Genesis 2:16-25 sits inside this longer paragraph.
4This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens. 5No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground, 6but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9Out of the ground Yahweh God made every tree to grow that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food, including the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10A river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it was parted, and became the source of four rivers. 11The name of the first is Pishon: it flows through the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12and the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and onyx stone are also there. 13The name of the second river is Gihon. It is the same river that flows through the whole land of Cush. 14The name of the third river is Hiddekel. This is the one which flows in front of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates. 15Yahweh God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it. 16Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17but you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
18Yahweh God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature became its name. 20The man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field; but for man there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21Yahweh God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. As the man slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22Yahweh God made a woman from the rib which he had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of Man.” 24Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh. 25The man and his wife were both naked, and they were not ashamed.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 16. And the Lord God commanded Moses now teaches,…
16. And the Lord God commanded Moses now teaches, that man was the governor of the world, with this exception, that he should, nevertheless, be subject to God. A law is imposed upon him in token of his subjection; for it would have made no difference to God, if he had eaten indiscriminately of any fruit he pleased. Therefore the prohibition of one tree was a test of obedience. And in this mode, God designed that the whole human race should be accustomed from the beginning to reverence his Deity; as, doubtless, it was necessary that man, adorned and enriched with so many excellent gifts, should be held under restraint, lest he should break forth into licentiousness. There was, indeed, another special reason, to which we have before alluded, lest Adam should desire to be wise above measure; but this is to be kept in mind as God’s general design, that he would have men subject to his authority. Therefore, abstinence from the fruit of one tree was a kind of first lesson in obedience, that man might know he had a Director and Lord of his life, on whose will he ought to depend, and in whose commands he ought to acquiesce. And this, truly, is the only rule of living well and rationally, that men should exercise themselves in obeying God. It seems, however, to some as if this did not accord with the judgment of Paul, when he teaches, that the law was not made for the righteous, (1 Timothy 1:9.) For if it be so, then, when Adam was yet innocent and upright, he had no need of a law. But the solution is ready. For Paul is not there writing controversially; but from the common practice of life, he declares, that they who freely run, do not require to be compelled by the necessity of law; as it is said, in the common proverb, that ‘Good laws spring from bad manners.’ In the meantime, he does not deny that God, from the beginning, imposed a law upon man, for the purpose of maintaining the right due to himself. Should any one bring, as an objection, another statement of Paul, where he asserts that the “law is the minister of death,” (2 Corinthians 3:7,) I answer, it is so accidentally, and from the corruption of our nature. But at the time of which we speak, a precept was given to man, whence he might know that God ruled over him. These minute things, however I lightly pass over. What I have before said, since it is of far greater moment, is to be frequently recalled to memory, namely, that our life will then be rightly ordered, if we obey God, and if his will be the regulator of all our affections.
Of every tree To the end that Adam might the more willingly comply, God commends his own liberality. ‘Behold,’ he says, ‘I deliver into thy hand whatever fruits the earth may produce, whatever fruits every kind of tree may yield: from this immense profusion and variety I except only one tree.’ Then, by denouncing punishment, he strikes terror, for the purpose of confirming the authority of the law. So much the greater, then, is the wickedness of man, whom neither that kind commemoration of the gifts of God, nor the dread of punishment, was able to retain in his duty.
Read full note →
But it is asked, what kind of death God means in this place? It appears to me, that the definition of this death is to be sought from its opposite; we must, I say, remember from what kind of life man fell. He was, in every respect, happy; his life, therefore, had alike respect to his body and his soul, since in his soul a right judgment and a proper government of the affections prevailed, there also life reigned; in his body there was no defect, wherefore he was wholly free from death. His earthly life truly would have been temporal; yet he would have passed into heaven without death, and without injury. Death, therefore, is now a terror to us; first, because there is a kind of annihilation, as it respects the body; then, because the soul feels the curse of God. We must also see what is the cause of death, namely alienation from God. Thence it follows, that under the name of death is comprehended all those miseries in which Adam involved himself by his defection; for as soon as he revolted from God, the fountain of life, he was cast down from his former state, in order that he might perceive the life of man without God to be wretched and lost, and therefore differing nothing from death. Hence the condition of man after his sin is not improperly called both the privation of life, and death. The miseries and evils both of soul and body, with which man is beset so long as he is on earth, are a kind of entrance into death, till death itself entirely absorbs him; for the Scripture everywhere calls those dead who, being oppressed by the tyranny of sin and Satan, breath nothing but their own destruction. Wherefore the question is superfluous, how it was that God threatened death to Adam on the day in which he should touch the fruit, when he long deferred the punishment? For then was Adam consigned to death, and death began its reign in him, until supervening grace should bring a remedy.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 Hebrew, eating thou shalt eat of.
Hebrew, eating thou shalt eat of.
So that man might know there was a sovereign Lord, to whom he owed obedience.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv16–25 Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man,…
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Ver. 16. Commanded the man, saying.] God hath given man dominion over all the sublunary creatures; and lest he should forget that he had a Lord whom to serve and obey, he gave him this command to keep.
Read full note →
Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.] The less need he had to have been so lickerish after forbidden fruit. προθεραπειαν hic adhibet, quod misericordiae est. But stolen waters are sweet; Nitimur in vetitum, &c.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv16–25 God commanded the woman too, (as appears both from…
God commanded the woman too, (as appears both from the permission for eating herbs and fruits given to her, together with her husband, Gen 1:28-29, and from Gen 3:1-3, and from Eve’s punishment), and that either immediately, or by Adam, whom God enjoined to inform her thereof.
Thou mayest freely eat; without offence to me, or hurt to thyself. The words in Hebrew have the form of a command, but are only a permission or indulgence, as 1Co 10:25-27.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 21 Observe here, I. God's authority over man, as a…
Observe here, I. God's authority over man, as a creature that had reason and freedom of will. The Lord God commanded the man, who stood now as a public person, the father and representative of all mankind, to receive law, as he had lately received a nature, for himself and all his. God commanded all the creatures, according to their capacity; the settled course of nature is a law, Psa 148:6; Psa 104:9. The brute-creatures have their respective instincts; but man was made capable of performing reasonable service, and therefore received, not only the command of a Creator, but the command of a Prince and Master. Though Adam was a very great man, a very good man, and a very happy man, yet the Lord God commanded him; and the command was no disparagement to his greatness, no reproach to his goodness, nor any diminution at all to his happiness. Let us acknowledge God's right to rule us, and our own obligations to be ruled by him; and never allow any will of our own in contradiction to, or competition with, the holy will of God.
II. The particular act of this authority, in prescribing to him what he should do, and upon what terms he should stand with his Creator. Here is,
Read full note →
1. A confirmation of his present happiness to him, in that grant, Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat. This was not only an allowance of liberty to him, in taking the delicious fruits of paradise, as a recompence for his care and pains in dressing and keeping it (Co1 9:7, Co1 9:10), but it was, withal, an assurance of life to him, immortal life, upon his obedience. For the tree of life being put in the midst of the garden (Gen 2:9), as the heart and soul of it, doubtless God had an eye to that especially in this grant; and therefore when, upon his revolt, this grant is recalled, no notice is taken of any tree of the garden as prohibited to him, except the tree of life (Gen 3:22), of which it is there said he might have eaten and lived for ever, that is, never died, nor ever lost his happiness. "Continue holy as thou art, in conformity to thy Creator's will, and thou shalt continue happy as thou art in the enjoyment of thy Creator's favour, either in this paradise or in a better." Thus, upon condition of perfect personal and perpetual obedience, Adam was sure of paradise to himself and his heirs for ever.
2. A trial of his obedience, upon pain of the forfeiture of all his happiness: "But of the other tree which stood very near the tree of life (for they are both said to be in the midst of the garden), and which was called the tree of knowledge, in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;" as if he had said, "Know, Adam, that thou art now upon thy good behaviour, thou art put into paradise upon trial; be observant, be obedient, and thou art made for ever; otherwise thou wilt be as miserable as now thou art happy." Here,
(1.) Adam is threatened with death in case of disobedience: Dying thou shalt die, denoting a sure and dreadful sentence, as, in the former part of this covenant, eating thou shalt eat, denotes a free and full grant. Observe [1.] Even Adam, in innocency, was awed with a threatening; fear is one of the handles of the soul, by which it is taken hold of and held. If he then needed this hedge, much more do we now. [2.] The penalty threatened is death: Thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt be debarred from the tree of life, and all the good that is signified by it, all the happiness thou hast, either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface it and attend it." [3.] This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin: In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt become mortal and capable of dying; the grant of immortality shall be recalled, and that defence shall depart from thee. Thou shalt become obnoxious to death, like a condemned malefactor that is dead in the law" (only, because Adam was to be the root of mankind, he was reprieved); "nay, the harbingers and forerunners of death shall immediately seize thee, and thy life, thenceforward, shall be a dying life: and this, surely; it is a settled rule, the soul that sinneth, it shall die."
(2.) Adam is tried with a positive law, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Now it was very proper to make trial of his obedience by such a command as this, [1.] Because the reason of it is fetched purely from the will of the Law-maker. Adam had in his nature an aversion to that which was evil in itself, and therefore he is tried in a thing which was evil only because it was forbidden; and, being in a small thing, it was the more fit to prove his obedience by. [2.] Because the restraint of it is laid upon the desires of the flesh and of the mind, which, in the corrupt nature of man, are the two great fountains of sin. This prohibition checked both his appetite towards sensitive delights and his ambitions of curious knowledge, that his body might be ruled by his soul and his soul by his God.
Thus easy, thus happy, was man in a state of innocency, having all that heart could wish to make him so. How good was God to him! How many favours did he load him with! How easy were the laws he gave him! How kind the covenant he made with him! Yet man, being in honour, understood not his own interest, but soon became as the beasts that perish.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv16–25 And the Lord God commanded the man,.... Over whom…
And the Lord God commanded the man,.... Over whom he had power and authority; and he had a right to command him what he pleased, being his Creator, benefactor, and preserver; and this is to be understood not of man only, but of the woman also, whose creation, though related afterwards, yet was before this grant to eat of all the trees of the garden but one, and the prohibition of the fruit of that; for that she was in being, and present at this time, seems manifest from Gen 3:2.
saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: a very generous, large, and liberal allowance this: or "in eating thou mayest eat" (y); which was giving full power, and leaving them without any doubt and uncertainty about their food; which they might freely take, and freely eat of, wherever they found it, or were inclined to, even of any, and every tree in the garden, excepting one, next forbidden.
Read full note →
(y) "comedendo comedas", Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus, Drusius, &c.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25 Thou shall die - That is, thou shalt lose…
Thou shall die - That is, thou shalt lose all the happiness thou hast either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface and attend it. This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin. In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die - Not only thou shalt become mortal, but spiritual death and the forerunners of temporal death shall immediately seize thee. See note at "ver. 17"
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 Verse 17. Of the tree of the knowledge -…
Verse 17. Of the tree of the knowledge - thou shalt not eat] This is the first positive precept God gave to man; and it was given as a test of obedience, and a proof of his being in a dependent, probationary state. It was necessary that, while constituted lord of this lower world, he should know that he was only God's vicegerent, and must be accountable to him for the use of his mental and corporeal powers, and for the use he made of the different creatures put under his care. The man from whose mind the strong impression of this dependence and responsibility is erased, necessarily loses sight of his origin and end, and is capable of any species of wickedness. As God is sovereign, he has a right to give to his creatures what commands he thinks proper. An intelligent creature, without a law to regulate his conduct, is an absurdity; this would destroy at once the idea of his dependency and accountableness. Man must ever feel God as his sovereign, and act under his authority, which he cannot do unless he have a rule of conduct. This rule God gives: and it is no matter of what kind it is, as long as obedience to it is not beyond the powers of the creature who is to obey. God says: There is a certain fruit-bearing tree; thou shalt not eat of its fruit; but of all the other fruits, and they are all that are necessary, for thee, thou mayest freely, liberally eat. Had he not an absolute right to say so? And was not man bound to obey?
