Editors note: This article was originally published in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, vol. 11 (2006): 63–133. It is posted here with kind permission of the journal.

This article is the second of a two-part critique of the framework interpretation of the creation account.^1,2 In essence, the framework interpretation argues that the creation “week” itself is a figure, a literary framework, designed to present God’s creative work in a topical, nonsequential manner, as opposed to a literal week comprised of sequential, literal days. As noted in the previous article, the framework interpretation is supported by four theses: the figurative nature of the creation account, the creation account controlled by ordinary providence, the unending nature of the seventh day, and the two-register cosmology. In the first article, I specifically demonstrated that the first thesis of the framework view, which argues for a topical arrangement of the “days” of the creation “week,” cannot be consistently supported with the overall exegetical details of Genesis 1:1–2:3. And it ultimately undermines the literary nature of the creation account as a genuine historical narrative serving as a prologue for the remainder of the historical narrative in Genesis. My purpose with this concluding article is to evaluate the remaining three theses of the framework interpretation.

The creation account controlled by ordinary providence

According to some advocates of the framework position, Genesis 2:5 assumes that God used ordinary providence (God’s non-miraculous operations in sustaining and directing all of creation)³ to govern the creation events recorded in Genesis 1. The chief advocate of this position is Meredith G. Kline.⁴ Not only is his interpretation based on this assumption about Genesis 2:5, but also an appeal to the analogy of Scripture.⁵

In addressing how these framework advocates interpret Genesis 2:5–7, two items need to be summarized: the “because it had not rained” interpretation of Genesis 2:5,⁶ and how it relates to Genesis 2:5–7 in the context of Genesis 1–2. As the first article noted, the “because it had not rained” argument in Genesis 2:5 says that God used ordinary providence, rather than extraordinary providence (God’s miraculous intervention in the created order),⁷ for the creation period recorded in Genesis 1.⁸ According to Meredith G. Kline, the underlying assumption of this verse is that “divine providence was operating during the creation period through processes which any reader would recognize as normal in the natural world of his day.”⁹ This means that there was “a principle of continuity between the mode of providence during and after the creation period.”¹⁰ Since a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 requires God’s use of extraordinary providence in the creation week, the literal interpretation is in conflict with the “because it had not rained” argument. If this argument is correct, “Genesis 2:5 forbids the conclusion that the order of narration [in Genesis 1] is exclusively chronological.”¹¹

When the “because it had not rained” interpretation of Genesis 2:5 is integrated with vv. 6–7, this provides, according to Mark D. Futato, a further justification for interpreting vv. 8–25 as a topical account, rather than a chronological one¹² as the 21 uses of waw consecutive in Genesis 2:4–25 seem to suggest. It is further argued that this non-chronological interpretation of these verses provides an implication for reading Genesis 1:1–2:3 as a non-chronological account. ¹³ While I only alluded to this interpretation of Genesis 2:5–7 in the first part of this series,¹⁴ Futato’s understanding of vv. 5–7 requires more explanation since this interpretation of vv. 4–25 buttresses the thesis that the creation account of 1:1–2:3 was ruled by ordinary providence.

Predicated upon Kline’s interpretation of Genesis 2:5,¹⁵ Futato has argued that Genesis 2:4–25 “is a highly structured topical account with a two-fold focus on vegetation and humanity.”¹⁶ He has drawn this conclusion by examining the internal evidence within this passage and external evidence by comparing 1:1–2:3 with 2:4–25. In presenting the internal evidence, he describes this Hebrew style of writing as an example of a “synoptic/resumption-expansion” technique.¹⁷ Following this writing technique, the narrative flow in this passage indicates that v. 5a presents a dual problem of having neither wild vegetation nor cultivated grain and v. 5b a twofold reason for the problem: rain is required for wild vegetation to grow and a cultivator, man, is necessary to develop cultivated grain. Verses 6–7 provide a solution for both problems: the inception of rain ??? in v. 6 and the creation of man in v. 7.¹⁸ Verses 5–7 provide the setting for vv. 8– 25. Verse 8 provides a synopsis of this setting. In v. 8a, God planted a garden; and, in v. 8b, he placed the recently created man of v. 7 in the garden. Verses 9–25 resume and expand on v. 8 with vv. 9–14 focusing on vegetation—the garden (v. 8a)—and vv. 15–25 on the placement of man in the garden (v. 8b).¹⁹ While avoiding any substantive discussion of the sequential force of the 21 waw consecutives in Genesis 2:4–25,²⁰ Futato’s “synoptic/resumption-expansion” approach argues that the internal evidence in vv. 4–25 suggests that it is a topical account about plants and man.

From the perspective of external considerations, this topical understanding of Genesis 2:4–25 is additionally supported by demonstrating that a sequential interpretation of it cannot be harmonized with the same literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3. For example, in Genesis 1:24–27, animals are created before men, but in Genesis 2:7–19, man is created before the animals. On the surface, the two accounts appear contradictory. How do framework advocates harmonize them? While the prima facie reading of Genesis 2:4–25 appears to be chronological, a supposedly more precise reading, when compared to Genesis 1:1–2:3, indicates Genesis 2:4–25 cannot be chronological. “The author,” as Futato states, “is guided at this point by concerns that are not chronological.”²¹ Consequently, internal considerations within 2:4–25 and external comparisons exhibited by comparing this narrative with 1:1–2:3 argue for a topical reading of 2:4–25, rather than a literal, sequential reading.²² By demonstrating that the narrative of 2:8–25 flows out of vv. 5–7, and successively suggesting that vv. 4–25 is a topical account, Futato bolsters Kline’s thesis that Genesis 2:5 assumes that ordinary providence governed the creation period.

Since I have described a framework interpretation of the assumption of Genesis 2:5 and its interpretation of vv. 5–7, we need to next examine how the analogy of Scripture reputedly supports the premise that Genesis 1:1–2:3 was controlled by ordinary providence. If the creation period was controlled by normal providence, as framework advocates claim Genesis 2:5 implies, this contradicts a literal interpretation of 1:1–2:3 that necessarily appeals to the divine use of extraordinary providence. For example, on Day 3, Genesis 1:9–13, the waters under the heavens are gathered into one place and named “seas,” dry ground appears from the seas and is called “earth,” and flourishing vegetation is formed out of the earth. However, an earth instantaneously formed out of the sea does not dry up in simply a few hours by normal providential means. Only an extraordinary providence could dry up the earth in this short period. But framework interpreters object that an appeal to extraordinary providence, as a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3 demands, contradicts the underlying assumption of Genesis 2:5 and undermines the analogy of Scripture. ²³ “The analogy of Scripture,” according to Irons and Kline, “as applied in the context, forces the Bible-believing interpreter to abandon a literalist reading of the creation narrative.”²⁴

Our summarization of this premise suggests a number of questions. Since some significant advocates of the framework position focus on Genesis 2:5, how is this verse to be interpreted, and how does it relate to the surrounding verses? In addition, is Genesis 2:4–25 set up as a topical account of creation? Or, do the many uses of waw consecutive²⁵ suggest that the mainline narrative sequence in Genesis 2:4–25 is a chronological account? Furthermore, do the statements in Genesis 2:5 about the lack of rain and man provide a physical reason why the entire earth had no vegetation? To state this question differently, is the specified vegetation in Genesis 2:5 the same as that mentioned in Genesis 1:11–12? In other words, does Genesis 2:5 look back to Genesis 1:11–12? Or, does it anticipate the creation of the Garden of Eden? Finally, does Genesis 2:5 assume that God worked exclusively through ordinary providence in the creation period of Genesis 1:1–2:3?

We must now address these questions to determine whether or not Genesis 2:5 assumes that normal providence was the modus operandi in controlling the creation period. In the following section, Genesis 2:5 will be discussed in relationship to the immediate context of vv. 4–7. This will be followed by a discussion of how v. 5 relates to the surrounding context of 2:4–25 and finally by the wider context of Scripture.

The immediate context of Genesis 2:5

A significant argument used by some framework advocates is that Genesis 2:5 presupposes that God worked through natural processes in the creation period which, in turn, demands a nonliteral interpretation of the days of the creation week; however, the context of Genesis 2:4–7 works against their argument:

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when²⁶ the LORD God made earth and heaven. ⁵Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. ⁶But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. ⁷Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

In reading Genesis 2:4–7, the framework’s presupposition that v. 5 assumes God worked exclusively through natural processes in the creation period is not clearly implied from v. 5. In order to evaluate this presupposition, we, nevertheless, will examine the textual details of vv. 4–7 to determine if it is a possible inference from v. 5. These four verses may be divided into two subdivisions: v. 4 and vv. 5–7.²⁷ In this section, I will argue that v. 4 serves as a heading and vv. 5–6 provide background information for the mainline narrative sequence that begins with the use of the first waw consecutive in v. 7, “the LORD God formed,” ????????? ?????? ????????. Initially, we must look at the significance of the heading in v. 4.

The heading in Genesis 2:4

Many framework proponents, who understand Genesis 2:5 like Kline, acknowledge that v. 4 is a heading that introduces new material. ²⁸ While agreeing with Kline’s interpretation of v. 5,²⁹ framework defender Henri Blocher maintains that v. 4 introduces a second account of creation.³⁰ With either framework interpretation of v. 4, their understanding of Genesis 2:5 does not integrate well with the significance of the heading in v. 4.

