Genesis 2:5–6 has generated considerable scholarly discussion due to its apparent tension with the earlier creation account in Genesis 1, particularly concerning the timing and presence of vegetation on the earth. Although the King James translation may appear to indicate that plant life was already growing, many biblical scholars argue that the Hebrew word terem actually conveys the opposite—that plant life had not yet appeared at the time being described. The reason, the text suggests, is twofold: there had been no rainfall, and there was no human being to cultivate the soil.
Scholars such as Allen Ross (1985, p. 30) and Victor P. Hamilton (1989, p. 12) support this interpretation. Hamilton, in particular, highlights that the earth was “without vegetation and water, except for subterranean streams,” interpreting the state of creation at that point as barren due to the lack of natural irrigation and human labor.
However, this interpretation becomes problematic when viewed alongside Genesis 1:11–13, where God’s creation of plant life is explicitly recorded on the third day of creation: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit… And the evening and the morning were the third day.”
If plant life had already been created and was present on day three, how then should we understand the apparent absence of “every plant of the field” and “every herb of the field” in Genesis 2:5? One might initially find it counterintuitive that the lack of rain and human cultivation would result in a complete absence of vegetation, especially since God had already declared the earth “very good” and complete (Genesis 1:31).
A possible resolution comes from recognizing that Genesis 2 is not a second creation narrative that contradicts Genesis 1, but rather a complementary account that zooms in on the relationship between man and his environment. The focus in Genesis 2:5 is not on all vegetation in general, but on specific kinds—namely, plants that require human cultivation and rainfall to thrive.
Kenneth A. Mathews offers a nuanced explanation. He observes that while subterranean water (as described in Genesis 2:6) was present, it was evidently insufficient for sustaining cultivated plant life. Mathews argues that the “plant of the field” and the “herb of the field” refer to agricultural crops, which would only grow properly through intentional irrigation and farming. Thus, the absence of these particular plants is not due to a barren or unfinished earth, but due to the absence of the conditions necessary for agriculture—namely, rain and a human farmer. In his words: “There is a subterranean source of water (v. 6), but it by itself is evidently insufficient to support plant life, leading to the critical missing item—the labor of a farmer” (1996, p. 193).
Mathews further distinguishes the cultivated plants of Genesis 2:5 from the naturally occurring vegetation of Genesis 1:11–12. He notes that the phrase “plant of the field” likely refers to post-Fall agriculture—the hard labor man would undertake after being expelled from Eden, as described in Genesis 3:18–19: “Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.”
In this view, the “herb of the field” in Genesis 2:5 foreshadows the toil and cultivation required after sin enters the world. It is distinct from the “herb yielding seed” and fruit trees of Genesis 1, which were created by God for human and animal sustenance without requiring man’s labor.
Similarly, Robert D. Bergen, in the Everyday Study Bible (2018, p. 10), supports this reading, suggesting that the vegetation in Genesis 2:5 refers specifically to the plants intended for the Garden of Eden—those that would soon be tended by Adam. Thus, these were not wild plants spontaneously sprouting across the earth, but cultivated varieties awaiting human stewardship.
Henry M. Morris offers a different interpretation that aligns more with the King James translation of the text. He sees Genesis 2:5 as further evidence of a mature creation. According to Morris, the earth was created fully formed, functional, and abundant with plant life, even though it may have appeared to have a history it did not actually undergo. He writes: “This verse clearly teaches the fact of a mature creation, or creation of apparent age” (1995, p. 16).
In this view, plant life was already growing abundantly across the earth, and the reference to no rain and no man to till the ground simply highlights the conditions prior to God’s appointment of Adam as caretaker of the land, not the actual absence of vegetation.
Early Church theologians also offered various interpretations. John Chrysostom believed that plants were indeed growing but were not dependent upon rainfall. He emphasized the supernatural provision of God, asserting that vegetation flourished by God’s command, not by natural processes such as rain: “Plants were growing without the moisture from showers” (Oden, 2001, p. 48).
Ephrem the Syrian approached the passage from a slightly different angle. He believed that Genesis 2:5 reflects the state of the earth prior to day three and that verse 6 describes day two, when the mist began to rise from the earth and water its surface. According to Ephrem, this moisture prepared the ground for the flourishing of vegetation that was created on day three, allowing it to grow and be sustained (Oden, 2001). According to this interpretation, Genesis 2:4–5 presents a highly condensed or summarized overview of the entire creation week. This approach may in fact offer the most plausible resolution, as it aligns the passage thematically and chronologically with the fuller account found in Genesis 1.