Thou shalt surely die.] מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man's life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25 Gen 2:17. Of the tree of knowledge thou shalt…
Gen 2:17. Of the tree of knowledge thou shalt not eat — Hitherto God has been manifested as man’s powerful Creator and bountiful Benefactor: now he appears as his Ruler and Lawgiver, and, as such, enters into covenant with him. He gives him but one positive precept, to try his obedience, which, as his Sovereign Lord, he had a right to do, annexing death to the breach, and, of consequence, life and immortality to the observance of it. It is evident, however, that this was not all God required of man, but that a law was written on his heart, requiring him to love God to the utmost extent of his capacity, and to imitate him in all holiness and righteousness. Thou shalt surely die — The death here threatened is evidently to be considered as opposed to the life (or lives rather, Gen 2:7) which God had bestowed on him. This was not only the natural life of his body, in its union with his soul, but the spiritual life of his soul, in its union with God, and the eternal life of both. The threatening then implies: Thou shalt not only lose all the happiness thou hast, either in possession or prospect, and become liable to the death of thy body, and all the miseries which precede and accompany it; but thou shalt lose thy spiritual life, and become dead to God and things divine, and shalt even forfeit thy title to immortality, and be liable to death eternal. And all this in the day thou eatest thereof.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 - XIII. The Naming of the Animals
- XIII. The Naming of the Animals
Here man’s intellectual faculties proceed from the passive and receptive to the active and communicative stage. This advance is made in the review and designation of the various species of animals that frequent the land and skies.
Read full note →
A new and final need of man is stated in Gen 2:18. The Creator himself, in whose image he was made, had revealed himself to him in language. This, among many other effects, awakened the social affection. This affection was the index of social capacity. The first step towards communication between kindred spirits was accomplished when Adam heard and understood spoken language. Beyond all this God knew what was in the man whom he had formed. And he expresses this in the words, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” He is formed to be social, to hold converse, not only with his superior, but also with his equal. As yet he is but a unit, an individual. He needs a mate, with whom he may take sweet counsel. And the benevolent Creator resolves to supply this want. “I will make him a helpmeet for him” - one who may not only reciprocate his feelings, but take an intelligent and appropriate part in his active pursuits.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 The death of the soul, and become obnoxious to…
The death of the soul, and become obnoxious to that of the body; thou shalt become a mortal and lose all the privileges of innocence. Though Adam lived 930 years after this, he was dying daily; he carried along with him the seeds of death, as we do, from our very conception. He had leave to eat of any fruit in this delicious garden, one only excepted, and this one prohibition makes him more eager to taste of that tree than of all the rest. So we struggle constantly to attain what is forbidden, and covet what is denied, cupimusque negata. God laid this easy command upon Adam, to give him an opportunity of shewing his ready obedience, and to assert his own absolute dominion over him. Eve was already formed, and was apprised of this positive command, (chap. iii. 3.) and therefore, transgressing, is justly punished with her husband. True obedience does not inquire why a thing is commanded, but submits without demur. Would a parent be satisfied with his child, if he should refuse to obey, because he could not discern the propriety of the restraint? If he should forbid him to touch some delicious fruits which he had reserved for strangers, and the child were to eat them, excusing himself very impertinently and blasphemously, with those much abused words of our Saviour, It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles a man, &c. would not even a Protestant parent be enraged and seize the rod, though he could not but see that he was thus condemning his own conduct, in disregarding, on the very same plea, the fasts and days of abstinence, prescribed by the Church and by God’s authority? All meats are good, as that fruit most certainly was which Adam was forbidden to eat; though some have foolishly surmised that it was poisonous; but, the crime of disobedience draws on punishment. (Haydock) --- Even when the sin is remitted, as it was to Adam, the penalty is not of course released, as some have pretended. This also clearly appears in baptized infants, who suffer the penalties due to original sin, as much as those who have not been admitted to the laver of regeneration. (St. Augustine; Worthington; Tirinus, &c.) --- If on this occasion, Eve had alone transgressed, as she was not the head, her sin would have hurt only herself. But with Adam, the representative of all his posterity, God made a sort of compact, (Osee vi. 7.) giving him to understand, that if he continued faithful, his children should be born in the state of innocence like himself, happy and immortal, to be translated in due time to a happier Paradise, &c. but if he should refuse to obey, his sin should be communicated to all his race, who should be, by nature, children of wrath. --- (St. Augustine, City of God xvi. 27; Ven. Bede in Luc. 11; &c.) --- (Haydock) (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 thou shalt not eat of it . . .…
thou shalt not eat of it . . . thou shalt surely die--no reason assigned for the prohibition, but death was to be the punishment of disobedience. A positive command like this was not only the simplest and easiest, but the only trial to which their fidelity could be exposed.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv16–25 16. The Lord God commanded the man — The…
16. The Lord God commanded the man — The Hebrew form of expression, ויצו על האדם, and put a commandment upon the man, suggests the thought of an authoritative law coming down upon him from above. The word man is to be understood here as in Gen_5:2, of the man and his wife, and not as excluding the woman from the obligation of the law. The woman herself acknowledges this in Gen_3:2-3. The commandment might, indeed, have been given first to the man, and afterward repeated to the man and his wife together, thus intensifying in them both a sense of its importance. An exact chronological order of particular events is evidently not exhibited in this chapter. Here is the first revelation of moral law. The divine commandment appeals to man’s intellectual and moral nature, recognising him as a thinking religious being. The commandment is simple, specific, positive, and so adapted to test the free and responsible nature of the being to whom it was addressed.
Observe that the first great commandment, which served to test man’s moral life, was of a negative form — a prohibition. See next verse.
Read full note →
Freely eat — The intensified form of expression (Hebrews, eating thou mayest eat) confers the most unrestricted enjoyment of all the fruitage of the garden. Many understand from this reference to the fruit of trees, as also from Gen_1:29, that man at first subsisted on the fruit of trees alone. This, taken in connexion with the absence of any allusion to the use of animal food in these first records of the race, may be a legitimate inference, but is nowhere clearly asserted.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv16–25 16. Here, as in Gen_1:29, man receives a command…
16. Here, as in Gen_1:29, man receives a command to eat the fruit of the trees: but this command is to receive one special limitation.
“man,” LXX Ἀδάμ = “Adam,” as a proper name, wrongly: see on Gen_2:7.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (16, 17) The Lord God commanded.—Probation is the law…
(16, 17) The Lord God commanded.—Probation is the law of man’s moral condition now, and it began in Paradise, only the conditions there were different. (See Excursus at end of this book.)
In the day. . . . —Used, as in Gen_2:4, for an indefinitely long period. But just as on the third day God gave the whole law of vegetation, though trees as the highest development of that law may not have been reached until after the appearance of animal life on the earth, so the law of man’s mortal life came into existence with the eating of the forbidden fruit. Contemporaneously with that act, man passed from the paradisiacal state, with the possibility of living for ever, into the mortal state, with the certainty sooner or later of dying. It was a new condition and constitution of things which then commenced, and to which not Adam only, but also his posterity was subject. And thus this command resembles the words of Elohim in the first chapter. By them the fundamental laws of the material universe were given and established for all time; and the word of Jehovah-Elohim equally here was a law, not for the day only on which Adam broke the command, but for all men everywhere as long as the world shall last.
Read full note →
EXCURSUS A: UPON THE PROBATION OF ADAM (Chap. 2:16).
The great object for which the world is constituted such as we actually find it to be is evidently the trial and probation of man’s moral nature. We cannot wonder, therefore, at finding Adam subject to a probation; and even if he had remained innocent we have no right to suppose that his posterity would always have withstood temptation, or that the world would not finally have become such in the main as it is now. But the manner of Adam’s probation was different. In Paradise he had unlimited freedom, except in one small particular, and no promptings of his own nature urged him to take delight in disobedience and sin. But if thus he was free from passion, on the other hand his conscience was undeveloped, even if it could be said to exist at all in one who did not know the difference between good and evil. He was devoid, too, of experience, and his reason must have been in a state as rudimentary as his conscience. For as there was no struggle between passion and conscience, man had not then learned to choose between opposing ends and purposes, as he has now. Nevertheless, Adam was an intellectual being. He must have had a deep knowledge of natural history; for doubtless he called the animals after their natures. In Gen_2:23 he calls his wife Ishah, and himself Ish. Now, this name signifies a being, and in so calling himself Adam seems to claim for man that he is the one creature upon earth conscious of his own existence. And when Eve appears he simply adds a feminine termination to the name, recognising her thereby as the female counterpart of himself; but in so doing he shows a mastery of language, and the power of inflecting words according to the rules of grammar. There is proof, after the fall, of even increased insight into the nature of things; for in the name Eve, life, Adam plainly recognised in her difference of sex the Divinely-appointed means for the maintenance of human life upon earth. But man now, to balance the corruption of his nature, has, in addition to intellect, the help of conscience, of increased knowledge and experience of the effects of sin, and of largely developed reason. Devoid of such assistance, a difficult probation, such as is the lot of mankind now, would apparently have been beyond the power of Adam to sustain; whereas, had he not been tempted from without, he might easily, with his passions as yet unstirred, and most of his intellectual gifts still dormant, have endured the simple trial to which he was subjected. But temptation from without was permitted, and Adam fell.
It would be easy to lose ourselves in reasoning upon the possibilities involved in Adam’s trial; but there are points upon which there can be no doubt. First, if probation is the normal law of our condition now, it would be just as right and equitable to make Adam subject to a probation. And alike for Adam then and for men now, probation seems to be a necessary condition of the existence of beings endowed with free will. Secondly, the fall was not all loss; St. Paul affirms this with reference to the gift of a Saviour (Rom_5:17-19). And besides this, higher qualities are called into existence now than were possible in the case of one who had no experimental knowledge of evil. We may even say that in giving this command Jehovah was appealing to qualities still dormant in Adam; and this exercise of the Divine attribute of foreknowledge makes us sure that the Divine purpose was to develop these qualities: not necessarily, however, by the fall, for they would have been to some extent exercised by resisting temptation. Thirdly, Adam, had he remained innocent, could nevertheless have attained to no higher happiness than such as was possible for a being in a rudimentary and passionless state of existence. He would have attained to the perfection of innocence, of pure physical enjoyment, and of even large scientific knowledge; but his moral nature would have developed very slowly, and its profounder depths would have remained unstirred. He would have been a happy grown-up child, not a proved and perfected man. The sufferings of this fallen world are intense (Rom_8:22), but the product in those who use their probation aright, is probably higher than any product of Paradise could have been. The holiness attained to by Eloah, the seventh from Adam, was of a different and higher kind than the most perfect innocence of a being who had been called to make no earnest struggle; for it was as the gold tried in the fire (1Pe_1:7).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 Vers. 16, 17. And Jehovah Elohim commanded the man…
Vers. 16, 17. And Jehovah Elohim commanded the man (Adam), saying. Whether or not these were the first words listened to by man (Murphy), they clearly presuppose the person to whom they were addressed to have had the power of understanding language, i.e. of interpreting vocal sounds, and representing to his own mind the conceptions or ideas of which they were the signs, a degree of intellectual development altogether incompatible with modern evolution theories. They likewise assume the pre-existence of a moral nature which could recognize the distinction between thou shalt" and thou shalt not." Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; literally, eating, thou shalt eat. Adam, it thus appears, was permitted to partake of the tree of life; not, however, as a means of either conferring or preserving immortality, which was already his by Divine gift, and the only method of conserving which recognized by the narrative was abstaining from the tree of knowledge; but as a symbol and guarantee of that immortality with which he had been endowed, and which would continue to be his so long as he maintained his personal integrity. This, of course, by the very terms of his existence, he was under obligation to do, apart altogether from any specific enactment which God might enjoin. As a moral being, he had the law written on his conscience. But, as if to give a visible embodiment to that law, and at the same time to test his allegiance to his Maker"s will, which is the kernel of all true obedience, an injunction was laid upon him of a positive description But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. Speculations as to what kind of tree it was, whether a vine, a fig, or an apple tree, are more curious than profitable. There is no reason to suppose that any noxious or lethiferous properties resided in its fruit. The death that was to follow on transgression was to spring from the eating, and not from the fruit; from the sinful act, and not from the creature, which in itself was good. The prohibition laid on Adam was for the time being a summary of the Divine law. Hence the tree was a sign and symbol of what that law required. And in this, doubtless, lies the explanation of its name. It was a concrete representation of that fundamental distinction between right and wrong, duty and sin, which lies at the basis of all responsibility. It interpreted for the first pair those great moral intuitions which had been implanted in their natures, and by which it was intended they should regulate their lives. Thus it was for them a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It brought out that knowledge which they already possessed into the clear light of definite conviction and precept, connecting it at the same time with the Divine will as its source and with themselves as its end. Further, it was an intelligible declaration of the duty which that knowledge of good and evil imposed upon them. Through its penalty it likewise indicated both the good which would be reaped by obedience and the evil which would follow on transgression. For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; literally, dying, thou shalt die. That this involved death physical, or the dissolution of the body, is indicated by the sentence pronounced on Adam after he had fallen. (Gen_3:19) That the sentence was hot immediately executed does not disprove its reality. It only suggests that its suspension may have been due to some Divine interposition. Yet universal experience attests that permanent escape from its execution is impossible. In the case of Adam it was thus far put in force on the instant, that henceforth he ceased to be immortal. As prior to his fall his immortality was sure, being authenticated for him by the tree of life, so now, subsequent to that catastrophe, his mortality was certain. This, more than immediateness, is what the language implies. For the complete theological significance of this penalty see Gen_3:19.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25 In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt…
Gen_2:16-17
In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.