The use of Tôl^edôt in Genesis

To understand the significance of Genesis 2:4 as a heading, we need to examine the introductory use of tôl^edôt, ?????????, in this verse as well as its other uses in Genesis. The feminine plural substantive ????????? is derived from the Hiphil stem of the verb ?????:, to “beget,” “cause to bring forth.”³¹ Since ????????? is a cognate of the verb ?????, it refers to “those things which are begotten.”³² It has been assigned glosses such as “generation,” “account,”³³ “descendants,” “successors.” ³⁴ This substantive has reference “to that which is born or produced” ³⁵ and, in the context of Genesis, “developments that arise out of” something else.³⁶ In each heading found in Genesis, ????????? is part of a construct-genitive relationship, with ????????? being a construct substantive followed by a specified genitive. For example, in Genesis 6:9, ??????, ?????????, “this is the account³⁷ of Noah,” the construct, “account of,” refers to what developed from the genitive, “Noah.” While the genitive in 6:9, “Noah,” connects the narrative of 6:9–9:29 with the preceding narrative in 5:1–6:8, the point of the heading in 6:9 is to introduce a new account dealing with key events that developed in Noah’s life, such as the universal flood and Noah’s role as a second Adam with a renewed creation after the flood. In short, the genitive Noah indicates where the narrative started and ????????? indicates what happened to Noah.³⁸

In the various headings in Genesis, the construct substantive ????????? is generally followed by a proper name that functions as a genitive. The construct noun “account of” is followed by a proper name in Genesis 11:10, “the account of Shem.” A similar phrase is Genesis 10:1, “account of Noah’s sons.” What is distinctive about Genesis 2:4 is that the genitive phrase does not contain a personal name. The construct noun, “account of,” is followed by a genitive phrase, “the heavens and the earth,” which is further qualified by a temporal qualifier, “when they were created.” Furthermore, the second half of v. 4, “when the LORD God made earth and heaven,” is chiastically connected to the first half.³⁹ This suggests that the entirety of v. 4 should be taken as a heading for vv. 5–25. Thus, the extended genitive phrase, “the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made earth and heaven,” initiates this narrative and ????????? reflects what developed the recently created heavens and earth.

The substantive ????????? is most often used in Genesis in the catchphrase “this is the account of [?????????] ....”⁴⁰ When ????????? is used in this phrase, many commentators recognize that the ????????? formula is a rhetorical device that serves as a heading to introduce a new segment of narrative in Genesis.⁴¹ In this regard, this formula functions as an organizing principle that divides Genesis into various narrative segments. Though there is a basic unity of function for this formula, its use allows for a little diversity. This diversity is reflected in that the ????????? rubric often serves as a heading for a genealogy, and at other times it introduces a narrative cycle. For instance, this formula introduces an extended genealogy (Gen 5:1, 10:1, 11:10, 25:12, 36:9), and it initiates a narrative cycle with a brief genealogy (Gen 6:9, 11:27, 25:19). And twice it begins a cycle of narratives associated with a person referenced in the heading (Gen 36:1, 37:2).⁴² When ????????? appears in this type of heading, the sense of “account,” rather than “generations,” harmonizes readily with its range of uses as a stereotypical rubric that organizes the narrative cycles in Genesis. Taking ????????? in the more general sense of “account” allows for it to introduce an account that develops key events, often including genealogical records, associated with the person and, on one occasion, the objects that are specified in the heading.

Tôl^edôt as a heading and link

Because Genesis 2:4 is the only heading that does not have a personal name associated with it, this is one of the issues that has allowed for some ambiguity with the interpretation of ????????? in Genesis. This type of ambiguity has provided an occasion for some interpreters to take v. 4 as a subscript, a colophon for 1:1–2:3.⁴³ However, as we have noted, the semantics of ????????? work against taking this formula as a colophon. Furthermore, another significant problem for taking the ????????? formula as a colophon in 2:4 is that it is consistently used throughout Genesis as a heading (Gen 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 27, 25:12, 19, 36:1, 9, 37:2). With the exception of Genesis 1:1–2:3, each new narrative subdivision is introduced by the ????????? formula. ⁴⁴ Genesis 5:1, for example, uses the ????????? heading “This is the book of the account of [?????????] Adam.” The construct ?????????, “account of,” refers to those who were reproduced, the descendants, from the genitive “Adam.” In the narrative of 5:1–6:8, 5:1a is a heading with vv. 1b–2 providing a few specifics about the creation of Adam and Eve, 5:3-6:5 develops the narrative line which includes an extended genealogy, and 6:6–8 concludes the narrative with a statement of God’s grief over fallen humanity, the descendants of Adam, with Noah as an exception who “found favor in the eyes of the LORD.” The starting point of the narrative was “the account of Adam” in 5:1. This account draws a historical line of Adam’s descendants to a conclusion in 6:6–8. Thus, the ????????? phrase gives a starting point for a new narrative unit and the remainder of the narrative develops what has been summarized with ?????????.⁴⁵

Not only does the ????????? heading introduce a new narrative cycle, but it also looks back to the previous section. Returning to the example in Genesis 5:1, the genitive, “Adam,” provides linkage with 4:25–26 and the construct, “account of,” anticipates new narrative material about the descendants of Adam and what became of the world in which they lived. As already noted, “Noah” in 6:9 looks back to 6:6– 8 with “account of” advancing the narrative about what happened to him. In this regard, the ????????? heading provides a link with the previous material and introduces the next sequence of narrative material. ⁴⁶ As such, this heading, as Mathews observes, “serves as a linking device that ties together the former and the following units by echoing from the preceding material a person’s name or literary motif and at the same time anticipating the focal subject of the next.”⁴⁷ The ????????? heading is used 11 times in Genesis and it divides the book into 12 sections. The only place that this heading is not found is Genesis 1:1–2:3, and its omission is for good reason: there is no created substance prior to it.⁴⁸ Therefore, the ????????? formula is consistently used in Genesis as something of a hinge that points to an aspect from the preceding section but advances the focus to the subsequent material. As this relates to the heading in Genesis 2:4, the genitive phrase, “the heavens and the earth ...,” provides a link with the previous material in 1:1–2:3, and the construct, “account of,” introduces the development of the subsequent history of Adam and his family.⁴⁹ Since Adam had no human predecessors, this introductory ????????? heading does not have a personal name.

The significance of tôl^edôt in Genesis 2:4

Our discussion of the ????????? heading has a twofold significance for understanding Genesis 2:4 and how it connects 2:4–25 with 1:1– 2:3. First, while v. 4 looks back to 1:1–2:3, its main purpose is to shift attention to the creation of man and his placement in the garden. ⁵⁰ It does not introduce a second account of creation.⁵¹ Two items communicate this shift. Initially, it may be seen in the chiastic arrangement of v. 4:

This is the account of

A—the heavens

B—and the earth

C—when they were created
C¹—when the LORD God made

B¹—earth

A¹—and heaven.

The chiastic arrangement of the two parts of this verse is readily apparent: A—“the heavens,” B–“and the earth,” C–“when they were created” is reversed to C¹–“when the LORD God made,” B¹—“earth,” A¹–“and heaven.” Since this intentional chiasm prohibits this verse from being bifurcated,⁵² it indicates that the entirety of v. 4 should be regarded as a heading that introduces the account that begins in v. 5.⁵³ Moreover, this chiasm significantly reverses the generally recognized Old Testament pattern of “the heavens and earth” to “earth and heaven.” This reversal only occurs in one other place, Psalm 148:13, an apparent allusion to Genesis 2:4.⁵⁴ By reversing the normal order of heaven and earth, attention is shifted to focus “on what happened on the earth after the creation of man, particularly in the garden.”⁵⁵

In addition, this shift in focus is reflected by the use of divine names. The compound use of divine names ?????? ????????, “the LORD God,” is found for the first time in Genesis 2:4. This compound is used 20 times in Genesis 2:4–3:23, and only one other time in the Pentateuch, Exodus 9:30. Prior to Genesis 2:4, the divine appellative ????????, “God,” is found 35 times in Genesis 1:1–2:3. This appellative stresses God’s sovereign might and is appropriate to portray his role as Creator of the universe in 1:1–2:3. The divine name ??????, “the LORD,” is God’s personal name and is often associated with his covenant- keeping ability. The use of ?????? is apropos in a context like Genesis 2–3 since the emphasis is no longer universal but on Adam’s responsibility in the garden. The conjoining of the two divine names in Genesis 2–3 stresses that the sovereign God who created the universe is also the LORD who is a personal God and holds man accountable to his moral rule. The conjoining of the two names communicates the concept that “the transcendent God of Genesis 1 is the same as the immanent God of Genesis 2–3.”⁵⁶ Consequently, these two shifts in emphasis in Genesis 2:4 indicate that Genesis 2:4– 25 is not a second account of creation, as advocated by framework proponent Henri Blocher.⁵⁷

