The Two Adams

by Alan S. Cajes, PhD

Note: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik wrote an essay entitled Confronted in 1964 and another one entitled The Lonely Man of Faith in 1965. Both were published in Tradition. This reflection is a reading of these essays. The quoted phrases are from Soloveitchik. The biblical verses are from the Vatican’s online Bible.

Two Accounts of Creation

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik acknowledges two accounts of the creation of human beings in the Bible. The first account in Genesis 1 states: “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." The second account in Genesis 2 states: “…then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.”

Soloveitchik points out some discrepancies in these accounts and portrays the first account as Adam the first, and the second account as Adam the second.

Adam the first focuses on how, and not why, creation works. He discovers the secrets of nature and uses this power to make existence convenient by producing food, fighting diseases, creating wealth, and building monuments with science and technology. Adam the first, says Soloveitchik, is “this-worldly-minded, finitude-oriented, beauty--centered” who pursues his mandate to “fill the earth and subdue it.”

On the other hand, Adam the second longs for a communion with creation. He is a wonderer who admires and respects nature, a seeker who desires to unravel the meaning of life. Soloveitchik describes Adam the second as one who “explores not the scientific abstract universe but the irresistibly fascinating qualitative world where he establishes an intimate relation with God.”

In a way, Adam the first is a doer, survivor, builder, creator and conqueror, but “purely utilitarian and intrinsically egoistic” existing in a community of similarly minded individuals. In contrast, Adam the second is like a philosopher-theologian who searches for value, yearns for meaning and significance, and lives in a faith community composed of “I, thou, and He.”

Human Typologies

The two Adams can be placed under the types of human beings following the train of thought of Soloveitchik. The first type is the non-confronted human who is non-normative and falls prey to beauty. The mode of being is existence within the natural pleasures that the world can offer. The second type is the confronted human, a cognitive being who senses the numinous in nature. The mode of being is reflective knowledge, which leads to a realization that humans are both immanent in, and transcendent of, nature. The third type is a human in a faith community, a confronted human who forms a relationship with fellow confronted humans and their Creator. The mode of being is “together-existence” that is made possible by communicating to the other one’s loneliness and longing for companionship while at the same time affirming each other’s uniqueness and separateness.

Adam the first and Adam the second are, respectively, the non-confronted human and the confronted human, who has the potential to become a person in a faith community.

Dilemma of a Person in a Faith Community

“I am lonely” is a dilemma facing the third type of human being, i.e., in a faith community, or at least from the view of one who belongs to a religion. Soloveitchik describes religion as “a dimension of personal being” in which humans encounter the divine through their moments in history. The person of faith (the third type) exists in a world that is dominated by non-confronted humans (the first type), who are self-centered and bent on conquering nature and perhaps the stars, galaxies, the heavens. The person of faith is a confronted human (the second type) who feels an awful sense of loneliness amid the loud triumphs and yet mundane concerns of non-confronted humans.  This loneliness stems from his/her faith that espouses a doctrine that “has no technical potential,” a law that “cannot be tested in a laboratory” and “an eschatological vision” that science cannot verify as to its “degree of probability, let alone certainty.”

There may not be a solution to this dilemma, says Soloveitchik, yet he hopes that by confronting this dilemma, one is able to shed light on human existence and propel the journey from a state of non-confronted human to the higher levels – the confronted human and then the human in a faith community.