Read full note →
The fall of man
These words were fulfilled at the time they were spoken; they have been fulfilled ceaselessly thereafter. We live in a universe of death. The phenomenon is common to us, but no familiarity can rob it of its dreadfulness; for the dead, who are the more in number, have kept their awful secret unrevealed, and the child who died yesterday knows more than can be guessed at by the thousand millions of living men. Yet this death is the least and the least dreaded part of that other, that second, that spiritual death which God meant in the warning of the text.
1. Notice first the certainty of that death. Let us learn to be early undeceived about the tempters falsehood, Ye shall not surely die. If a man will serve his sin, let him at least reckon upon this, that in one way or other it will be ill with him; his sin will find him out: his path will be hard; there will be to him no peace. The night of concealment may be long, but dawn comes like the Erinnys to reveal and avenge its crimes.
2. Not only is this punishment inevitable, but it is natural; not miraculous, but ordinary; not sudden, but gradual; not accidental, but necessary; not exceptional, but invariable. Retribution is the impersonal evolution of an established law.
3. Retribution takes the form which of all others the sinner would passionately deprecate, for it is homogeneous with the sins on whose practice it ensues. In lieu of death God offers us His gift of eternal life. While yet we live, while yet we hear the words of invitation, the door is not shut, and we may pass to it by the narrow way. To Eve was given the dim promise that her seed should bruise the serpents head; for us Christ has trampled sin and Satan under His feet. (Archdeacon Farrar.)
In what does mans death as a sinner consist?
I. THE EMPHASIS EXPRESSED IN THE TEXT. Literally, Dying thou shalt die. Intensity, rather than certainty.
1. Death, as a dissolution, may be a natural event.
2. Sin gives this dissolution its terrible significance.
(1) Mysteriousness.
(2) Physical sufferings.
(3) Mental frustration.
(4) Social disruptions.
(5) Moral forebodings.
II. THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE TEXT. Adam did die on the day he sinned. Such a change took place, not merely in his physical condition, but in his mind and heart--so much remorse and foreboding, so many dark thoughts about his dissolution--that he died: his innocency died, his hopes died, his peace died. Conclusion: This view of the subject--
1. Serves to reconcile science and revelation.
2. Serves to explain many ambiguous passages. The wages of sin is death. To be carnally minded is death. Christ hath abolished death.
3. Serves to show the value of the gospel. (Homilist.)
Will God punish sin?
I. Who can doubt it, who listens to the voice of reason and of Scripture?
II. The political history of the world bears equally positive testimony.
III. The history of the Church itself furnishes a solemn and affecting answer to the question.
IV. The human conscience bears no doubtful testimony on this subject.
V. The Holy Scriptures answer our question with solemn and startling emphasis. They reveal a holy God, hating all iniquity, and pledged by every attribute of His being, and by every principle of His government, to oppose, subdue, punish, and hedge up the way of sin. (J. M. Sherwood, D. D.)
The forbidden tree
I. THE LARGE AND BOUNTIFUL PROVISION WHICH GOD MADE FOR THE HAPPINESS OF MAN. It is this which leaves our first parents without excuse. There was but one forbidden tree.
II. THE TRIAL OF MANS OBEDIENCE. The having some command which we can break is evidently essential to our first notions of moral accountableness; but further than this the restriction placed upon our first parents seems not intended to go. You will observe, from its terms, that it interfered with no one form of rational enjoyment; it left no one of mans mental appetencies ungratified; it involved neither pain, nor effort, nor self-denial, nor cost; it was just an acknowledgment which God required from man of his submission; it was, in fact, a mere nominal quit rent, which he had to pay to the great Landlord of the universe, for having an estate worthy of an angel. With regard to the manner in which all this mental and moral confusion could be connected with the mere gratification of the bodily appetite, it is not wise to speculate. Analogies are not wanting to show to us how the fruits of the earth may be converted into a moral as well as a material poison. We have heard of those who are said to dig their graves with their teeth; of those who for a mess of pottage would sell the birthright of immortality; of those who put a thief into their heads, to steal away reason, reflection, thought, ay, their very hopes of heaven; and it may have been so with regard to the tree of knowledge.
III. THE THREATENED PENALTIES OF DISOBEDIENCE. Where you may first notice the terms of the sentence, in respect to time. In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Some persons see a difficulty in this passage, because the sentence of death was not executed upon the day of transgression; but this arises from overlooking the exact import of the Hebrew words used, which would fairly admit of being rendered as referring not to the actual infliction of death, so much as subjecting man to the liability to die. It imports, that he should from that moment become mortal, that there should be the beginnings and seeds of dissolution incorporated with his very being, from the time he tasted of that tree. This rendering will receive some elucidation, if you look at the marginal rendering which is proposed. You will observe, it is there said, dying, thou shalt die. Now, this is a common Hebraism for some continuous and gradually accomplished act. And therefore the import of the words is, that from the moment this tree was tasted, there should be the beginnings of a death which should reach to all his posterity. The same continuousness of action applies to a former part of the verse; for there too, you observe, the same marginal reference is given. It is said, eating, thou shalt eat, just as here it is said, dying, thou shalt die; and therefore the two expressions may be interpreted alike--the one as saying, Eating, thou shalt eat, or, This tree shall be for thy perpetual life, the other as saying, Dying, thou shalt die, or, The taste of this tree shall be for thy perpetual death. Let us close with two reflections.
1. The history we have been contemplating should impress us with a sense of the transcendent evil of sin. The fruit, as it hung in all its seductive and inviting clusters, was a type of all the evil that is to be found in the world. It was pleasing to the eye, it was exciting to the appetite, it was easy to grasp, and, if the eye of God would but slumber, it might be partaken of unobserved. But what were its immediate effects? Disease, mortality, loss of paradise, tormenting fears, the shunning of-the very presence of God. And such is sin now, and such do they who have entered upon its courses know to be its consequences.
2. Then, once more, this history should fill us with gratitude for the greatness of our deliverance through Christ. If we would know the infinite evil of sin, if we would be inspired with a holy aversion from its contact, if we would be won to love and gratitude to the Father of our spirits, we must go and gaze with the eye of faith on the wonders of the cross. (D. Moore, M. A.)
Gods command
This is a pregnant sentence. It involves the first principles of our intellectual and moral philosophy.
I. THE COMMAND HERE GIVEN IN WORDS BRINGS INTO ACTIVITY THE INTELLECTUAL NATURE OF MAN. First, the power of understanding language is called forth. This is the passive lesson of elocution; the practice, the active lesson will speedily follow. Not only the secondary part, however, but at the same time the primary and fundamental part of mans intellectual nature is here developed. The understanding of the sign necessarily implies the knowledge of the thing signified. The objective is represented here by the trees of the garden. The subjective comes before his mind in the pronoun thou. The physical constitution of man appears in the process of eating. The moral part of his nature comes out in the significance of the words mayest and shalt not. The distinction of merit in actions and things is expressed in the epithets good and evil. The notion of reward is conveyed in the terms life and death. And lastly, the presence and authority of the Lord God is implied in the very nature of a command. Thus the susceptible part of mans intellect is evoked. The conceptive part will speedily follow and display itself in the many inventions that will be sought out and applied to the objects which are placed at his disposal.
II. THE MORAL PART OF MANS NATURE IS HERE CALLED INTO PLAY.
1. Mark Gods mode of teaching. He issues a command. This is required in order to bring forth into consciousness the hitherto latent sensibility to moral obligation which was laid in the original constitution of mans being.
2. The special mandate here given is not arbitrary in its form, as is sometimes hastily supposed, but absolutely essential to the legal adjustment of things in this new stage of creation. Antecedent to the behest of the Creator, the only indefeasible right to all the creatures lay in Himself. These creatures may be related to one another. In the great system of things, through the wonderful wisdom of the grand Designer, the use of some may be needful to the well-being, the development, and perpetuation of others. Nevertheless no one has a shadow of right in the original nature of things to the use of any other. And when a moral agent comes upon the stage of being, in order to mark out the sphere of his legitimate action, an explicit declaration of the rights over other creatures granted and reserved must be made. The very issue of the command proclaims mans original right of property to be not inherent but derived. As might be expected in these circumstances, the command has two clauses, a permissive and a prohibitive.
3. The prohibitory part of this enactment is not a matter of indifference, as is sometimes imagined, but indispensable to the nature of a command, and, in particular, of a permissive act or declaration of granted rights.
4. That which is here made the matter of reserve and so the test of obedience, is so far from being trivial or out of place, as has been imagined, that it is the proper and the only object immediately available for these purposes. The immediate want of man is food. The kind of food primarily designed for him is the fruit of trees.
5. We are now prepared to understand why this tree is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The prohibition of this tree brings man to the knowledge of good and evil. The products of creative power were all very Gen_1:31). Even this tree itself is good, and productive of unspeakable good in the first instance to man. The discernment of merit comes up in his mind by this tree. Obedience to the command of God not to partake of this tree is a moral good. Disobedience to God by partaking of it is a moral evil.
6. In the day of thy eating thereof, die surely shalt thou. The Divine command is accompanied with its awful sanction, death. The man could not at this time have any practical knowledge of the physical dissolution called death. We must, therefore, suppose either that God made him preternaturally acquainted with it, or that He conveyed to him the knowledge of it simply as the negation of life. Probably the latter.
III. MAN HAS HERE EVIDENTLY BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH HIS MAKER. On the hearing and understanding of this sentence at least, if not before, he has arrived at the knowledge of God, as existing, thinking, speaking, permitting, commanding, and thereby exercising all the prerogatives of that absolute authority over men and things which creation alone can give. If we were to draw all this out into distinct propositions, we should find that man was here furnished with a whole system of theology, ethics, and metaphysics, in a brief sentence. (Prof. J. G. Murphy.)
The first covenant
I. When we use the word covenant to describe a revelation, which sounds more like a bare command, we mean to imply that this earliest transaction between God and man is marked by the same characteristics which we can trace throughout Gods later dispensations; that it does not rest the claim of obedience on the naked prerogative of unquestionable power, but connects it with the offer of an explicit alternative for the decision of freewill; accompanied by the promise of a blessing for obedience, and by the threat of punishment for disobedience. We thus bring it into direct comparison with the general tenor of Gods later covenants: Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil. A covenant, then, stands by its very nature between two other conceptions, each of which falls short of the full import of Gods dealings with man. It is more than a mere ordinance, or a mere command, such as might have been imposed without reason, and enforced without reward. On the other hand, it is more than that expression of Gods law which He wrote on mans heart in his very creation, and the traces of which we retain in the authority of conscience.
II. We have next to ask the meaning of the precept which that covenant contained; a precept which sometimes seems so strange and arbitrary: which some interpretations, indeed, describe as really strange and arbitrary; namely, that while freely indulged in every other earthly blessing, man was forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What is the right interpretation of those words? The following seems to be the meaning of Scripture in its disclosures on this earliest covenant. When man had been created after the image of God, there were two of the Divine attributes, his admission to which was limited by positive laws. These higher endowments were Immortality and Knowledge. To these the two trees which were planted in the midst of the garden bore a certain correspondence; that of life he might use, that of knowledge be might not. To have enjoyed free access to both from the beginning would have raised him above the rank which was suited to a being who was as yet so utterly untried. Therefore the one fruit was unconditionally forbidden, while the other fruit was conditionally allowed. When man disobeyed, and tasted of the prohibited tree of knowledge, the command was readjusted to meet the case of his sin. The tree of knowledge had now been tasted: the tree of life was therefore withdrawn. (Archdeacon Hannah.)
The knowledge of good and evil
The knowledge of good and evil. Now to understand this expression thoroughly, we must distinguish it very clearly, in the first place, from other kinds of knowledge which were not forbidden: and in the second place, from such a knowledge, even of good and evil, as could manifestly be possessed without sin.
1. As to the first of these points, we might at first be disposed to wonder how knowledge could be, in any form, the one gift which God denied; how the special test of mans obedience could be placed in his abstinence from what would bring him knowledge, and so open his eyes more fully, as it seemed, to the true nature of the path that lay before him. To this difficulty the obvious answer would be, that when man was forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the injunction certainly did not imply that every kind of knowledge was withheld.