Second, Genesis 2:4 links 2:4–25 with 1:1–2:3. The language of 2:4 looks back to the creation account. “The heavens and the earth” (??????????? ?????????) had been used in 1:1 and 2:1. “Created” (??????) had been used 4 times in 1:1, 21, 27, 2:3, and “made” (??????) 10 times in 1:7, 11, 12, 16, 25, 26, 31, 2:2 (twice), 3. Yet, the use of the ????????? heading to initiate v. 4 suggests that additional information was intended to expand on what had been set forth in 1:1–2:3. In contrast with the framework position, 2:4–25 expands on the sixth day of the creation week when God made man, as the first of 21 uses of waw consecutive in Genesis 2:4–25 implies in v. 7 (“[Then the LORD God] formed”), and, as the chiastic arrangement of v. 4 suggests, focus is directed to what developed from earth. From the context of 2:4–25, the focus on earth is to emphasize that man was placed in a paradisiacal environment, the Garden of Eden. Of course, some framework advocates agree with this observation.⁵⁸ At this point, the path of those who follow a traditional interpretation and Kline’s framework view depart. Someone following the traditional interpretation would not use this information to suggest that Genesis 2:4–25 was set up to undermine or contradict the sequential narrative of Genesis 1:1–2:3.⁵⁹ For example, framework advocate Mark Ross briefly acknowledges the point that Genesis 2 is set up to develop the subsequent history of “the heavens and the earth after they were created.” ⁶⁰ He then attempts to demonstrate how a chronological reading of 2:4–25 cannot be harmonized with a similar reading of 1:1–2:3.⁶¹ Furthermore, if 2:4–25 neither undermines nor contradicts a chronological interpretation of 1:1–2:3, this implies that the use of Genesis 2:5 as a hermeneutical grid to reinterpret 1:1–2:3 is not as certain as these framework advocates assert.⁶² A more consistent way to interpret Genesis 2:4–25, including the framework’s key text, v. 5, is as an account that complements 1:1–2:3.⁶³ In contrast with the framework position, we will develop how Genesis 2:4–25 relates to 1:1–2:3 and how 2:5–7 correlates with a literal, sequential interpretation of 2:4– 25.

The structure of Genesis 2:5–7

Having examined the heading in Genesis 2:4, we must now examine vv. 5–7. Interpreters have seen a number of difficulties in Genesis 2:5–7.⁶⁴ While the purpose of this paper does not allow for an examination of all the difficulties in these verses, it is necessary to treat the structure of Genesis 2:5–7 as it relates to the interpretation of v. 5

Genesis 2:5–6 contains six clauses with four of them being circumstantial clauses, with one in v. 5 being an explicit causal clause,⁶⁵ and with a final one in v. 6 a clause introduced by waw consecutive plus a perfective verb form.⁶⁶ The circumstantial clauses are readily identified since each is introduced by a simple conjunctive waw attached to a non-verbal form.⁶⁷ To illustrate the circumstantial use of waw, I have inserted waw in brackets in the following arrangement:

⁵Now [waw] no shrub of the field was yet in the earth,
and [waw] no plant of the field had yet sprouted,

for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth,

and [waw] there was no man to cultivate the ground.
⁶But [waw] a mist used to rise from the earth,

and water the whole surface of the ground.

Not all commentators view the four circumstantial clauses as being equally coordinate. The specific issue relates to the last clause in v. 5, “and [waw] there was no man to cultivate the ground.” Is this last clause outside of the preceding causal clause and coordinate with the other three circumstantial clauses, as our preceding textual arrangement reflects? Or, is this clause coordinate with the previous causal clause, “for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth”?⁶⁸ If it were part of the previous clause, the text would look like this:

⁵Now [waw] no shrub of the field was yet in the earth,
and [waw] no plant of the field had yet sprouted,

for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth,
and [waw] there was no man to cultivate the ground.

⁶But [waw] a mist used to rise from the earth,

and water the whole surface of the ground.

As this last arrangement sets forth, it is possible, from a syntactical perspective, that the fourth clause (“and [waw] there was no man to cultivate the ground”) is coordinate with the causal third clause. This is to say, the waw conjunction that begins the fourth clause extends the causal sense from the third clause. Because the waw conjunction at the head of the fourth clause implies a close syntactic relationship with the preceding causal clause, my preference is to take the fourth clause as coordinate with the causal third clause. This would indicate that the last two clauses provide two reasons for the vegetation deficiencies specified in the first half of v. 5: no rain and no man. Verses 6–7, then, explain how the two shortages were corrected: God provided a water supply (v. 6) and created man (v. 7), who becomes the focus of the narrative sequence in vv. 7–25. God’s taking care of both deficiencies indicates that he had not finished his week of creation. Nevertheless, I recognize that commentators are divided about the clausal arrangement and that a reasonable case may be marshaled to support either view.⁶⁹

What appears to have more clarity is that whichever view a commentator follows about the arrangement of the clauses in v. 5, most maintain that vv. 5–6 provide a setting for v. 7. For example, Westermann has stated it like this: “The structure of this first part is quite clear and easy to explain: vv. 4b–6 comprise the antecedent, v. 7 is the main statement.”⁷⁰ Hamilton provides another example and explains vv. 4b–7 as having a protasis followed by an apodosis: “Verses 4b–7 are one long sentence in Hebrew, containing a protasis (v. 4b), a series of circumstantial clauses (vv. 5–6), and an apodosis.”⁷¹ While both explanations about the relationship between vv. 4–7 are nuanced differently, each has the formation of man in v. 7 as the primary proposition. To state this another way, the six clauses of vv. 5–6, which, in contrast to the 21 waw consecutives initiated in v. 7, are grammatically nonsequential and provide certain conditions associated with occurrence of the action in the main clause of v. 7 (“Then the LORD God formed man of the dust from the ground”).⁷² This main clause contains a waw consecutive (?????????, “formed”) that initiates the mainline narrative sequence followed by a series of waw consecutives in vv. 7–9.⁷³ If, for the moment, we harmonize both views about the clausal arrangement in vv. 5–6, vv. 5–7a could be viewed in this manner:

⁵Now [waw] no shrub of the field was yet in the earth,
and [waw] no plant of the field had yet sprouted,
for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth,
and [waw] there was no man to cultivate the ground.
⁶But [waw] a mist used to rise from the earth,
and water the whole surface of the ground.

⁷Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,

While the formation of man from dust of the ground in v. 7 undoubtedly provides a semantic link with vv. 5–6, the waw consecutive at the head of the Hebrew text in v. 7 (?????????, “formed”) initiates the mainline narrative thread that is sequentially followed by 5 waw consecutives in vv. 7b–9. The paragraph in vv. 10–14 interrupts the string of waw consecutives with a series of circumstantial clauses that explain the resplendent nature of the eastern area of Eden where God had planted the garden and placed man in v. 8. This paragraph, focusing on the four rivers that flowed from Eden, is anticipatory of the next waw consecutive in v. 15⁷⁴ that resumes the narrative sequence with a series of 15 waw consecutives in vv. 15–25. As I noted in the first part of this series, the waw consecutive is an unambiguous grammatical device that generally affixes to past time narration an element of progression.⁷⁵ While I recognize that 4 of the 21 waw consecutives in these 22 verses are not sequential, I will argue in a subsequent section that the mainline narrative is advanced by 17 sequential uses of waw consecutive. Assuming for the moment that the waw consecutives in 2:4–25 are employed consistently with their general Old Testament uses as advancing the narrative sequence, this should raise some questions about Futato’s “synoptic/resumption-expansion” approach to Genesis 2:4–25.⁷⁶ As previously noted, Futato says that Genesis 2:5–7 provides the setting for vv. 8–25, with v. 8 serving as a synopsis from the setting and vv. 9–25 providing a resumption and expansion of the synopsis.⁷⁷

However, this approach minimizes the sequential nature of the 6 waw consecutives in vv. 7–9. If the 3 waw consecutives in v. 7 are made part of the background information in vv. 5–6,⁷⁸ why not also include the following 3 waw consecutives in vv. 8–9 as part of the background information? In keeping with the general use of waw consecutives in narrative literature, the 3 waw consecutives in vv. 8–9 are preferably taken sequentially. The first waw consecutive in v. 8a (“[the LORD God] planted [a garden],” ?????????) presents the fourth sequence after the formation of Adam: God planted a garden. With the fifth waw consecutive in v. 8b, the next sequence is introduced: God placed the man in the garden (“[there] He placed [the man],” ?????????). The waw consecutive at the head of v. 9 initiates the sixth sequence: God caused the trees in Eden to grow (“[Out of the ground the LORD God] caused to grow [every tree],” ??????????). While I must concede that not all waw consecutives are sequential⁷⁹ and, therefore, that it is possible that the first waw consecutive in v. 8 is an example of a pluperfect— an action that is anterior to the mainline narrative sequence— also referred to as a past perfect or a flashback, as the NIV apparently reflects (“had planted”), there is no clear contextual evidence to support the pluperfect rendering.⁸⁰ With Futato’s discussion of the two parts for his synopsis in v. 8 (with each part introduced by a waw consecutive), he did not provide any examples of other waw consecutives that would parallel the 6 waw consecutives found in vv. 7–9.⁸¹ This is to say, vv. 7–9 have an uninterrupted sequence of clauses introduced by waw consecutive, with no other waw clauses that break up this chain of waw consecutives. Are there other examples of a tight sequence of waw consecutives like Genesis 2:7–9, which do not have explicit contextual evidence to reflect a disruption, where the sequence is interrupted by a “synoptic” use of waw consecutive?⁸² In the final analysis, it would seem that the “synoptic/resumption-expansion” approach creates an unwarranted discontinuity with the uses of the waw consecutives in vv. 7–9.⁸³ Consequently, it is preferable to take vv. 5–6 as providing background information for the development of the narrative sequence initiated with the first waw consecutive in v. 7. Nevertheless, my objective is not complete because it is not the structural arrangement of Genesis 2:5–7 that is the key component for Kline’s framework position, but the interpretation of Genesis 2:5. How then is this verse to be understood?

