriptures thus leads us from the Garden of Paradise to the Heavenly Jerusalem. A splendid hike. But it inevitably leads us over Golgotha. There, unexpectedly, we find the real tree of life erected again. 

The use of Yahweh-Elohim throughout here is singular in the OT and  perhaps serves to link the two creation stories. 

Glorious “second naivete”: Yahweh as bride leader: 2, 22

In the joy of the איש over the אשה (pronunciation: isch – ischah. Luther: man – masculine) the positive evaluation of sexuality and eroticism in the OT  is expressed. 

The negative evaluation came into Christianity only through the heritage  of Greek-Roman antiquity. The creation of man in two sexes is a good  order of God and is not up for discussion (gender ideology). 

The “Epilogue to the Story of Paradise and the Fall” in the commentary  by vRad zSt is informative. Once as a summary of the literary-critical  problem. On the other hand, however, also as an overall interpretation:  “Only in a broken attitude does man face his life….. The manifold deep  disturbances in human life have their root in the one disturbance of the  human relationship to God. Put more succinctly, Gen. 3 asserts that all  suffering comes from sin” (p.73). 

In other words, the unvarnished and realistic world view of faith, which  has remained valid for thousands of years, is presented offensively to a  deeper understanding of the world and man than unbelief can ever have.  Thus also for this creation report what has already been said about the  first one applies: It is very unwise to let oneself be pinned down in the  defensive in the discussion with critics. Here no myth is told, but the  clear view and the truth of faith is offered, which for its part exposes the  myth of the self-importance of man as hubris and warns of its consequences. 

By the way, V.Rad sees in 2,24 the summary of the previous creation  account: the longing for the reunion of the separated. The sentence can  hardly come from the patriarchal oriental thinking, because there the  woman leaves her family. It can be interpreted most beautifully as a template  for Jesus (Mt. 19,5).