2. It is also clear that there is a knowledge of good and evil, which can be possessed, if it cannot be directly sought for, without sin. From these two considerations we establish, first, that the precept of this earliest covenant would debar man from some kind of knowledge, without excluding him from all knowledge; and secondly, that even when it withheld the knowledge of good and evil, there was still some knowledge which might be described by those same words, yet which could not have been forbidden by them, because its presence was implied in the mere form of the command. The first of these remarks suggests, that we may confine our present inquiry entirely to what is specially called moral knowledge: i.e., the knowledge of moral acts or habits, so far as they are permitted or condemned: knowledge of the right, whether regarded as law, or precept, or command: in combination with knowledge of that transgression of the right, which may be diversely regarded as crime, or vice, or sin. Further, the second remark suggests, that this moral knowledge was not so much forbidden in itself, which would have been impossible in the ease of a being endowed with both a moral and an intellectual nature; but forbidden under certain circumstances, and at a certain time.
By the help of these two positions we may gain, I think, a more close and accurate conception of that acquirement which the fruit of the tree of knowledge would convey.
1. First it would have been barren knowledge. It would have given man a theory, when he needed a rule: it would have lighted up his mind to debate about his duty, when at present his sole work was, to do his duty as the will of God. Precisely so our moral sciences teaches, that in morality, bare theory can never be safely carried far in advance of practice; and that the safe road to moral wisdom lies, not through a familiarity with intellectual systems, but through the ready obedience of the heart.
2. That this knowledge would have been barren, then, is enough to establish the mercy and wisdom of Gods first injunction. But we can go further: we can show that it would have been not less dangerous than useless. Such a knowledge of good and evil would reveal to Adam the grounds of sin, the sources of temptation, etc. Hence, shame was the immediate result of that knowledge. The instant appearance of that feeling showed, that man now for the first time knew his capacities, tendencies, and opportunities for sin. (Archdeacon Hannah.)
Observations
I. THE MOST RIGHTEOUS AMONGST THE SONS OF MEN, MUST AND NEEDS TO LIVE UNDER A LAW.
1. For direction, for man is unfit to chose his own way, being through his ignorance so apt to mistake evil for good: neither is any able to find out what is truly good but God alone, who is goodness itself; and His will the rule of goodness which none can find out or reveal but Himself (1Co_2:11).
2. It is needful that by conforming to the law given us by God, we may testify our obedience and subjection unto Him; withal acknowledging and witnessing to the world, that we account His will in all things to be most just, which we take unto ourselves as the rule of our actions.
II. THE WILL OF GOD IS THAT ONLY, WHICH MAN IS TO LOOK UPON AND TAKE FOR HIS RULE TO GUIDE HIMSELF BY IN ALL HIS WAYS.
1. That by that means we may acknowledge Gods absolute sovereignty when all things are done upon no other ground but because God will have it so.
2. Because nothing is infallibly good or holy but His will, as Himself is good and righteous, and there is no iniquity in Him (Deu_32:4), seeing nothing is fit to be the rule of other things but that which is in itself certain and unchangeable.
III. GOD IS PLEASED NOT ONLY TO GIVE A LAW TO DIRECT US, BUT TO FURNISH US WITH ALL NEEDFUL MEANS TO FURTHER US IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES REQUIRED THEREIN. And this He doth, partly, to manifest the sincerity of His affection towards us, in desiring our salvation; and partly, to justify Himself in the condemnation of those that refuse so great salvation so many ways tendered unto them, and so obstinately refused. Let us, then, make use of such helps and means as God is pleased to offer unto us, as being assured that He really intends what He so many ways labours to draw us to embrace; and, secondly, as having need of such helps to support us; and, thirdly, being liable to the greater Condemnation, by despising and rejecting them.
IV. THE MATTERS IN WHICH GOD DELIGHTS TO TRY OUR OBEDIENCE ARE MANY TIMES IN THEMSELVES OF NO GREAT IMPORTANCE.
1. To manifest our total subjection unto Him, when we are limited even in the smallest things.
2. To show us that it is only obedience and conformity to His will that God respects, and not She matter or substance of the thing itself in which He requires it.
3. To make our yoke the more easy, that we might be the more encouraged to obedience.
V. OUR ABUNDANCE, AND DELIGHTS, AND PLEASURES MUST BE USED IN FEAR AND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OBEDIENCE.
VI. DISOBEDIENCE IS A FEARFUL SIN IN GODS ACCOUNT. And that especially because it is directed against the majesty of God Himself, whose authority is slighted and despised, when His laws and commandments are disobeyed. And, secondly, it opens a gap to all manner of looseness and disorder; nature knows no stay when it hath once passed the bounds of obedience, no more than a violent stream doth, when it hath once broken over those banks that before kept it in.
VII. THE TERRORS OF THE LAW ARE USEFUL AND NEEDFUL, EVEN UNTO THE BEST AMONGST THE SONS OF MEN.
VIII. DEATH AND DESTRUCTION ARE IN GODS HAND, TO INFLICT THEM WHERE HE PLEASETH. The consideration hereof, cannot but revive the heart of Gods servants, hated and persecuted by men of the world, when they know their life and breath is in Gods hand, which therefore none can take away, but by His will and decree; and therefore--
1. Not while God hath any use of their service here.
2. Not if they be of the number of Christs redeemed ones, for whom He hath conquered death, and taken away the sting of it (1Co_15:55-57), and delivered them from the power of it.
IX. ALL KINDS OF EVILS AND MISERIES, PRESENT OR FUTURE, OUTWARD OR INWARD, ARE THE WAGES OF SIN.
X. GODS JUDGMENTS ARE CERTAIN AND INFALLIBLE, AS WELL AS HIS PROMISES OF MERCY. Resting upon the same grounds which are in themselves infallible.
1. The holiness of His nature, by which He is constantly moved to take vengeance on sin, as well as to reward righteousness.
2. His unalterable truth, which is firmer than heaven or earth. (See Num_14:23-35).
3. His unresistible power (Deu_32:39). Secondly, directed to the same end which God aims at in all His ways and works, the filling of the earth with His glory (Num_14:21), advanced in the acts of His justice, as well as of His mercy.
XI. VENGEANCE AND JUDGMENT FOLLOW SIN AT THE HEELS. (J. White, M. A.)
A view of the covenant of works
We have here an account of the original transaction between God and our first father Adam in paradise, while yet in the state of primitive integrity. In which the following things are to be remarked, being partly expressed and partly implied.
1. The Lords making over to him a benefit by way of a conditional promise, which made the benefit a debt upon the performing of the condition. This promise is a promise of life, and is included in the threatening of death.
2. The condition required to entitle him to this benefit, namely, obedience. It is expressed in a prohibition of one particular, Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.
3. The sanction, or penalty in case of the breach of the covenant, In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
4. Adams going into the proposal, and acceptance of those terms, is sufficiently intimated to us by his objecting nothing against it. Door. There was a covenant of works, a proper covenant, between God and Adam the father of mankind.
I. I SHALL CONFIRM THIS GREAT TRUTH, AND EVINCE THE BEING OF SUCH A COVENANT.
1. Here is a concurrence of all that is necessary to constitute a true and proper covenant of works. The parties contracting, God and man; God requiring obedience as the condition of life; a penalty fixed in case of breaking; and man acquiescing in the proposal.
2. It is expressly called a covenant in Scripture: For these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, etc. (Gal_4:24). This covenant from Mount Sinai was the covenant of works as being opposed to the covenant of grace, namely, the law of the ten commandments, with promise and sanction, as before expressed. At Sinai it was renewed indeed, but that was not its first appearance in the world. For there being but two ways of life to be found in Scripture, one by works, the other by grace, the latter hath no place but where the first is rendered ineffectual; therefore the covenant of works was before the covenant of grace in the world; yet the covenant of grace was promulgated quickly after Adams fall; therefore the covenant of works behoved to have been made with him before. And how can one imagine a covenant of works set before poor impotent sinners, if there had not been such a covenant with man in his state of integrity? But as for them, like Adam, they have transgressed the covenant (Hos_6:7).
3. We find a law of works opposed to the law of faith. Where is boasting, then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith Rom_3:27). This law of works is the covenant of works, requiring works, or obedience, as the condition pleadable for life; for otherwise the law as a rule of life requires works too. Again, it is a law that does not exclude boasting, which is the very nature of the covenant of works, that makes the reward to be of debt. And further, the law of faith is the covenant of grace; therefore the law of works is the covenant of works.
4. There were sacramental signs and seals of this transaction in paradise. And now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever (Gen_3:22); and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, mentioned in the words of the text. When we find, then, confirming seals of this transaction, we must own it to be a covenant.
5. Lastly: All mankind are by nature under the guilt of Adams first sin Rom_5:12). And they are under the curse of the law before they have committed actual sin: hence they are said to be by nature children of wrath (Eph_2:3), which they must needs owe to Adams sin, as imputed to them. This must be owing to a particular relation betwixt them and him; which must either be, that he is their natural head simply, from whence they derive their natural being--but then the sins of our immediate parents, and all other mediate ones too, behoved to be imputed rather than Adams, because oar relation to them is nearer--or because he is our federal head also, representing us in the first covenant. And that is the truth, and evidences the covenant of works made with Adam to have been a proper covenant.
II. I shall explain THE NATURE OF THE COVENANT OF WORKS. In order to do this, I shall consider--First. The parties contracting in this covenant. These were two. First. On the one hand, God Himself, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, etc. Gen_2:16). God, as Creator and Sovereign Lord of man, condescended to enter into a covenant with man, His own creature and subject, whom He might have governed by a simple law, without proposing to him the reward of life. Thus it was a covenant betwixt two very unequal parties. And here God showed--
1. His supreme authority over the creature man, founded on mans natural dependence on Him as his Creator (Rom_11:36).
2. His abundant goodness, in annexing such a great reward to mans service, which it could never merit (Heb_11:6).
3. His admirable condescension, in stooping to make a covenant with His own creature. Secondly. On the other hand was Adam, the father of all mankind. He must be considered here under a two-fold notion.
1. As a righteous man, morally perfect, endued with sufficient power and abilities to believe and do whatever God should reveal to or require of him, fully able to keep the law. That Adam was thus furnished when the covenant was made with him--
(1) Appears from plain Scripture: God hath made man upright Ecc_7:29).
(2) Man was created in the image of God (Gen_1:27). And so--
(a) His mind was endowed with knowledge; for that is a part of the image of God in man (Col_3:10).
(b) His will was endowed with righteousness (Eph_4:24).
(c) His affections were holy (Eph_4:24).
(d) He had an executive power, whereby he was capable to do what he knew to be his duty, and inclined to do. He was made very good Gen_1:31); which implies not only a power to do good, but a facility in doing it free from all clogs and hindrances.
(e) If he had not been so, that covenant could not have been made with him. It was inconsistent with the justice and goodness of God to have required that of His creature which he had not ability to perform given him by his Creator. Wherefore, before Adam could be obliged to perfect obedience, he behoved to have ability competent for it; otherwise that saying of the wicked and slothful servant had been true (Mat_25:24).
Use 1. How low is man now brought, how unlike to what he was at his creation! Alas! man is now ruined, and sin is the cause of that fatal ruin.
2. What madness is it for men to look to that covenant for salvation, when they are nowise fit for the way of it, having lost all the furniture and ability proper for the observation thereof.
3. See how ye stand with respect to this covenant; whether ye are discharged from it, and brought within the bond of the new covenant in Christ or not. But I proceed. Adam, in the covenant of works, is to be considered as the first man (1Co_15:47), in whom all mankind was included. And he was--
1. The natural root of mankind, from which all the generations of men on the face of the earth spring. This is evident from Act_17:26.
2. The moral root, a public person, and representative of mankind. And as such the covenant of works was made with him. As to this representation by Adam, we may note--
1. That the man Christ was not included in it; Adam did not represent Him, as he stood covenanting with God. This is manifest, in that Christ is opposed to Adam, as the last and second Adam to the first Adam (1Co_15:45), one representative to another (verse 48).
2. Whether Eve was included in this representation is not so clear. I find she is excepted by some. It is plain that Adam was the original whence she came, as he and she together are of all their posterity. He was her head. For the husband is the head of the wife (Eph_5:23). The thread of the history (Gen_2:1-25) gives us the making of the covenant of works with Adam before the formation of Eve. The covenant itself runs in terms as delivered to one person: Thou mayest--Thou shalt (verses 16, 17). From whence it seems to me that she was included.