The interpretation of Genesis 2:5

Since I have established that Genesis 2:5–6 provide the setting for the series of 6 waw consecutives initiated in v. 7, we must now look at the contextual setting of v. 5 and how this affects the interpretation of v. 5.

In placing Genesis 2:5 in its contextual setting, three items should be highlighted. Initially, 2:4–25 is tightly connected to 3:1– 24. This close linkage is reflected by the use of the divine compound “the LORD God.” As previously noted, “the LORD God” is found 20 times in these two chapters, with only one other appearance in the Pentateuch, Exodus 9:30. Since the divine compound appears neither in the pericope before 2:4–25, 1:1–2:3, nor in the one after 3:1–24, 4:1–26, its 11 uses in 2:4–25 and 9 in 3:1–24 reveal a close connection between these two chapters. The common subjects in Genesis 2:4–25 and 3:1–24 and the same geographical matrix further indicate this tight relationship between both pericopes. For example, the LORD God, Adam and Eve are used in both sections. There is also a common spatial setting, the Garden of Eden. These items reflect that both chapters are closely connected. However, this linkage is not so tight that both chapters should be considered one pericope. While the key participants and the geography remain the same in 2:4–25 and 3:1–24, the introduction of the serpent at 3:1 reflects a turning point in the narrative.⁸⁴ As such, 2:4–25 and 3:1–24 are more closely related to each other, though distinct, than they are to 1:1–2:3.

Additionally, the contextual setting is reflected by the sequential movement of Genesis 2:4–25 and 3:1–24. Waw consecutive appears 21 times in 2:4–25 and 34 times in 3:1–24. The use of this grammatical device represents a sequential movement in these two chapters, ⁸⁵ just as we noted in the previous article about the 55 waw consecutives advancing the sequential movement in 1:1–2:3.⁸⁶ Not only, as just noted, is there a tight thematic connection between 2:4– 25 and 3:1–24, the use of waw consecutive indicates that 3:1–24 advances historically from 2:4–25. This is to say, the sequence of events advanced by waw consecutive in 2:4–25 provides a foundation for the next sequence of events advanced by waw consecutive in 3:1– 24. As a result, if the contextual setting of Genesis 2:5 is 2:4–3:24, the focus of 2:5 is not intended to provide a hermeneutical grid to reinterpret the clear chronological advancement of 1:1–2:3 as a non-chronological, topical account, but to focus on the formation and fall of man and woman in their paradisiacal environment in Eden.

Finally, the contextual setting of Genesis 2:5 is Day 6 of the creation week. Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a cosmogony that summarizes the events of the creation week. On Day 6 (Gen 1:26–28), this cosmogony includes a brief outline of the creation of man and woman in the image of God. In the context of 1:26–28, no hint is given that the woman was subsequently taken from the rib of Adam, to mention just one omission. This type of detail is reserved for the expansion of details for Day 6 in Genesis 2:4–25.⁸⁷ Moses’ style of writing initially gives an overview of the creation week in 1:1–2:3. Drawing from selective items in the overview, Moses expands on these items in 2:4– 25.⁸⁸ What is clearly set forth in this latter context is a focus on the formation of each of God’s image bearers and their marital union in the Garden of Eden. This focus is unmistakably observed when the narrative thread of 2:4–25 is initiated with the first waw consecutive in v. 7 that presents the creation of man, “then the LORD God formed man” (????????? ?????? ???????? ???-???????). The final four waw consecutives in this chapter (vv. 22 [twice], 23, 25) describe the formation of woman as a complement for the man along with the formation of their marital union. Since the creation of man and woman is described in 1:26–28 as taking place on Day 6 and the narrative sequence of 2:7– 25 gives an expanded view of the same creative activities, the emphasis of the narrative thread in 2:7–25 is an expansion of Day 6 with a focus on the divine image bearers in their pristine environment. As noted earlier, the superscription in Genesis 2:4 introduces the narrative unit of 2:5–25, with the six nonsequential clauses of vv. 5–6 providing the setting for the narrative sequence started in v. 7.⁸⁹ Therefore, Genesis 2:4–25 describes in greater detail key events that happened on Day 6, but had not been included in the summarized description of the creation of man and woman in 1:26–28. As such, the connection of Genesis 2:5 with Day 6, as well as the previous two items discussed, indicates that the contextual setting for v. 5 is Day 6.

In looking at the immediate interpretation of Genesis 2:5, some framework advocates maintain that Genesis 2:5 prohibits a literal reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3. If, according to their argument, God used extraordinary providence to uphold creation during the creation period, as a literal interpretation of 1:1–2:3 requires, it is contradictory for God to give an explanation that is generally associated with normal providence, the lack of rain, as a reason for not creating vegetation. ⁹⁰ As noted earlier, this is the “because it had not rained” argument. ⁹¹ This title is derived from Kline’s original 1958 article.⁹² With his explanation of Genesis 2:5, Kline contends, “The Creator did not originate plant life on earth before he had prepared an environment in which he might preserve it without by-passing secondary means and without having recourse to extraordinary means such as marvelous methods of fertilization. The unargued presupposition of Gen. 2:5 is clearly that the divine providence was operating during the creation period through processes which any reader would recognize as normal in the natural world of his day.”⁹³ This “un-argued presupposition” is the sine qua non of Kline’s framework position.⁹⁴ Is this presupposition demanded by v. 5? In evaluating this, a closer examination of this verse is in order.

Interpretative difficulties associated with Genesis 2:5–6 are legion. As far as this paper is concerned, the difficulties relate to the connection between the vegetation in v. 5⁹⁵ and the cosmogony in 1:1–2:3. Interpreters maintain that 2:5 either conflicts or harmonizes with a sequential interpretation of the creation account.

Interpreters who identify a conflict between Genesis 2:5 and 1:1– 2:3 either see a contradiction between the P and J sources⁹⁶ or harmonize this conflict by reinterpreting the sequentially arranged days of 1:1–2:3 in light of their understanding of 2:5. According to Kline’s framework position, v. 5 teaches that God did not create vegetation before he established normal providence to sustain plant life. God’s establishment of normal providence to sustain the flora took place before his creation of man during the creation period of 1:1–31.⁹⁷ As reflected in this paper, this latter option is the approach of some framework defenders.

As noted above, v. 5 has four clauses with the first two functioning as circumstantial clauses and the last two as causal clauses. To again review v. 5, I prefer to arrange the clauses of v. 5 like this:

⁵Now [waw] no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and [waw] no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and [waw] there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Initially, if Genesis 2:5 means that the entire earth had no vegetation because the earth lacked rain, the syntax of the last clause, as the preceding arrangement sets forth, indicates that the lack of man provides a second reason for this global floral deficiency. To interpret the first two clauses as a reference to a universal vegetation deficiency implies that God created rain and man before vegetation. However, even some framework interpreters reject the creation of man before vegetation. And this rejection is because, according to Kline, it conflicts with “natural revelation.”⁹⁸ To relate the vegetation of 2:5 to the entire earth, framework supporters must somehow marginalize the last clause of v. 5 to fit their interpretative scheme. In the final analysis, a normal reading of this text does not support a marginalization of the last clause of v. 5.

In addition, a contextual understanding of the clausal arrangement in v. 5 indicates that there is no need to marginalize the last clause. The first two circumstantial clauses state that, at the time of man’s creation (v. 7) on Day 6, the shrubs of the field were not yet in the earth and the plants of the field had not yet sprouted. The last two causal clauses explain that God’s work in creation, as it related to the specified vegetation in this verse, was incomplete in two areas: a water source for irrigation and a man for cultivation. A problem for framework interpreters who follow Kline’s approach to Genesis 2:5 is that there is, in reality, only one reason for the flora deficiencies in v. 5a: no rain. As such, this approach marginalizes the last clause of v. 5 to a parenthetical remark.⁹⁹ The syntactical constraints of v. 5 suggest that the last clause of v. 5 could either be coordinate with the other three circumstantial clauses in vv. 5–6 or coordinate with the preceding third, causal clause in v. 5. Neither view, however, suggests that there is a conflict between v. 5 and the creation account, as some framework proponents maintain.¹⁰⁰ To interpret the statement about the lack of man to a parenthesis is syntactically tenuous. Furthermore, if the last clause in v. 5 about the lack of man, who would be formed out of dust in a specific location, is coordinate with the preceding causal clause, as the waw conjunctive implies, this indicates that the vegetation mentioned in v. 5 is used with a restrictive rather than a universal sense.¹⁰¹ Thus, it is questionable to interpret Genesis 2:5 as conflicting with the creation account.

In contrast to this problematic understanding, other interpreters maintain that Genesis 2:5 is compatible with a sequential view of the creation account. This interpretation of v. 5 provides background information for the events of Day 6 described in vv. 7–25. Since one of the events focuses on the placement of man in the Garden of Eden, the vegetation of v. 5 is used restrictively. Those who follow a restrictive reading of v. 5 have followed a day-age interpretation of 1:1–2:3,¹⁰² analogical day interpretation,¹⁰³ or historic literal day view.¹⁰⁴ What distinguishes the historic literal day view from the other two is that events of 2:7–25 are understood as having occurred on a literal sixth day that is a part of a sequence of literal days that are chronologically arranged in a literal week. Though a restrictive view of 2:5 is not the exclusive domain of the historic literal day view, this understanding correlates well with it. In keeping with this interpretation of the specified vegetation in v. 5, a contextual case will be made that this verse relates to a specific geographical matrix, Eden, and the creation of man to dwell in this location.

As previously noted, the contextual setting of Genesis 2:5 is Day 6 of the creation week with the formation of humanity and their placement in Eden. This suggests a specific location, rather than a general reference to the entire globe. The purpose of the tôl^edôt heading in v. 4 is to depict what developed from “earth and heaven”: the creation of man and woman and their life in the Garden of Eden both before and after sin. The NASB translates the two uses of ????? in v. 5 as “earth.” This term has a broad semantic range. It can relate to the entire earth, as opposed to the heavens. This is how ????? is used in Genesis 1:1–2, 2:1 and in the heading of 2:4. In 1:10–31, ????? refers to dry land as opposed to the sea. Most translations render the three uses of ????? in 2:5–6 as “earth”; however, the ESV renders each of these as “land.” Since this context focuses on the creation of man and his placement in Eden, ????? is preferably taken as “land,” with the ESV. In the context of 2:4–25, the heading in v. 4 uses ????? twice as a reference to the entire globe. The vocabulary of v. 4 suggests that the writer linked his new narrative material with the creation account of 1:1–2:3. While drawing from the creation account in v. 4, Moses’ objective is to develop what happened to the pristine habitat of Eden both before both before and after Adam’s sin.¹⁰⁵

Two other geographical terms are also used in v. 5: ??????? (“field”) and ??????? (“ground”). “Field,” ??????? can refer to open fields where wild animals (Gen 2:19–20, 3:1, 14) and plants (Gen 2:5, 3:18) reside. It can also refer to cultivated fields (Gen 4:8).¹⁰⁶ Man is taken from the dust of ???????, “ground,” (Gen 2:7) and will return to it at death (Gen 3:19). Because of Adam’s sin, ??????? is cursed and man will eat, in his toil, from it (Gen 3:17). Thorns and thistles grow from the cursed “ground” (Gen 3:18). In Genesis 2:5, these three geographical terms overlap in use, as they describe the location where Adam would rule. Thus, the purpose of this tôl^edôt section is to depict mankind both in his glorious residence in and disgraceful expulsion from Eden.

Genesis 2:5 is best understood in light of Genesis 3:8–24.¹⁰⁷ The language used in v. 5 anticipates that Adam’s sin would relate to the specific vegetation found in Eden. Adam was to joyfully cultivate the vegetation in Eden (Gen 2:15). However, after Adam fails his probation, he is driven in judgment from Eden with the result that he would cultivate the cursed ground from the context of his own depraved nature until the day his body would return to dust (Gen 3:23). In the context of Genesis 2–3, Eden is the epicenter from where Adam and the created order would be cursed. If the language of 2:5 anticipates the Fall, the “shrub [??????] of the field” and the “plant [??????] of the field” are preferably interpreted as two categories of vegetation in Eden that, according to the remainder of the verse, need a water supply and farmer. “Plant,” ?????? occurs more often in the Old Testament than “shrub,” ??????. “Plant,” ??????, found 33 times in the Old Testament, generally refers to “plants” used as food for both people and animals.¹⁰⁸ Besides its use in Genesis 2:5, the identical phrase, “plant ?????? of the field,” is used in 3:18. In this latter context, man’s diet, after the Fall, is taken from the “plants ?????? of the field” and is further specified as “bread” in v. 19. Similar wording in each verse reflects the connection between “plants” and “bread”: “you will eat plants ?????? of the field” (v. 18) and “you will eat bread [?????]” (v. 19). This suggests that “plants ?????? of the field” are those grains that require man’s cultivation to produce bread.¹⁰⁹ Since ?????? is also used in 1:11–12, 29–30, as a reference to God’s creation of “plants” over the entire land mass of earth, some have connected the “plants of the field” in 2:5 with the universal creation of plants in Genesis 1.¹¹⁰ However, this connection is unlikely for three reasons. Initially, since the context of Genesis 2:5 focuses on humanity and their placement in Eden, the “plants of the field” refer to a restrictive category that was indigenous to Eden. Additionally, the “plants ?????? yielding seed” in 1:11–12 reproduced by their own seed, while the “plants of the field” in 2:5 require man for cultivation. Finally, God gave the “plants yielding seed” in 1:11–12, 29–30 to be used as food for man and for every animal of the earth; however, after the Fall, man eats the “plants of the field” in 3:18 as a result of a divinely imposed intensification of man’s labor.¹¹¹

“Shrub,” ??????, is only used four times in the Old Testament (Gen 2:5, 21:15, Job 30:4, 7).¹¹² In Genesis 21:15, Hagar left Ishmael under one of the “shrubs.” This was a desert shrub large enough to provide some protection for her son. Since “plant of the field” in Genesis 2:5 is used again in 3:18, it is also likely that the “thorns and thistles” in v. 18 help to define “shrub” in 2:5. The result of God’s curse on the ground are the “thorns and thistles” of 3:18. Apparently, the “shrub,” ??????, created before the Fall, became, at least in part, “thorns and thistles” with the curse.¹¹³

Therefore, rather than taking the vegetation of Genesis 2:5 as a global reference, the vegetation of v. 5 has a restrictive use that anticipates its precise identification as Eden in v. 8. Mathews summarizes this contextual understanding: “Thus 2:5–6 does not speak to the creation of the overall vegetation but to specific sorts of herbage in the world to follow. The language of cultivation, ‘work the ground’ (2:5), anticipates the labor of Adam, first positively as the caretaker of Eden (2:15) but also negatively in 3:23, which describes the expulsion of the man and woman from the garden. God prepared a land for the man, but in telling of his creation and the land in which he is placed, the text anticipates the land will suffer from the effects of Adam’s sin.”¹¹⁴

With this evaluation of the immediate context of Genesis 2:5, we have examined the tôl^edôt heading in Genesis 2:4 and the literary context of 2:5–7. In treating the heading in v. 4, it was shown that, between the chiastic arrangement of this verse and the use of divine names, this heading does not introduce a second account of creation. It was further proven that, while establishing a link with 1:1–2:3, the heading in v. 4 shifts the focus toward man’s formation and his placement in the garden. As a result, Genesis 2:4–25 is preferably taken as a complement to the creation account in 1:1–2:3, rather than providing a conflict with it. In reference to the literary context of 2:5– 7, the structure of vv. 5–7 as it related to the interpretation of v. 5 was presented. With the structure of vv. 5–7, vv. 5–6 provide background information for the narrative sequence that is initiated in v. 7 with the first waw consecutive and continued with a series of waw consecutives. With this interpretation of v. 5, its contextual setting on Day 6 of the creation week focuses on the creation of human beings and their placement in an ideal environment. The reference to geography in v. 5 refers to the setting in Eden where God chose to place the couple that he created in his image. The vegetation has reference to the plants and shrubs Adam would cultivate in the Garden. How does Genesis 2:5 in its immediate context relate to the surrounding context of vv. 4–25?

The surrounding context of Genesis 2:4–25

Genesis 2:5 is part of a series of six nonsequential clauses in vv. 5–6 that provide circumstances associated with the formation of man in v. 7: “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” This creative activity in v. 7 is summarized by a series of 3 waw consecutive verbs (“formed [?????????],” “breathed” [ ?????????], “became” [??????? ]). In the Hebrew text, each of the three waw consecutives advances a narrative sequence. The waw consecutive is a significant component of Hebrew historical narrative in that it generally adds to past time narration an element of sequence.¹¹⁵ Waw consecutives, according to Pratico and Van Pelt, “are used primarily in narrative sequence to denote consecutive actions, that is, actions occurring in sequence.”¹¹⁶ While this grammatical device has uses other than a strict sequential verb form, it nevertheless has a primary function of representing sequential movement. By minimizing the sequential force of the waw consecutives in Genesis 2:4–25, this seemingly supports the argument of some framework advocates that this pericope is a topical account. Though a few waw consecutives in this passage are not strictly sequential, the majority of them are used sequentially and they establish a sequence of activities that took place on Day 6 of the creation week.