3. Without question, all his posterity by ordinary generation were included in it. He stood for them all in that covenant, and was their federal head, that covenant being made with him as a public person representing them all. For--
(1) The relation which the Scripture teaches betwixt Adam and Christ evinces this. The one is called the first Adam, the other the last Adam 1Co_15:45). the one the first man, the ocher the second man (verse 47). Now, Christ is not the second man, but as He is a public person, representing all His elect seed in the covenant of grace, being their federal head; therefore Adam was a public person, representing all his natural seed in the covenant of works, being their federal head; for if there be a second man, there must be a first man; if a second representative, there must be a first. Again, Christ is not the last Adam, but as the federal head of the elect, bringing salvation to them by His covenant keeping; therefore the first Adam was the federal head of those whom he brought death upon by his covenant breaking, and these are all: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (verse 22).
(2) Adams breaking of the covenant is in law their breaking of it; it is imputed to them by a holy God, whose judgment is according to truth, and therefore can never impute to men the sin of which they are not guilty. All have sinned (Rom_5:12).
(3) The ruins by the breach of that covenant fall on all mankind, not excepting those who are not guilty of actual sin. Hence believers are said to have been the children of wrath, even as others (Eph_2:3), and that death hath reigned over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression (Rom_5:14).
(4) The sin and death we come under by Adam, is still restrained unto that sin of his by which he brake the covenant of works. Through the offence of one many be dead. The judgment was by one to condemnation. By one mans offence death reigned by one. By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners (Rom_5:15-19). This representation was just and equal, though we did not make choice of Adam for that effect. The justice and equity of it appears in that--
1. God made the choice; He pitched on Adam as a fit person to represent all mankind; and there is no mending of Gods work, which is perfect Ecc_3:14).
2. Adam was undoubtedly the most fit choice. He was the common father of us all; so being our natural head, he was fittest to be our federal head. He was in case for managing the bargain to the common advantage Ecc_7:29), being made upright, and furnished with sufficient abilities. And his own interest was on the same bottom with that of his posterity. Thus his abilities and natural affections concurring with his own interest, spoke him to be a fit person for that office.
3. The choice was of a piece with the covenant. The covenant, in its own nature most advantageous for man, though it could not be profitable to Job_35:7) was a free benefit and gift on Gods part; forasmuch as man had not a claim to the life promised, but by the covenant. So that as the covenant owed its being, not to nature, but a positive constitution of God, so did the choice owe its being to the same. God joined the covenant and representation together; and so the consent of Adam or his posterity to the one was a consenting to the other.
III. I COME NOW TO DISCOURSE OF THE PARTS OF THE COVENANT. Now, the parts of the covenant of works agreed upon by God and man were three--the condition to he performed by man, the promise to be accomplished to man upon his performance of the condition, and the penalty in case of mans breaking the covenant. The condition of the covenant of works: First. The first part is the condition to be performed; which was obedience to the law, fulfilling the commands God gave him, by doing what they required (Rom_10:5), upon the doing of which he might claim the promised life in virtue of the compact. So this was a covenant, a covenant properly conditional. For understanding of this, we must consider--
1. What law he was by this covenant obliged to yield obedience to; and--
2. What kind of obedience he was obliged to yield thereto.
First. Let us consider what law he was by this covenant obliged to yield obedience to.
1. The natural law, the law of the ten commandments, as the New Testament explains it (Gal_3:10). If it be inquired, How that law was given him? It was written on his mind and heart (Rom_2:15); and that in his creation (Ecc_7:29). Therefore it is called the natural law.
2. Another law which Adam was obliged, by the covenant of works, to yield obedience to, was the positive symbolical law, forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil recorded in the text. This law Adam had not, nor could have, but by revelation; for it was no part of the law of nature, being in its own nature indifferent, and altogether depending on the will of the Lawgiver, who, in a consistency with His own and mans nature too, might have appointed otherwise concerning it. But this law being once given, the natural law obliged him to the observation of it, inasmuch as it strictly bound him to obey his God and Creator in all things, binding him to love the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength. Hence it follows--
(1) That in as far as this law was obeyed, the natural law was obeyed; and the breaking of the former was the breaking of the latter also.
(2) That whatever is revealed by the Lord to be believed or to be done, the natural law of the ten commandments obliges to the believing or doing of it. The law of the Lord is perfect (Psa_19:7).
1. Herein mans obedience was to turn upon the precise point of respect to the will of God, which was a trial of his obedience exactly suited to the state he was then in, and by which the most glaring evidence of true obedience would have been given.
2. Thus his obedience or disobedience behoved to be most clear, conspicuous, and undeniable, not only to himself, but to other creatures capable of observation; forasmuch as this law respected an external thing obvious to sense, and the discerning of any, who yet could not judge of internal acts of obedience or disobedience.
3. It was most proper for asserting Gods dominion over man, being a visible badge of mans subjection to God.
4. It was a most proper moral instrument, and suitable mean, to retain man in his integrity, who, though a happy creature, was yet a changeable one. Secondly. Let us consider what kind of obedience to the law Adam was, by this covenant, obliged to yield, as the condition of it.
To this two-fold law he was to yield--
1. Perfect obedience.
(1) Perfect in respect of the principle of it. His nature, soul, and heart behoved always to be kept pure and untainted, as the principle of action.
(2) Perfect in parts, nowise defective or lame, wanting any part necessary to its integrity (Jam_1:4).
(3) Perfect in degrees (Luk_10:27-28).
2. Adam was obliged to perpetual obedience (Gal_3:10). Not that he was forever to have been upon his trial; for that would have rendered the promise of life vain and fruitless, since he could never at that rate have attained the reward of his obedience. But it behoved to be perpetual, as a condition of the covenant, during the time set by God Himself for the trial; which time God has not discovered in His Word.
3. Adam was obliged to personal obedience. Hence says the Lord, Ye shall keep My statutes and My judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them (Lev_18:5), which words the Apostle Paul quotes: Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doth these things shall live by them (Rom_10:5). The promise to be accomplished to man upon his performance of the condition. That was a promise of life (Rom_10:5), which was implied in the threatening of death in case of sinning. We come now to consider THE PENALTY IN CASE OF MANS BREAKING THE COVENANT, not fulfilling the condition. This was death, death in its full latitude and extent, as opposed unto life and prosperity. This death was two fold. First: Legal death, whereby man sinning became dead in law, being a condemned man, laid under the curse, or sentence of the law, binding him over to the wrath of God, and to revenging justice. For as many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse. For it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them Gal_3:10). Thus was man to die the day he should break the covenant; and thus he died that very moment he sinned, because by his sin he broke the holy, just, and good law of God, set himself in opposition to the holy nature of God, and cast off the yoke of submission to his Creator. Secondly: Real death, which is the execution of the sentence Deu_29:19-20); the threatened evils and punishments contained in the curse of the law coming upon him. And of this there are several parts, all which man became liable to, or fell upon him, when he sinned. We take them up in these three--spiritual, natural, and eternal death.
1. Spiritual death, which is the death of the soul and spirit of man Eph_2:1, where the apostle mentions a being dead in trespasses and sins). This results from the separation of the soul from God, by the breaking of the silver cord of this covenant, which knit innocent man to God, causing him to live, and live prosperously, as long as it was unbroken; but being broken, that union and communion was dissolved, and they parted (Isa_59:2). Thus man was separated from the fountain of life, upon which death necessarily ensued.
2. Natural death, which is the death of the body. This results from the separation of the soul from the body. It is two fold--stinged and unstinged death. Unstinged death parts the soul and body indeed, but not by virtue of the curse for sin. This is the lot of the people of God (1Co_15:55), and is not the penalty of the covenant of works; for that is death with the sting of the curse (Gal_3:10), which death Christ died, which penalty He paid, and so freed believers from it Gal_3:13). So that there is a specified difference betwixt the death of believers and that death threatened in the covenant of works; they are not of the same kind, no more than they die the death that Christ died.
3. Eternal death, which issues from the eternal separation of both soul and body from God in hell (Mat_25:41). This is the full accomplishment of the curse of the covenant of works; and presupposes the union of the soul and body, in a dreadful resurrection to damnation; the criminal soul and body being brought forth from their separate prisons and joined together again, that death may exercise its full force upon them forever and ever. I shall consider THE SEALS OF THE COVENANT OF WORKS, WHEREBY IT WAS CONFIRMED TO ADAM.
It has pleased God to append seals to His covenants with men in all ages, for the confirmation of their faith of the respective covenants; and this covenant seems not to have wanted some seals appended thereto for the same effect.
1. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen_2:17). Whatever it was, it was not so called, as having a power really to make men wise. So the tempter pretended (Gen_3:5), but he was a liar from the beginning (Joh_8:44). But it was a sign both of good and evil; sealing to him all good while he should abstain from it, and evil if he should eat of it; and so confirming his faith in both parts of the persuasion of it. And eventually, by eating of it, he knew good by the loss of it, and evil by the feeling of it. Though it was not to be touched, it might be seen, even as the rainbow, the seal of the covenant with Noah.
2. The tree of life (Gen_2:9). The which, though it might be an excellent means of preserving the vigour of natural life, as other trees of paradise also, yet it could not have a virtue in itself of making man every way immortal. But it was a notable sacramental sign of life and eternal happiness, according to the nature of that covenant.
Here, as in a glass, ye may see several things, concerning God, concerning man in his best estate, concerning Christ, and concerning man in his present fallen state.
1. Concerning God, look into this covenant, and behold--
(1) The wonderful condescension of God, and of His goodness and grace toward His creature man.
(2) The spotless holiness and exact justice of God against sin.
2. Concerning man in his state of primitive integrity.
(1) Man was a holy and happy creature in his first state.
(2) Man at his best estate, standing on his own legs, is a fickle creature, liable to change.
3. Concerning Christ the Saviour of sinners, behold here--
(1) The absolute necessity of a Surety in the event of a breach of this covenant.
(2) The love of Christ to poor sinners in becoming surety for broken man.
4. Concerning man in his fallen state.
(1) It is no wonder, that however scarce good works are in the world, yet working to win heaven is so very frequent. Legal principles and practices are natural to men; the covenant of works being that covenant that was made with Adam, and in him with all mankind, and so after a sort engrained in mans nature. And nothing less than the power of grace is able to bring man from off that way, to the salvation by Jesus Christ (1Co_1:23-24).
(2) Salvation by works of our own is quite impossible; there is no life nor salvation to be had by the law, For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse (Gal_3:10). (T. Boston, D. D.)
Of the covenant of works
I. To show WHY GOD ENTERED INTO THIS COVENANT WITH MAN.
1. For His own glory, which is the supreme end of all His actions. More particularly--
(1) To display the lustre of His manifold or variegated wisdom Eph_3:10).
(2) To show His wonderful moderation. For though He be Sovereign Monarch of the world, and has absolute power over all creatures to dispose of them as He pleases, yet, in covenanting with man, He sweetly tempered His supremacy and sovereign power, seeking, as it were, to reign with mans consent.
(3) For the praise of the glory of His grace. It was free condescension on Gods part to make such a promise to mans obedience.
(4) For venting His boundless love in the communications of His goodness to man.
(5) For the manifestation of His truth and faithfulness in keeping covenant with His creature, which could not otherwise have been so gloriously discovered.
(6) That He might be the more cleared and justified in resenting the injuries done Him by the disobedience of His creatures, with whom He had condescended to deal so graciously. For the more condescension and goodness there is on Gods part, the greater ingratitude appears on mans part in trampling on the Divine goodness, But--
2. God condescended to enter into covenant with man for mans greater good.
(1) That thereby He might put the higher honour upon him.
(2) To bind him the faster to his duty. The Lord knew mans mutable state, and how slippery and inconstant the heart of man is, where confirming grace is not vouchsafed; therefore, to prevent this inconstancy incident to man, a finite creature, and to establish him in His obedience, He laid him under a covenant obligation to His service.
(3) That his obedience might be more cheerful, being that unto which he had willingly tied himself. God chose to rule man by his own consent, rather than by force.
(4) For his greater comfort and encouragement. By this he might clearly see what he might expect from God as a reward of his diligence and activity in His service.
(5) That He might manifest Himself to him, and deal with him the more familiarly. The dealing by way of covenant is the way of dealing betwixt man and man that hath least of distance in it, and most of familiarity, wherein parties come near to each other with greatest freedom.
II. I come now TO MAKE SOME PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENT OF THIS SUBJECT.
1. See here the great and wonderful condescension of God, who was pleased to stoop so low as to enter into a covenant with His own creature.