While the waw consecutive is unmistakably identifiable in a Hebrew text, the same is not true in an English version. As was noted in the first part of this series about Genesis 1:1–2:3,¹¹⁷ the waw consecutives provide the basic framework that advances the narrative sequence, though the sequential use is not its only use. While waw consecutive has different uses in Genesis 2:4–25, the sequential use of 17 of the 21 waw consecutives is the backbone of this narrative section. To communicate this, I have taken the liberty of adapting the NASB’s translation of the 21 waw consecutives. Though the semantic distinction between some of my italicized conjunctions is arbitrary, my purpose with supplying the italicized conjunction is simply to denote a distinction in uses of waw consecutive. These waw consecutives are used in four ways: 17 are sequential (81%), 2 are resumptive (9%), 1 is a pluperfect (5%), and 1 a consequential use (5%). In the chart on pages 91–92, I have supplied an italicized “then” with the 17 examples of sequentially arranged waw consecutives (listed in the chart as Sequential WC), an italicized and for the 2 resumptive uses (abbreviated Resump WC), an italicized “now” for the lone pluperfect (abbreviated as Pluper WC), and an italicized “thus” for the final example of a consequential use (abbreviated Conseq WC).

Verse	Sequential WC	Resump WC	Pluper WC	Conseq WC
7	then the LORD God formed man then breathed then man became
8	then the LORD God planted a garden then there he placed
9	then the LORD God caused to grow
15		and the LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden
16	then the LORD God commanded
18	then the LORD God said
19			now the LORD God had formed
20	then brought them then the man gave names
21	then the LORD God caused a deep sleep then he slept then he took one of of his ribs then he closed up the flesh
22	then the LORD God fashioned then he brought her
23	then the man said
25				thus the man and his wife were both naked

General observations about waw consecutive

To explicate the narrative development in Genesis 24–25, some general observations about the various uses of waw consecutive are appropriate. First, the mainline narrative begins in v. 7a, is continued by a tight sequence of 5 waw consecutives in vv. 7b–9, briefly interrupted by five verses, vv. 10–14, that presents background information setting up the resumption of this text in v. 15 with 2 waw consecutives, and subsequently advanced to completion with 13 waw consecutives in vv. 16–25. Second, since the mainline narrative sequence begins in v. 7, this suggests that vv. 4–6, as we have noted, is an informing background for v. 7 with its inception of the narrative unit that continues through v. 25. Third, the mainline sequence of events in this passage is advanced by 17 sequential uses of waw consecutive. The 17 uses of waw consecutive (81%) show that this passage is a historical narrative that is incrementally moved along. Fourth, the two waw consecutives in v. 15 have a resumptive function. While the two waw consecutives in this verse form a sequence with the event represented by the fifth waw consecutive in v. 8 (“placed,” ?????????), they do not form a strict sequence with the sixth waw consecutive in v. 9 (“caused to grow,” ??????????). Fifth, the final waw consecutive in v. 25 (“Thus [the man and his wife] were,” ??????????) brings this unit to a conclusion. ¹¹⁸ The preceding waw consecutive in v. 23a (“then [the man] said,” ?????????) communicates Adam’s delighted response to the formation of the woman from his “rib.” As opposed to the animals that Adam had just assigned names, the woman was of the same substance as he; she was a genuine complement for him.¹¹⁹ The storyline has advanced to v. 23 with the twentieth example of a waw consecutive; however, the editorial interruption in v. 24 applies the creation ordinance of marriage to Adam and Eve’s posterity. As an outgrowth of the whole narrative, especially vv. 23a– 24, the account is completed with the final waw consecutive in v. 25. A waw consecutive that concludes a storyline, as v. 25 does for vv. 4– 24, provides an example of its consequential use.¹²⁰ Sixth, while the 2 resumptive uses of waw consecutive in v. 15 and the 1 use of a pluperfect in v. 19 (14%) may seemingly create a problem for my interpretation of the creation account, they are readily harmonized with the sequential material. Since the reputed difficulty with the waw consecutive revolves around these 3 uses of waw consecutive, these need more explanation.

Resumptive uses of waw consecutive in Genesis 2:15

Most commentators recognize that the two waw consecutives in Genesis 2:15 resume the narrative thread of v. 8.¹²¹ However, the issue for framework advocates who follow Kline is not exclusively tied to the issue of resumption. Rather the issue is related to demonstrating that these waw consecutives are nonsequential and that they, therefore, imply that other waw consecutives should be taken topically rather than sequentially.¹²² Both waw consecutives in v. 15, according to Irons and Kline, are examples of temporal recapitulation.¹²³ Drawing from v. 15 and a few other examples, they conclude, “Thus, temporal recapitulation for the purpose of topical arrangement appears to be a key structural device in Genesis.”¹²⁴ Though waw consecutive may at times reflect temporal recapitulation, Irons and Kline’s conclusion is overstated and undermines the sequential substance of the waw consecutive.

Since the context of Genesis 2 clearly indicates that v. 15 resumes the narrative thread of v. 8, both sequential verbs reflect some level of temporal recapitulation. Nevertheless, this recapitulation is restricted by its context. What Irons and Kline do not point out is that both waw consecutives are bound to a context that is advanced by a series of 17 waw consecutives used sequentially. This is to say, the actual sequential chain to which the two waw consecutives in v. 15 belong controls the recapitulation. The narrative line in this pericope begins with the first waw consecutive in v. 7 and is advanced by a tight chain of 5 other waw consecutives in vv. 7b–9. After the three waw consecutives describing the creation of man in v. 7, the next three waw consecutives in vv. 8–9 picture God’s planting a garden in Eden, placing man in the garden, and adorning this garden with various kinds of beautiful trees that had nutritious fruit, as well as including, in the middle of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The sequence of waw consecutives is broken by a waw disjunctive in v. 10 (“now [waw] a river”) and this disjunction is continued through v. 14. Since none of the verbs in vv. 10–14 are waw consecutives, the sequential chain is temporarily set aside. This digression from the narrative sequence in vv. 10–14 is a series of verses summarizing the resplendent nature of the garden where God had placed the man. While vv. 10–14 may seem out of place since it does not advance the sequential chain, its intention is to describe the glories of the garden environment in which God had placed man and where man would subsequently fail his probationary test in Genesis 3. After this brief excursus about the splendor of the Garden of Eden, two waw consecutives in v. 15 resume the narrative chain by repeating, as well as expanding on, the waw consecutive in v. 8 (“[there he] placed,” ?????????). Consequently, it is preferable to take these two verbs as examples of resumptive repetition.

Genesis 2:15 provides a good context to describe the literary technique of resumptive repetition. In this regard, we should note that both verbs in v. 15 (“took” [?????????] and “put” [?????????????]) have some semantic overlap with the second waw consecutive in v. 8 (“placed” [?????????]).¹²⁵ The semantic overlap in the vocabulary reflects some form of repetition. Because the two verbs in v. 15 pick up the sequence from v. 8, this is a resumption of the sequential line. Resumptive repetition takes place with a waw consecutive when, after a significant event is initially represented by a waw consecutive and the narrative line is temporarily diverted, a subsequent waw consecutive that semantically overlaps with the initial waw consecutive continues the sequential line.¹²⁶ With the use of resumptive repetition, this does not require that the verbs involved with the resumption are strictly synonymous. In Genesis 2:15, the Hiphil form of “put,” adds the nuance of bringing rest to someone.¹²⁷ Adam was securely placed in the garden to tend it with divine blessing. While there is some semantic overlap between the verbs in v. 8 and v. 15, the Hiphil waw consecutive of j"Wn, while resuming the narrative thread, additionally implies that “God prepares the garden for man’s safety, where he can enjoy the divine presence.”¹²⁸ Thus, while the waw consecutives in v. 15 resume the narrative sequence, they also add to the sequence that man with divine security was placed in the garden. This also indicates that both verbs in v. 15 are sequential in that they resume the situation presented by the waw consecutive in v. 8.¹²⁹ By using resumptive repetition, Moses shows how the sequence of v. 15 relates to the overall sequential chain in this account. In addition, the use of resumptive repetition in this context also shows how the digression of vv. 10–14 is skillfully related to the immediate context.¹³⁰

Though the description of the waw consecutives in v. 15 as examples of resumptive repetition indicates that they do not reflect a strict chronology, this does not mean that chronological constraints have been abandoned by the narrative sequence.¹³¹ Since the two sequential verbs in v. 15 are part of a chain of 17 other waw consecutives, these other sequential verbs advance the chronological and sequential substance of this account. The use of the waw consecutives in 2:7–25 are part of a larger Old Testament scheme that uses this sequential framework to present Israel’s historiography. Therefore, both waw consecutives in v. 15 sequentially resume the narrative line. In addition, though the waw consecutives in v. 15 are not sequential, the 17 sequential waw consecutives in 2:7–25 establish the chronological advancement of this passage. In the final analysis, the two resumptive waw consecutives are a non-issue since they practically function like the 17 sequential waw consecutives.