2. See what a glorious condition man was in when God entered into a covenant with him.
3. See that God is very just in all that comes on man. He set him up with a good stock, in a noble case, making him His covenant party. He gave him the noblest undeserved encouragement to continue in his obedience, and told him his hazard if he should disobey. So that falling he is left without excuse, his misery being entirely owing to himself.
4. See the deplorable condition of all Adams posterity by reason of the breach of this covenant. They are under the curse of the law, which is an universal curse, and discharges its thunder against every person who is naturally under that covenant, and has not changed his state.
5. This serves to humble all flesh, and beat down the pride of all created glory, under the serious consideration of the great loss we have sustained by Adams fall, and the sad effects thereof upon us. We Have lost all that is good and valuable, the image and favour of God, and have incurred the wrath and displeasure of a holy God.
6. See the unsearchable riches of Divine grace, in providing a better covenant for the recovery and salvation of fallen man.
7. There is no wonder, that however little good is wrought in the world, yet working to win heaven is so frequent. We have sufficient evidence of the covenant of works being made with man as a public person, seeing it is yet natural to us to do that we may live, and to think that God will accept us for our works sake.
8. See your misery, all ye that are out of Christ. This covenant is your way to heaven, which is now impossible. Tell not of your good meanings and desires, your repentance, and your obedience, such as it is; and think not to get life, salvation, and acceptance thereby. For the covenant ye are under admits of no repentance, no will for the deed. It requires nothing less than perfect obedience, which ye are incapable to give.
9. Therefore give over this way of seeking life by the broken covenant of works, and come to the Lord Jesus Christ; lay hold on the better covenant, and come up to Christs chariot (Son_3:9-10), which will drive you safely to eternal life and glory. That chariot which the first Adam drove, went not far till it was all shattered, and made unfit to carry any to heaven. It breaks with the weight of the least sin; and so you can never think it will drive to heaven with you (Rom_8:1-39). But come into the chariot of the covenant of grace, and ye will be safely carried in it to the land of eternal rest and glory. (T. Boston, D. D.)
The law of paradise
A right understanding of this law of paradise is necessary, in order to get a clear knowledge of the most essential and fundamental doctrines of the gospel; and no less necessary in order to detect and refute many great and dangerous errors which have prevailed, and which still prevail, in the Christian world.
I. I am to show that GOD HAS A RIGHT TO GIVE LAW to all His intelligent creatures. It is the part of a superior to give law to an inferior. Every lawgiver must be supreme, in respect to those to whom he gives law. God is by nature supreme in all His natural and moral attributes. His power is superior to the united power of all created beings. His wisdom is superior to their united wisdom. His goodness is superior to their united goodness. He stands supreme among the whole intelligent creation, in point of power, wisdom, and goodness, which are the most amiable and essential qualifications of a lawgiver. This supremacy alone is sufficient to give Him the throne of the universe, and clothe Him with the highest possible authority, to give law to all His intelligent creatures in every part of His vast dominions. But here the important point to be considered is, how God enacts His will into a law or rule of duty to the subjects of His moral government. This He does, by publishing His will to them in a certain manner. By publishing His will, I say, because there is no necessity of His publishing His design, intention or determination. This, as a lawgiver, He has a right to keep a secret in His own breast. But He must publish His will, that is, His pleasure, in order to make His will or pleasure a rule of duty of legal obligation. And He must also make it known in a certain manner, to give it the force and obligation of law; or in other words, He must publish His will in the form of law.
1. In the first place, He must specify the persons or beings to whom He speaks authoritatively.
2. Secondly, He must express His will in the form of a precept, or a prohibition, in order to clothe it with Divine authority.
3. Besides, thirdly, He must threaten to punish those who disobey His precepts or prohibitions, in order to give His will the form and force of law. There can be no precept nor prohibition without a penalty expressed or implied. The penalty is the sanction of a law, and expresses the whole authority of the lawgiver.
II. It is now easy to show that GOD DID GIVE A PROPER LAW TO ADAM respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. These words were addressed to Adam personally; they contained a precise prohibition, which was sanctioned by a precise penalty. Adam was the very person prohibited; the thing prohibited was his eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and the penalty annexed was death: In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. This was a proper law in distinction from any covenant, or constitution.
III. I am next to show WHEREIN THIS LAW OF PARADISE WAS LIKE ALL OTHER DIVINE LAWS. Here it is easy to mention several important points of resemblance.
1. It was like all other Divine laws in its nature. Every Divine law which was given to Adam, and which has ever been given to his posterity, has required the heart, or internal holiness.
2. The law respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was like all other Divine laws in its extent. It extended to all who were specified in it, and to no others.
3. The law of paradise was like all other Divine laws in regard to its condemning power. Every Divine law has a condemning power; that is, a power to condemn those who are bound by it, and actually transgress it. And the law given to Adam, respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had the same condemning power, and did actually condemn those who were guilty of eating the forbidden fruit.
IV. Wherein the law respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was UNLIKE SOME LAWS which God has given to mankind. And here I can think of but one point of difference worthy to be mentioned; and that is, in respect to duration. This law was given to our first parents, to try their love and obedience; and as soon as it had answered this purpose, it ceased of course to have any legal force or obligation.
V. WHAT PUNISHMENT THE LAW THREATENED TO ADAM, IN CASE OF DISOBEDIENCE. The words of the law are plain and explicit. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. (N. Emmons, D. D.)
The threatened death
Our business in now to consider the import and the extent of this penalty. What are we to understand by this threatened death? What is the true construction of the language: In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die? Let us first inquire whether bodily death, the dissolution of the physical organization, is embraced in the threatened penalty? Is there good ground to believe, either from the teachings of Scripture, or from any other source, that this is at least a part, if not the whole, of the punishment which was denounced and executed on our first parents? We answer at once that we know of no reason whatever for thus thinking. That corporal death does not include the whole of what was threatened, we suppose that there is little occasion for attempting to show to any here; and I hope to be able to convince the most of you, in the course of my discussion, that there is no evidence that it constitutes any part of the original threatening. I will not say that physical pain and bodily dissolution are not and cannot be, in any case, the fruit of sin and a part of its punishment; but there is force in the allegation, that as sin is the transgression of a moral law, and a moral offence, its proper punishment should first and chiefly be looked for in a disturbed state of the moral feelings and the moral relations. Since the seat of sin is the mind, it is mainly, no doubt, in the mind that its punishment should be sought. We cannot argue from the words in the text--Thou shalt surely die--that bodily death forms any part of the evil thus signified. This language may just as well be interpreted of moral or spiritual death, as of corporeal. The terms die and death are often used in the Bible to denote nothing beyond spiritual death, or that state of mind, that feeling of guilt, condemnation, and misery, which immediately succeeds the transgression of the Divine law. But is there not a reason, in the language of the threatening itself, which unavoidably drives us to the spiritual sense? The terms employed are: IN THE DAY THAT THOU EATEST THEREOF, thou shalt surely die. Now if we suppose here any reference at all to bodily death, if we consider this idea as in any manner included in the expression, Thou shalt surely die, we at once involve ourselves in a great and apparently inextricable difficulty. We compromise the veracity of God; we make Him pronounce a sentence which He does not execute; for Adam and Eve did not die corporeally, did not suffer the extinction of their natural earthly life the very day in which they partook of the forbidden fruit, but lived, according to the account which we have of them, hundreds of years after this time. Is there, then, any way of avoiding the conclusion that bodily death is no part of the threatening pronounced against them? I certainly know of none. Let us see, however, what has been offered in order to meet this difficulty. It has been maintained by some, and is perhaps the common view, that although Adam and Eve did not actually suffer bodily death on that day, yet they then became mortal; they underwent a sudden change in their physical organization, which made them liable to death, and rendered it certain that their bodies would ultimately decay and perish. Death, according to this view, then began to work in them, inasmuch as they then became liable to bodily pains and diseases, which, by the appointment of the Creator, end in corporeal death. Now, satisfactory and consistent as this explanation may have been deemed by many, I trust I shall disturb no one in saying, that it is wholly incapable of support. It is, in fact, a mere supposition, invented, I believe, for the purpose of escaping a difficulty; and a supposition in favour of which there is not a particle of evidence. Especially we cannot accept it, when there are against it these two objections; first, that it assigns to the word die, a meaning which it never has elsewhere, that of becoming liable to die; and hence, secondly, that it assumes that man was created physically immortal, endowed not only with an immortal soul, but with an equally immortal body; since otherwise his sin could not be spoken of as making him mortal. Let us then examine more particularly this assumption, that man had at the beginning a naturally imperishable body. The most that can be said of it is, that it is a mere human opinion, devoid of any precise and express warrant from the Bible. We believe that they received from their Maker a body which was subject to old age, decay, and death; and that their sin produced in them no immediate change in this respect. They were subject from the beginning to the great law of mortality, and had they always maintained their integrity, would, at the proper time, have passed out of their original corporeal life into some higher state of existence. The mere statement of this view is already some evidence of its correctness; for it corresponds in no way with our conceptions of the high dignity and destination of these first sharers of our nature, to suppose them encumbered forever with the shackles of a coarse material body, appointed always to dwell on the earth, and denied any other knowledge and happiness, than what might come to them in this region and under these physical conditions. The garden of Eden was, at best, but the fit receptacle of their infancy; and after a suitable time passed on earth, a period of existence in the body, it must have been the intention of their Maker to take them up, by translation, if not by death, to a nobler sphere. This view recommends itself to us as intrinsically reasonable. It accords with all our best and most natural conceptions. But we have, in favour of the view, something more than this strong internal recommendation, this conformity with our natural ideas of the high destination of man. The Scriptures themselves lend it their decisive confirmation. They teach us that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; that He gave him for food every herb bearing seed, and every tree yielding fruit; and that He commanded him to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it. This is an account of man, not as affected by sin, but as he was from the beginning. It is the description of his physical origin, of his sustenance, and of his appointment to exist in a succession of generations, till the world should be filled and subdued by his multiplied descendants. Now, can we fail to see, in all these carefully enumerated circumstances, the sure marks and evidences of a law of individual decay and dissolution? Is it not here clearly implied that our first parents were not exempted from any of the physical wants and changes which belong to men in general? Further evidence that man was created mortal is found in the sentence pronounced on him at the time of his transgression. The substantial import of the curse is: While thy life lasts, thou shalt toil for its support, and have experience of sorrow. The words take for granted that the bodily life was limited; but they do not at all intimate that it then became so; that the sin, just committed and now punished, had limited this life. Far less do we find in them any allusion to a suddenly produced change in the physical constitution, by which this, created immortal, was now rendered mortal. On the whole, these intimations in Genesis (and we know of no conflicting statements in other parts of the Bible) lead us to conclude that the bodily constitution of Adam and Eve was, from the beginning, in every respect essentially like our own. They had just such skin and bones, just such muscles and nerves as we have. They fed on similar food, and would just as surely have hungered and died without it. They were placed in like relations to all natural agents and natural laws. A further support to the view here urged is found in the fact that Christ came on earth in a mortal body. As He was wholly free from sin, and an example of the right condition of our nature morally, so we cannot help viewing Him as exempted from any liability to physical sufferings, which were not common also to our first parents before the Fall. If these were created with a body incapable of pain, want, and death, then they were thus far distinguished above Christ, the Lord from heaven. But this is a highly improbable supposition. We add that it did not belong to the design of Christ to save any from corporeal death. Still His salvation must be commensurate with the evils caused by sin; and we hence infer that a liability to physical death is not among these evils. Our Saviour nowhere teaches us to look upon the death of the body as in itself an evil, and to see in it a proof of our guilt. There is no difficulty in admitting that sin may render the prospect of dissolution and of what lies beyond it sad and fearful, while yet it is true that men would suffer dissolution if they had not sinned. Sin may not have brought in corporeal death, any more than it brought in the destination to a continued and endless life after this death; but yet it may have darkened the view and the contemplation of both, and particularly of the latter. Returning, then, to the question, In what consisted the penalty inflicted on our first parents for sin? we have no hesitation in replying, that it consisted essentially in spiritual death, or in a state of condemnation before God, with such superadded physical sufferings, corporeal death excluded, as are traceable to sin. The penalty of their transgression lay emphatically in that state of mind which is always the appointed result of transgression. Adopting this view, we have no difficulty in giving their full force to all the words in the text: In the day that thou cutest thereof thou shalt surely die. The execution of the penalty thus corresponds perfectly with the threatening. The very day of the commission of the sin is the day of its righteous visitation. A spiritual punishment alights on the offenders, and enters into their very souls. They fear the presence of their Maker, and hide themselves from Him amidst the trees of the garden. This view saves the Divine veracity. It recommends itself to our sense of what is right and proper. It places the main punishment of the sin in the fit place, in the mind and the conscience of the sinner. It maintains the supremacy of the moral, instead of half sacrificing it to the material. Let us learn from what has been said, to regard, not bodily death, but sin, as the great evil which we have to fear. The death of the body, when not caused, and not hastened by sin, is never in itself an evil; but an uncorrected sinful character is always a fearful evil. The state of an unholy soul is as wrong now as it would be seen to be, if suddenly unclothed, and summoned into the world of spirits. It could carry thither nothing but its character, nothing but itself, as its own life education had made it. Let us then all seek to give a wise direction to our thoughts. Let us recall them from the material to the moral, from the perishable to the imperishable, from the accidental to the essential. (D. N. Sheldon, D. D.)