Pluperfect use of waw consecutive in Genesis 2:19

The third waw consecutive used to support a topical interpretation of Genesis 2:4–25 is found in the first part of v. 19 (“[the LORD God] formed,” ?????????). If the narrative line is followed in many English translations, Genesis 2:19a is part of a chronological sequence. The sequential development in vv. 18–19 is exhibited in the NASB:

Then the LORD God said [waw consecutive], ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’ ¹⁹Out of the ground the LORD God formed [waw consecutive] every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought [waw consecutive] them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

I have placed in brackets the waw consecutive after the appropriate three verbs in vv. 18–19. We should observe that the initial waw consecutive in v. 19 is translated as a past tense, just like the other two waw consecutives in v. 18 and v. 19b. The past tense rendering of ?????????, “formed,” is also followed in the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NRSV, NLT, and NET BIBLE. If the translation of the NASB and other versions is correct, this reflects a narrative sequence in these two verses that looks like this:

1. The LORD God said it is not good for man to be alone.
2. The LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky from the dust of the ground.
3. The LORD God brought every beast of the field and every bird of the sky to man so that man could name them.

Before the sequence in vv. 18–19, the narrative sequence was initiated by the creation of man, v. 7, then the formation of the Garden of Eden, vv. 8–9. Following the sequence in vv. 18–19, woman was formed from man, v. 22. According to the apparent sequence in Genesis 2, the beasts and birds were formed after the creation of man in v. 7 but before the formation of woman in v. 22. This sequence may conflict with the creation account. On Day 5 God created birds (Gen 1:21–22). On Day 6, God initially created wild animals, livestock, and creeping things (vv. 24–25), and he finally created man and woman (vv. 26–28). If ????????? is rendered as a past tense, “formed,” the sequence in Genesis 2:4–25 seemingly contradicts the arrangement in 1:1–2:3. Two solutions to this reputed contradiction will be examined.

First, some framework advocates claim that a topical interpretation of Genesis 2:4–25 resolves this contradiction. This position states that man was created before beasts and birds if ????????? is used as waw consecutives normally function to show chronological sequence.¹³² However, since the formation of man before beasts and birds conflicts with a chronological reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3 that has birds and beasts created before man, the past tense translation of ????????? indicates that the account should be read topically rather than chronologically. According to Kline’s framework position, a chronological reading of the sequential verb in 2:19, as well as the two waw consecutives in v. 15, is inconsistent with a literal sequence in 1:1–2:3.¹³³ As such, the account in Genesis 2:4–25 has examples of sequential verbs that indicate a temporal recapitulation.¹³⁴

While framework interpreters use the sequential verb in Genesis 2:19, as well as the two verbs in v. 15, as examples of temporal recapitulation, this does not prove that all the waw consecutives in 2:4– 25 are not chronological. It indicates that three of 21 uses of waw consecutive reflect some level of temporal recapitulation. Nevertheless, it does not demonstrate that all of the other18 waw consecutives reflect temporal recapitulation.¹³⁵ Furthermore, to have 2:4–25 function as a dischronologized account, some framework supporters assume that 2:4–25 and 1:1–2:3 are in conflict with each other. And, the discontinuity that 1:1–2:3 has with 2:4–25 is predicated on the “unargued presupposition” that 2:5 assumes God worked exclusively through normal providence in the creation period. This was Kline’s thesis in his 1958 article. This “unargued presupposition” of v. 5 became the basis to deny a literal, chronological interpretation of 1:1–2:3 and to support a figurative interpretation of this passage.¹³⁶ Another development from this “unargued presupposition” of v. 5 was that 2:4–25 also had no chronological significance but was better interpreted as a topical account.¹³⁷ However, if the assumption of v. 5 is questionable, as has been previously noted, should not this give some pause about the validity of assuming that 1:1–2:3 has a discontinuity with 2:4– 25? By the nature of the content of 2:4 and the events described in vv. 7–25 being coordinate with Day 6 of the creation week, as addressed earlier in this paper, 1:1–2:3 has a basic continuity with 2:4– 25.¹³⁸ As such, is there not a better interpretation of the sequential verb in 2:19 that harmonizes both pericopes?

Second, if the first sequential verb in Genesis 2:19a is a pluperfect, a chronological reading of 2:4–25 is preserved as well as the account maintaining a continuity with 1:1–2:3.¹³⁹ This view says that ?????????, in the midst of a chain of sequential waw consecutives, may be translated as a past perfect, “has formed,” reflecting a temporal activity that preceded the mainline sequence in 2:4–25.¹⁴⁰ While the NASB, like other English versions, translates v. 19a with a past tense: “Out of the ground the LORD God fformed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky” (emphasis added), the NIV translates v. 19a with a pluperfect: “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emphasis added). In this context, the NIV best preserves the continuity of 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25.

From the perspective of some framework supporters, the waw consecutive as a pluperfect is not a clear syntactic option in Genesis 2:19. A pluperfect sense could have been communicated by other grammatical constructions. As a result, the author of Genesis intended to convey something other than a chronological sequence.¹⁴¹ However, what is overlooked by this reasoning is that pluperfect may be used within a sequence of waw consecutive verbs. Though waw consecutive is generally used to advance a narrative timeline one incremental stride after another,¹⁴² a waw consecutive may be used to denote an action prior to an immediate narrative sequence. Waltke and O’Connor provide a few examples where the waw consecutive corresponds to the pluperfect (Exod 4:11–12, Num 1:47–49, 1 Kgs 13:12).¹⁴³ Another example is found in Genesis 12:1. According to the sequential verbs in 11:31, Abram had left Ur of the Chaldeans with his father Terah, set out for Canaan, and had settled in Haran. However, the waw consecutive that initiates 12:1 does not incrementally advance the timeline, but provides a flashback when the LORD had spoken to Abram about initially leaving his father’s country in Mesopotamia before moving to Haran (Gen 15:7, Acts 7:2). The mainline sequence is further interrupted by a series of clauses, vv. 1b–3, that contains God’s promises to Abram with the narrative sequence being resumed in v. 4. In keeping with this pluperfect use, the NIV translates v.1a: “The LORD had said to Abram ...” (emphasis added). Pipa provides another example from Exodus 10:24–11:8. This narrative sequence is advanced by a series of waw consecutives. However, in 11:1, Moses uses a waw consecutive to introduce an interruption in the narrative sequence that serves as a flashback to “introduce a revelation previously given to Moses.”¹⁴⁴ Although Moses had other syntactic options to convey a pluperfect, his syntactic preference, with these examples, was to use a waw consecutive for this anterior action.

Like the two waw consecutives in Genesis 2:15, ????????? in v. 19 is an example of temporal recapitulation. Both verses reflect two different types of temporal recapitulation. The sequential verbs in v. 15 are restricted by the immediate narrative sequence in vv. 4–25. Because of the immediate narrative, we have noted that both verbs are examples of resumptive repetition. However, the temporal recapitulation in v. 19 transcends the immediate pericope of 2:4–25 and looks back to the previous pericope in 1:1–2:3. Because ????????? in 2:19 transcends the immediate episode as it looks back to the preceding one, it is better to view this as an example of a pluperfect.¹⁴⁵ Various criteria are used to indicate that a waw consecutive is used as pluperfect, such as a sequential verb starting a new pericope or paragraph.¹⁴⁶ The context of Genesis 1–2 reflects another criteria for determining if a verb is used as a past perfect. This technique is what Collins calls the “logic of the referent.”¹⁴⁷ With this technique, the literary context establishes that the event represented by a waw consecutive verb occurred before the situation represented by a prior verb.¹⁴⁸

In the context of Genesis 2:4–25, we have seen how the tôl^edôt heading was arranged as a chiasm. More specifically, the actual words used in this chiasm (“heavens,” “earth,” “created,” “made”) inextricably link 2:4–25 with 1:1–2:3.¹⁴⁹ The mainline narrative sequence was advanced in Genesis 1:1–2:3 by the use of 55 waw consecutives to give an overview of the first literal week in the realm of the created. Genesis 2:4–7 interrupt the mainline narrative as a way of briefly reversing the sequence of events so that more details may be given about the key events that occurred on Day 6. While using vocabulary in the chiasm of v. 4 to link the second account with the first, the tôledôt heading in v. 4 shifts the narrative focus to describe what developed from the “earth” and “heaven.” More precisely, this purposeful shift in focus to Day 6 begins with the creation of the man from dust, continues to the formation of his wife from his own body, and finally concludes with a statement about their marital union. The heading in v. 4 is followed by a series of six nonsequential clauses, vv. 5–6, providing circumstances associated with the formation of man in v. 7. While the overview of the creation week in 1:1–2:3 was sequentially advanced by 46 of 55 waw consecutives,¹⁵⁰ moving from the first day through the seventh, the pericope of 2:4–25 backs up to Day 6 and resumes the narrative sequence with the first waw consecutive in v. 7 (“Then the LORD God formed [waw consecutive] man of dust from the ground”). The initial sequential verb in v. 7 starts a sequence of 21 waw consecutives that advance the mainline narrative of Day 6. While 4 of the 21 waw consecutives in this pericope are not chronological, the actual chronological sequence started in v. 7 is advanced by 17 sequential uses of waw consecutives. While we do not want to gloss over the 4 waw consecutives that are not chronological, we should not ignore that these 4 nonsequential waw consecutives, with good syntactical justification, are tethered to a context of 17 sequential waw consecutives that advance the mainline narrative. The precise use of the nonsequential waw consecutive in v. 19a is defined by the logic of the referent. In this context, the logic of the referent for the event summarized by ????????? in v. 19 is the literary environment of the previous pericope, especially Days 5–6, 1:20–31.¹⁵¹ Since Moses intended 1:1– 2:3 and 2:4–25 to be read as complementary accounts, this suggests that ????????? in 2:19 is preferably translated as a pluperfect, “had formed.” The pluperfect translation of ????????? is consistent with a traditional reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3 as an overview of each day in the creation week and 2:4–25 as an expansion of the sixth day of the creation week.¹⁵²