The prohibition
1. It was a needful prohibition. To remind man that he is not absolute sovereign, only vicegerent.
2. It was but one prohibition, Man was not burdened, or fretted, or perplexed with many points of this kind. Only one! How gracious! How considerate, as if God sought to make mans trial the least possible, so as to leave him without excuse if he should disobey.
3. It was a simple prohibition. It had nothing intricate or dark about it. There was nothing mysterious about it, nothing in which man could mistake, nothing which could leave room for the question, Am I obeying or not? It was distinct beyond the possibility of mistake.
4. It was a visible prohibition. It was connected with something both visible and tangible. It was not inward, but outward. It was not a thing of faith, but of sight. Everything about it was palpable and open-the tree, the fruit, the place, the threat, the consequences.
5. It was an easy prohibition. Man could not say it was hard to keep. He was only to refrain from eating one fruit. Being a negative, not a positive requirement, it reduced obedience to its lowest form and easiest terms. Hence mans sin was the greater. He was wholly inexcusable.
6. It was enforced by a most solemn penalty. It began with a declaration of Gods will, and it ended with the proclamation of the penalty--death. How much this expression includes has been often disputed. There is no need of this. In the day that man ate of the tree he came under condemnation; he became a death-doomed man; the sentence went forth against him. This death brought with it all manner of infinite ills and woes. It brought with it or included in it, condemnation, wrath, misery, separation from God; all endless; all immediate; all irreversible, had not free love come in; had grace not reigned through righteousness, unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. The sentence was, The soul that sinneth, it shall die. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. (H. Bonar, D. D.)
The first law
The first word God spake to man was a blessing; the second word was a law. We might have anticipated this. It seems the natural expression of the relationship which exists between the Creator and His creature. The commandment given was a very simple one, Thou shalt not eat of the tree of knowledge. We are almost involuntarily reminded of the words of Naamans servant--My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? Doubtless, in this morning of creation, Adams soul, filled to overflowing with gladness, was ready to break forth, and say, What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me? No thank offering could have seemed too great for God, no tribute of love too costly. The language of his worship could only be, Of thine own, I give thee. And yet it was a little thing which God asked of man, for to obey is better than sacrifice. Think, how great, how abounding was the provision for Adam; how narrow the prohibition. It was a small thing that God demanded; but a great ruin was involved in the withholding of obedience. We wonder to see how slight was the thread to which a worlds destinies were suspended. Blind fools we are, slow to learn the lesson taught in every page of the Bible, and in every dispensation of personal providence, that there is nothing trivial with God. He makes great matters to turn on imperceptible hinges. We have no spiritual microscope wherewith to read that fine writing of the eternal finger of God upon every grain of ocean sand, and every glittering mote in the sunbeam, telling us of a purpose under the heaven. Curious men have striven hard to discover what the forbidden tree of knowledge was: they would fain study the physiology of that fruit, which brought death into our world; but surely, there was no physical quality in that tree to enlighten the mind; it received its name, because by eating it, in transgression of Gods law, man obtained the bitter knowledge of evil as an antagonist of good: the act of feeding upon its fruit taught him that there was misery as well as blessedness, darkness as well as light, evil as well as good. God called the tree according to His foreknowledge; Adam only saw the fitness of the name, when, having eaten, his eyes were opened, and he knew his ruin. There is one thing which calls, I think, for particular attention in the first law. It is, that there was no independent intrinsic evil in the forbidden act; it was evil only because Gods law stood against it. If God had spoken of intrinsic evil to Adam (I use the word intrinsic, because I know no better word to express my meaning, evil, per se) he would not have understood that which was said. If God had said, Thou shalt not kill, or Thou shalt not lie, Adam would have been utterly unable to comprehend the words. He had not yet learnt the nature of evil. God took an act that was in itself perfectly innocent, and by forbidding it, He made it sin in Adam. I trust I shall not be mistaken here. I do not say, God made Adam to sin; but I say, Gods law prohibiting an action, caused that action to be sinful in His creature. This is, indeed, a great lesson for us, and one which we are very unwilling to learn. Gods law is as sovereign as His love. It is not necessary that a thing should be essential evil to meet with His disapprobation; it is enough that His will is against it. Behold, then, the severity of God, and fear before Him. There is no such thing as good by His law condemned. There is no such thing as evil by His law commanded. (The Protoplast.)
The limitation
There need not, I think, be any reasonable difficulty in finding out the meaning of these trees. Make the statement historical, or make it parabolical, and it comes much to the same thing. It means that there is a permanent line separating obedience from disobedience; that all created life is limited; and that whoever breaketh through a hedge a serpent shall bite him. These trees were not traps set to catch the man; they were necessities of the case. They showed him where to stop. Wonderful, truly, that if he touched the tree of mystery he should die I Yes, and it is grandly and solemnly true. It is so with life. Let life alone if you would live. Receive it as a mystery, and it will bless you; degrade it, abuse it, and it will slay you in great wrath. It is the same with light. Pluck the sun, and you will be lost in darkness; let the sun alone in his far-off ministry, and you shall never want day and summer. It is the same with music. Open the organ, that you may read its secret, and it will fall into silence; touch it on the appointed keys, and it will never tire in answering your sympathetic appeals. It is so difficult to be satisfied with the little we have and the little we know. We want to see over the hedge. We long to withdraw the screen that is everywhere trembling around us. We torture these little pulses of ours to tell us what they are, and how they were set a-ticking in their warm prisons. No man ever saw his own heart! There it is, knocking in his side, as if it wanted to come out; but if you let it out, it can return to its work no more! It seems to be only the skin that covers the pulse, but, though seemingly so near, it is really so far! In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, said the Almighty. This is not a threat. It is not a defiance or a challenge. It is a revelation; it is a warning! When you tell your child not to touch the fire or it will be burned, you do not threaten the child: you warn it in love, and solely for its own good. Foolish would the child be if it asked why there should be any fire; and foolish are we, with high aggravations, when we ask why God should have set the tree of life and the tree of knowledge in Eden. These trees are in every family. Yes; they are in every family, because they are in every heart! How near is death. One act and we cease to live. This is true, physically, morally, socially: one act--one step between us and death! (J. Parker, D. D.)
The missionary trees
A good man in Berkshire had a cherry orchard. He bethought himself what he could do for the missionary cause, and at length selected two cherry trees, the fruit of which he would devote himself most sacredly to the cause of missions. When his friends occasionally visited him, he allowed them the full range of his orchard. Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, said he, but of these two trees ye shall not eat--they belong to God. The fruit was carefully kept separate, was brought to market, and the proceeds remitted to the Church Missionary Society. (Word and Work.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v18 Gen_2:18. Help meet] Prob. “according to his front” (Dav.)…
CRITICAL NOTES.—
Gen_2:18. Help meet] Prob. “according to his front” (Dav.) or “corresponding to him” (Ges., Fürst, Dav.).
Read full note →
Gen_2:19. To see what He would call them] Or: “that he [Adam] might see what he should call them.” Either rendering is valid.
Gen_2:21. Deep sleep] Sept. extasis = “trance.”
Gen_2:23. This] An exclamation of joyful satisfaction. Prob. no Eng. trans. can give out the striking threefold repetition of the feminine pronoun zoth: “THIS (fem.)—NOW—is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: THIS (fem.) shall be called Woman; because out of Man was she taken—this (fem.)” Woman] Heb., ishah, fem. of ish. Man] Heb., ish: perh. a prim. word (Ges. Dav.); but more probably = strong (Fürst, Dav.):—to be distinguished from, âdhâm (“Adam,” “man”) as Lat. vir from homo, and Gr. anêr from anthropos. This distinction, with the idioms growing out of it, will be found worth constant attention.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Gen_2:18-25
THE CREATION OF WOMAN
I. Woman was brought to man in order that she might relieve his solitude by intelligent companionship.—“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone.” When we thus state that man was lonely we do not mean to imply that the world in which he lived was a desolate waste, but simply that it was destitute of proper companionship for him. The beasts of the field were created, and were divinely presented to Adam that he might recognize them, that he might name them, that they might awaken his intellectual energies, and that their departure might awaken within him the thought of loneliness. But the brutes are not companions for man, they cannot enter into the high enjoyments of his intellectual life, nor can they join him in his devotional moods. He is separated from them by a wide abyss; he is their lord, they are unknowingly his servants. Then if man could not find a companion in the earth beneath, could he not in the heaven above? Was not God his companion and friend. God was his frequent visitant, but nothing more. The finite mind of Adam could not have found the rest it needed in the infinite problem and presence of God. As in the case of the brutes, Adam was too much their superior to find in them companionship. So the Divine Being was too much superior to Adam for the terrestrial companionship he needed. In order to true and happy companionship there must be a fair equality of intellectual power, of moral sympathy, and a real community of daily life, existing between the parties. Hence there was a deep necessity, in order to relieve the loneliness of Adam, that another human being should be created to keep him constant company. Man to-day can have no idea of the loneliness of Adam, as he first stepped out into life. He was the first man. He stood in a great silence. There were none to whom he could express the deep feeling of his heart. Things are altered now. The world is crowded. Instead of solitude, there are crowds. Instead of silence, there is uproar. Instead of loneliness, there are far too many companionships inviting the truant attention of man. And this condition of the world is more adapted to the number and strength of man’s mental capacities and moral energies. It is more likely to develop both. It is more conducive to his happiness. It may be likewise more conducive to temptation. Companionship may be a curse, as it often is a blessing.
II. Woman was brought to man that she might be his helpmeet in the struggles of life. “I will make him a help-meet for him.” Adam needed a help-meet:—
1. To develop his intellectual thinkings. When Adam was created he would have but few ideas, which would be very crude, more characterized by wonder than by settled conviction. His mind would need development. Eve would encourage this development; instigated by curiosity, and by a desire to know the meaning of the things around, they would together pursue the study of the material universe. Thus their minds would expand, and with this expansion they would attain mental sympathy, through being unitedly employed in the same research. They would have common themes of thought and conversation. Wives should aid and encourage the mental development of their husbands, together they should inquire into the mysteries of the universe, and they would find glad employment in so doing, healthful exercise as well as definite result.
2. To culture his moral sympathies. Adam was strong in manhood, and it is not often that strength combines pathos. Hence there was need that one of loving heart, and tender disposition should subdue by unspoken influence the lord of creation, and by awakening within his soul feelings of gentleness, should strengthen the sceptre which God had put into his hand. The influence of woman should make men sympathetic, should give them a heart to feel the world’s pain and enable them to manifest to those who need it, a patient love.
3. To aid him in the daily needs of life. Even in Eden man had certain physical wants, and though we never read of Eve as engaged in the very necessary pursuits of ordinary female life, yet no doubt they were not forgotten by her. In harmony with the early times she no doubt provided for the daily wants of her husband. Wives show their true womanhood by so doing. A wife who will neglect the temporal wants of her family and home, is unworthy the name.
4. To join him in his worship of God. We can imagine that the souls of Adam and Eve would be full of devotion and praise. They had been immediately created by God. They were the sole proprietors of the soil. They were to be the progenitors of humanity. Their lives were full of spiritual joy. Their souls were pure. God came to them in glorious vision. Together they would worship him. Let husbands and wives throughout the world join together in their prayers and praises. Thus woman is man’s help-meet, to rejoice in his joy, to share his sorrow, to minister to his comfort, and to aid his religious life and worship.
III. Woman was brought to man that she might receive his love, protection, and care. Eve was taken from the side of Adam, that she might be equal with him; from near his heart that she might be loved by him; from under his arm that she might be protected by him. Woman was not intended to be man’s slave. In many heathen nations this is the case, but wherever the Bible is taken, it teaches the moral elevation of woman. How intimate is the marriage relationship. The two become one flesh. They forsake all other relationship, comparatively, for the new one assumed. A man never shows more respect for himself than when he manifests love and respect for his wife. It is a great sin to violate this holy relationship, either by brutality or neglect. LESSONS:—
1. The Divine compassion for a lonely man.
2. That marriage is to furnish man with true companionship of soul.
3. That marriage is to aid man in all the exigencies of life.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen_2:18. This complete loneliness, marking an imperfect life, was thoroughly unique. Whatever exileship or bereavement may effect, whatever selfishness, or misanthropy, or great grief for the dead may make you feel for the time, you can never have reproduced in you Adam’s loneliness. The world around teems with human life that wants your blessing; and there are in the biographies of men, in your memories of the departed, in the presence still on earth of the good and the noble, helpers to the heart and mind such as Adam could not know in his solitude. Even the “last man” will have interwoven with his very being memories of human companions, and have upon him uneffaceable impressions of them such as were impossible to the first man [Homilist].
The creation of woman:—
1. The occasion.
2. The resolution.
3. The preparation.
4. The presentation.
Loneliness is not good:—
1. For intellectual development.
2. For moral culture.
3. For true enjoyment.
4. A rebuke to monks.
Loneliness not good:—
1. For man’s comfort.
2. For man’s employment.
3. For posterity.
The woman a help:—
1. For assistance in family government.
2. For the comfort of society.
3. For the continuance of the race.
God knows all the wants of man and graciously makes arrangements to supply them:—
1. The sabbath for rest.
2. The garden for pleasure and work.
3. The wife for companionship.
A wife is not good, till it be not good to be without a wife.
A man may, and it is God’s will that he should, be the better for his wife:—
1. She builds up the House (Pro_14:1).
2. She profits him in his estate (Pro_31:12).
3. She easeth him of his cares in looking to the ways of her family (Pro_31:27).
4. She adviseth him by her counsels (Gen_21:10).
5. She comforts him in his sorrows.
6. She helps to foresee and prevent danger (1Sa_25:18; 1Sa_25:33).
7. She furthers him in piety, by seasonable encouragements, reverent admonitions, and by joining with him in holy prayers.
Only the wife brought by God is likely to be good.
A wife the helper of her husband:—
1. Not his guide.
2. Not his ruler.
3. Not his slave.
4. But his counsellor.
A wife cannot be a good wife unless she be a meet and fit wife:—
1. In parentage.
2. In estate.
3. In education.
4. In disposition.
5. In religion.
Jehovah Elohim, man’s Creator, knows what in every kind is good for man.
The judgment of the great God is, that it is in no way good for man, in respect of natural, civil, or spiritual relations, to abide alone.
Man was not made for a solitary, but for a sociable life, and to commune with God.
God in goodness makes that good for man which he stands in need of.
The woman is God’s workmanship as well as the man.
The woman created last:—
1. The ground of her inferiority.
2. The reason of her subjection.
3. Her plea for protection.
The woman a help to man:—
1. God given.
2. Ready.
3. Willing.
4. Welcome.
Gen_2:19. If man had been formed out of the ground, the ground could not give him a companion.
God brought the beasts to Adam before he created Eve, in order that the unserviceableness of other things should enhance the worth of the truly good.
God can order the creature to do what he wishes:—
1. The ravens to feed Elijah.
2. The she bears to destroy the scoffing children.
3. The lion to meet the prophet.
4. The sparrows. God is pleased to honour man so far, to employ them in many things which of right belong unto Himself:—
1. To encourage men to His service.
2. To unite men in love.
3. To increase their reward and talents.
Jehovah is maker, and will have Adam be the namer of all the creatures in the earth:—
1. A token of sovereignty.
2. A token of ownership.
3. A token of power.
“To see what he would call them.” If he had been permitted to name himself, it should have been, probably, the Son of God, as he is called by St. Luke (Chapter Luk_3:38) in regard of his creation. But God, to humble him, calls him first, Adam, and after the fall, Enosh, that is, frail, sorry man. [Trapp.]
Gen_2:20. As the beasts were no companion for man, we observe that no creature ought to be applied to any other use than God at first designed for it:—
1. God hath made all his works in Wisdom
2. That God’s sovereignty may be acknowledged.
3. That confusion may be avoided.
Brutes no companions for man:—
1. They have not common speech.
2. They have not common employments.
3. Their lives are not guided by common rules.
4. They do not live for common ends.
Gen_2:21. “A deep sleep to fall upon Adam.” Whether it was a sleep or a trance cannot be gathered from the text. It was such a sleep, questionless, that took from Adam the power of observation till the work was ended. Some conceive that he was cast into this sleep:—
1. To take from him the sense of pain, which the taking out of his rib would involve.
2. That the work might be wholly of God.
3. That the Divine Providence might be the more apparent in providing a helpmeet for him when he was asleep.
4. To hide the operation from man.
The rib was probably taken for its situation in the body:—
1. Not from the head or foot, to manifest that the place of the wife was to be neither above nor far below her husband.
2. That it was taken from a place near the heart, to indicate the true affection with which man must regard his wife.
3. Because this part of the body is covered with the arms, it denotes the protection the wife should receive. Perhaps the rib was taken because it could be the best spared from the body of man without deforming it. The bone was also taken, not so much to indicate the moral stiffness of woman as her firmness in help and need.
God does not shew men how He works, He only manifests the product of his toil.
God takes care of us, and provides for our good even while we are asleep.
God takes nothing from us but He takes care to recompense it to us again.
He that marrieth in the Lord, marrieth also with the Lord; and he cannot be absent from his own marriage. A good wife was one of the first real and royal gifts bestowed upon Adam; and God consults not with him to make him happy. As he was ignorant while himself was made, so shall he not know while a second self is made out of him; both that the comfort might be greater than was expected, as also that he might not upbraid his wife with any great dependence or obligation; he neither willing the work, nor suffering any pain to have it done. The rib cannot challenge no more of her than the earth can of him” [Trapp].
The woman was only made of one bone lest she should be stiff and stubborn [B. King].
Gen_2:22. Man’s first sight of woman:—
1. One of admiration.
2. One of gratitude.
3. One of love.
God hath allowed but one wife to one man.
Every child of God must desire to receive his wife from God’s hand:—
1. That God, who looks at the heart, is only able rightly to direct their choice.
2. It implies an obligation to make a right use of marriage.
3. It sweetens all the crosses of life.
Gen_2:23. True marriage:—
1. Of God’s making.
2. Of woman’s consenting.
3. Of man’s reception.
Man and wife are one flesh and bone.
The woman’s flesh was from man, not her soul.
Marriage is an emblem of spiritual union between Christ and his church.
Marriage is of God’s institution.
The happiest marriage is between souls stamped with God’s image.
Gen_2:24. God hath not only instituted marriage, but given law also to rule it.
The union between parents and children is less than between man and wife, and therefore must give place.
God’s law warrants the children’s desertion of their fathers to contract marriage in a lawful way. No honour due is to be denied to parents.
Cleaving in mutual love to each other is the great conjugal law:—
1. Such cleaving must be sincere.
2. Such cleaving must be reciprocal.
3. Such cleaving must be without end.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Helpmeet! Gen_2:18. “For Adam was not found an helpmeet.” This was an anomalous position. All the beings with whom hitherto he had come in contact were either above him or below him. No one was his equal—he was alone. Around him were innumerable servants; but the wide circle of his empire did not contain one with whom he could reciprocate affection—with whom he could in all points sympathise. To supply this blank a new creation had to take place—a fairer form was to enrich the earth than any which it yet contained.
For there’s that sweetness in a female mind,
Which in a man, we cannot hope to find.—Pomfret.
Home Duties! Gen_2:18. The duties of domestic life—exercised as they must be in retirement, and calling forth all the sensibilities of the female—are perhaps as necessary to the full development of her charms as the shades and shadows are to the rose; confirming its beauty, and increasing its fragrance:—
For nothing lovelier can be found
In woman, than to study household good,
And good works in her husband to promote.—Milton.
Feminine Solace! Gen_2:18. Washington Irving likens such a woman to the vine. As the vine, which has long twined its graceful foliage about the oak, and been lifted by it in sunshine, will, when the hardy plant is rifted by the thunderbolt, cling round it with its caressing tendrils, and bind up its shattered boughs; so it is beautifully ordered by Providence that woman should be man’s stay and solace when smitten with sudden calamity—binding up the broken heart.
“’Tis woman’s to bind up the broken heart,
And soften the bending spirit’s smart;
And to light in this world of sin and pain,
The lamp of love, and of joy again.”—Anon.
Wife-help! Gen_2:19. Guelph, the Duke of Bavaria, was besieged in his castle, and compelled to capitulate to the Emperor Conrad. His lady demanded for herself and the other ladies safe conduct to a place of safety, with whatever they could carry. This was granted; and to the astonishment of all, the ladies appeared, carrying their husbands on their backs. Thus wives aided their husbands: and never in the gayest moods in tournament or court did those fair dames look more lovely.
“Tis beauty that doth oft make women proud;
’Tis virtue that doth make them most admired.”—Shakespeare.
Woman! Gen_2:19. Hargrave says that women are the poetry of the world in the same sense as the stars are the poetry of heaven. Clear, light-giving harmonies, women are the terrestrial planets that rule the destinies of mankind.
“Ye are stars of the night, ye are gems of the morn,
Ye are dewdrops, whose lustrue illumines the thorn.”—Moore.
Adam’s Sleep! Gen_2:21. When we look at Adam cast into a deep sleep, we take courage in the prospect of that change which all of us must undergo; for is not the first man’s trance or slumber an emblem of death? And may not God enable the believer to yield up his spirit at last, as easily as Adam did his rib? It was Jehovah who cast him into a deep sleep, and it is Jehovah Jesus who leads the saint down into the valley of the shadow of death for a little while. Of Stephen we read that he fell asleep. The execrations of his enemies were yet ringing in his ears, when God caused a deep and tranquil repose to fall upon him.
“Softly within that resting-place
We lay their wearied limbs, and bid the clay
Press lightly on them till the night be past,
And the far east give note of coming DAY.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v23 Eve, type of the Church as bride of Christ…
Eve
Eve, type of the Church as bride of Christ Joh 3:28; Joh 3:29; 2Co 11:2; Eph 5:25-32; Rev 19:7; Rev 19:8
Read full note →
Woman "Isha," "because she was taken out of man" (Ish) Hos 2:16
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv18, 21 The Lack of Companionship for Man
The Lack of Companionship for Man
v. 18. And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. A divine decree introduced the creation of man, a divine declaration precedes that of woman. It is a fundamental truth: It is not good for a man to be by himself, without companionship. The life of the anchorite, of the hermit, of the monk, of the nun, is not in agreement with the principle which governs the world. The normal adult person should seek the companionship of marriage, as the Lord stated that He would make for man a help, or helper, that would correspond to himself, be a counterpart of himself. In further explanation it is stated:
Read full note →
v. 19. And out of the ground the Lord formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
v. 20. And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. This is a parenthetical remark, preparing for the next paragraph. This the Lord had done after the creation of man: He had taken the beasts of the field and the birds of the air as they had been called into being from the earth by His almighty word and brought them to man, in order to give to the latter the proper opportunity to exercise his brilliant mind by giving to each animal the name which fitted it, which properly applied to it according to its structure and manner of living. And so great was Adam’s understanding, so keen was his mind in penetrating into the marvels of God’s creation that he gave to all animals, to the birds as well as to the game animals of the field, the names which distinguished them with the greatest exactness. But among all these there was not one that was his converse, that corresponded to him, that supplemented him. No animal was fit for intimate companionship with man, owing to the entire dissimilarity of body and spirit.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv18, 21, 24 I will make him a helper suitable for him
I will make him a helper suitable for him
"I will make a helper who is just right for him"
Read full note →
every animal of the field and every bird of the sky
The phrases "of the field" and "of the sky" tell where the animals and birds are usually found. AT: "all kinds of animals and birds"
all the livestock
"all the animals that people look after"
there was found no helper suitable for him
This can be stated in active form. AT: "there was no companion that was right for him" (See: Active or Passive)
translationWords
Lord Yahweh
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25 2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This…
2:17 except (literally but you must not eat): This prohibition is given in the same legal format as Israel’s Ten Commandments (see Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21). The Lord built law and obedience into the fabric of his covenant relationship with humanity. • the knowledge of good and evil: See study note on 2:9. • you are sure to die: The consequences of disobedience would be immediate spiritual death (loss of relationship with God) and eventual physical death (see 3:22-23; Eccl 12:6-7).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.