In closing this discussion of the waw consecutives in 2:4–25, the 3 waw consecutives in vv. 15 and 19 reflecting temporal recapitulation do not provide a justification for reinterpreting the overall narrative sequence as a dischronologized account. Should the 3 exceptional uses of waw consecutive (14%) define the nature of the narrative sequence? Or, should not the 17 normal uses (81%) define the mainline narrative? Since the waw consecutives in vv. 15 and 19 are connected to 17 other waw consecutives that demonstrate a normal sequential use of waw consecutive, Genesis 2:4–25 should be taken as a chronological account that has 3 examples of temporal recapitulation. What defines this pericope is the mainline sequence of 17 sequential waw consecutives. In the final analysis, this certainly does not sound like a use of 21 waw consecutives that are dischronologized.

The wider context of Scripture

As initially noted in this paper, the reputed “unargued presupposition” of Genesis 2:5 is that God exclusively operated in the creation period through ordinary providence. Kline has stated his position like this: “Embedded in Gen. 2:5 ff. is the principle that the modus operandi of the divine providence was the same during the creation period as that of ordinary providence at the present time.”¹⁵³ Kline’s point is that the literal historic day interpretation of Genesis that the literal historic day interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3, by presupposing that God “employed other than the ordinary secondary means in executing his works of providence,” contradicts this embedded principle in 2:5.¹⁵⁴ When this thesis that questions the use of extraordinary providence in Genesis 1:1–2:3 by Kline and some framework advocates¹⁵⁵ is examined, it is found to be in conflict with the account of creation, the overall tenor of Scripture with regard to miracles, and the correct use of the analogy of Scripture.

Defending extraordinary providence from Genesis 1:1–2:3

The creation week provides no evidence that God worked exclusively in this week through ordinary providence; and, in fact, the evidence is to the contrary. While the reference to the Spirit of God moving over the water surrounding the unformed and empty earth in Genesis 1:2 has some difficulties,¹⁵⁶ it clearly pictures divine protection and care of the earth at the beginning of the creation week.¹⁵⁷ The Spirit of God, like an eagle protectively and vigilantly hovering over its young (Deut 32:11), supernaturally preserved the earth.¹⁵⁸ In addition, if there is any supernatural intervention, extraordinary providence, this calls into question this thesis of the framework. For example, God directly intervened in 2:7 when he “formed man out of the dust from the ground,” “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” and “man became a living being.” In addition, Young noted that the only works described on Day 3 are not works of ordinary providence, but that of extraordinary providence. “Indeed, on no viewpoint can it be established that ordinary providential working prevailed on the third day. The only works assigned to this day were the result of special, divine, creative fiats. If ordinary providence existed during the third day, it was interrupted at two points by divine fiats.”¹⁵⁹ Because the creation week reflects that God intervened by fiat and by supernaturally preserving his creation, the framework’s thesis cannot be consistently used to deny the literal, sequential interpretation of the creation week

We have observed that Kline maintains that the providence of the creation period was the same as it is today. However, this assessment cannot be correct. Only if God created everything in a nanosecond could this assessment possibly be true. Furthermore, since Kline allows for the creation era to be punctuated with supernatural acts of creation,¹⁶⁰ he allows for some extraordinary providence in this period. However, his point is that normal providence was the characteristic of the creation period and this certainly implies that this period has an era-perspective.¹⁶¹ A closer reading of the creation account in Genesis 1:1–2:3 reveals that it is more accurate to say that the creation week is governed by extraordinary providence while, concomitantly, establishing the conditions in the created order so that it could begin to operate according to normal providence.

After God’s initial creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1, the Spirit of God is also pictured in v. 2 as conserving and guiding this inanimate creation. Not only does God’s direct creative work show extraordinary providence but also the Spirit’s moving over the earth’s watery surface suggests his supernatural work in preserving and directing creation. With God’s use of normal secondary causation in providence, every part of a multifaceted universe must be in place so that it can function without God’s continual miraculous intervention. “Whether it is,” according to Kruger, “the balance of gravity in our intricate solar system or the complex interdependence of the Earth’s ecosystem, it is essential that all parts be in place in order for them to operate effectively.”¹⁶² Therefore, in contrast to the framework view that has an era of creation characterized by normal providence, my point is that the literal creation week was characterized by extraordinary providence, both by direct creation¹⁶³ and by the Spirit preserving the creation intact, and that during this week the conditions for the earth to operate according to normal providence were being established in such a way that at the end of this week the earth would be ready to effectively operate in ordinary providence.

Defending extraordinary providence from progressive revelation

The overall tenor of progressive revelation opposes this thesis of the framework since God has not limited himself in biblical history to work exclusively through ordinary providence. While God used extraordinary providence in the Flood, such as sending rain upon the earth 40 days and nights and breaking open the fountains of the great deep, Noah and his family in ordinary providence built the ark and took care of the animals in the ark for about a year. Does this sound like God suspended normal providence because he used extraordinary providence with the Flood? In the case of the ten plagues on Egypt, should it be assumed that, because God miraculously intervened with each plague, God placed a moratorium on ordinary providence? When God brought the plague of total darkness on Egypt for three days, while the Israelites had light where they lived (Exod 10:21– 29), did God postpone the operation of normal providence with the Israelites, while he supernaturally imposed a judgment of darkness on the Egyptians? In addition, when framework defenders deny a literal interpretation of the creation week by maintaining that Genesis 2:5 denies God had miraculously dried up the ground on Day 3,¹⁶⁴ this clearly conflicts with God miraculously drying up the wet ground of the Red Sea when he divided it so that the Israelites, in ordinary providence, could cross it on dry ground (Exod 14:21–22).¹⁶⁵ In the New Testament, Christ performed many miracles, while, in normal providence, he grew up and lived a life of perfect obedience fulfilling the demands of the Law. Since biblical history reflects a mixture of God’s use of both extraordinary and ordinary providence, God used both in the creation week.¹⁶⁶ “Every creative act of God,” as Grossman writes, “is presented as an extraordinary act of God. Furthermore, every miracle in the Bible occurs in the midst of ordinary providence and gives lie to the idea that the two cannot coexist.”¹⁶⁷ Since the creation week included a mixture of extraordinary and ordinary providence, it was, therefore, not exclusively characterized by ordinary providence.

Defending extraordinary providence from the analogy of Scripture

While some framework proponents insist that the type of interpretation that I just presented about extraordinary providence preserving the created realm is only “exegetical presumption,”¹⁶⁸ I am convinced that this is a necessary exegetical implication from the context of Genesis 1:1–2:3, as well as the overall teaching of Scripture that has a bearing on the creation account.¹⁶⁹ Additionally, Irons and Kline claim that the historic literal day view is in conflict with the teaching of Genesis 2:5–6 and that those who take a literal day view should adopt a view that does not conflict with Genesis 2:5–6: “If we believe that Scripture is inspired, and therefore inerrant, we are required to adopt an interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3 that does not conflict with Genesis 2:5–6. The analogy of Scripture, as applied in this context, forces the Bible-believing interpreter to abandon a literalist reading of the creation account.”¹⁷⁰ In effect, the analogy of Scripture, as it relates to Kline’s original interpretation of Genesis 2:5, requires believers to jettison a literal interpretation of 1:1–2:3.

Besides the tenuous nature of their interpretation of Genesis 2:5, Irons and Kline’s appeal to the analogy of Scripture is questionable. The hermeneutical principle known as “the analogy of Scripture,” analogia scriptura, also at times referred to as “the analogy of faith,” analogia fidei,¹⁷¹ says that Scripture interprets Scripture. Since Scripture is a self-authenticating special revelation from God, Scripture is a self-interpreting book.¹⁷² As such, “what is obscure in one passage may be illuminated by another. No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages.”¹⁷³ In essence, analogia scriptura maintains that the totality of Scripture is the context and guide in interpreting specific passages of Scripture, such as Genesis 2:5.¹⁷⁴

This appeal to the analogy of Scripture as applied to Genesis 2:5 is tenuous.¹⁷⁵ According to the analogy of Scripture, Scripture’s overall teaching on creation should have a bearing on a difficult text like Genesis 2:5. The overall context of 2:4–25 indicates that the context of v. 5 is Day 6 of the creation week.

Because Genesis 2:5 has been the subject of some interpretative ambiguities,¹⁷⁶ caution should be exercised in using Kline’s novel interpretation to solve what is r