This 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. No 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, but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground. Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Show the surrounding paragraph
Genesis 2:4-7 sits inside this longer paragraph.
This 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. No 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, but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground. Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out 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. A river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it was parted, and became the source of four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon: it flows through the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and onyx stone are also there. The name of the second river is Gihon. It is the same river that flows through the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Hiddekel. This is the one which flows in front of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates. Yahweh God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it. Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but 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.”
Parallel Translations
-
This 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.
No 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,
but a mist went up from the earth, and watered the whole surface of the ground.
Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
-
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Show all 3 translations
-
These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Science (1)
Historical claims about the natural world, weighed against the scientific record.
Contradictions (3)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (58)
- Job 33:4 (v7) The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
- Ecclesiastes 12:7 (v7) and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
- 1 Corinthians 15:45 (v7) So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
- Isaiah 64:8 (v7) But now, Yahweh, you are our Father. We are the clay and you our potter. We all are the work of your hand.
- Acts 17:25 (v7) He isn’t served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.
Show all 57 cross-references
- 1 Corinthians 15:47 (v7) The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven.
- Job 27:3 (v7) (for the length of my life is still in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils);
- Genesis 3:19 (v7) You will eat bread by the sweat of your face until you return to the ground, for you were taken out of it. For you are dust, and you shall…
- Genesis 7:22 (v7) All on the dry land, in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
- Psalms 103:14 (v7) For he knows how we are made. He remembers that we are dust.
- Ecclesiastes 3:20-21 (v7) All go to one place. All are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows the spirit of man, whether it goes upward, and the spirit…
- Zechariah 12:1 (v7) A revelation, Yahweh’s word concerning Israel. Yahweh, who stretches out the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the…
- Psalms 100:3 (v7) Know that Yahweh, he is God. It is he who has made us, and we are his. We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
- Romans 9:20 (v7) But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed ask him who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”
- Isaiah 2:22 (v7) Stop trusting in man, whose breath is in his nostrils; for of what account is he?
- Genesis 3:23 (vv5, 7) Therefore Yahweh God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.
- Numbers 16:22 (v7) They fell on their faces, and said, “God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the…
- Proverbs 20:27 (v7) The spirit of man is Yahweh’s lamp, searching all his innermost parts.
- Hebrews 12:9 (v7) Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much rather be in subjection to the…
- Genesis 5:1 (v4) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him in God’s likeness.
- Job 33:6 (v7) Behold, I am toward God even as you are. I am also formed out of the clay.
- Job 5:10 (v5) who gives rain on the earth, and sends waters on the fields;
- Hebrews 6:7 (v5) For the land which has drunk the rain that comes often on it and produces a crop suitable for them for whose sake it is also tilled,…
- Genesis 1:11-12 (v5) God said, “Let the earth yield grass, herbs yielding seeds, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with their seeds in it, on the…
- Genesis 4:2 (v5) Again she gave birth, to Cain’s brother Abel. Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
- Genesis 4:12 (v5) From now on, when you till the ground, it won’t yield its strength to you. You will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth.”
- Job 4:19 (v7) How much more, those who dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, who are crushed before the moth!
- Job 38:26-28 (v5) to cause it to rain on a land where there is no man, on the wilderness, in which there is no man, to satisfy the waste and desolate ground,…
- Psalms 139:14-15 (v7) I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful. My soul knows that very well. My frame wasn’t…
- 2 Corinthians 5:1 (v7) For we know that if the earthly house of our tent is dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in the…
- Numbers 27:16 (v7) “Let Yahweh, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,
- Psalms 104:14 (v5) He causes the grass to grow for the livestock, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may produce food out of the earth:
- Psalms 135:7 (v5) He causes the clouds to rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightnings with the rain. He brings the wind out of his treasuries.
- Jeremiah 14:22 (v5) Are there any among the vanities of the nations that can cause rain? Or can the sky give showers? Aren’t you he, Yahweh our God? Therefore…
- John 20:22 (v7) When he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit!
- 2 Corinthians 4:7 (v7) But we have this treasure in clay vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves.
- Psalms 65:9-11 (v5) You visit the earth, and water it. You greatly enrich it. The river of God is full of water. You provide them grain, for so you have…
- Matthew 5:45 (v5) that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just…
- Revelation 1:8 (v4) “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
- Genesis 1:1 (v4) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
- Genesis 1:4 (v4) God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness.
- Genesis 1:31 (v4) God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
- Genesis 36:1 (v4) Now this is the history of the generations of Esau (that is, Edom).
- Exodus 15:3 (v4) Yahweh is a man of war. Yahweh is his name.
- Genesis 1:28 (v4) God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the…
- Genesis 10:1 (v4) Now this is the history of the generations of the sons of Noah and of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood.
- Genesis 11:10 (v4) This is the history of the generations of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old when he became the father of Arpachshad two years after the…
- Genesis 25:12 (v4) Now this is the history of the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s servant, bore to Abraham.
- Genesis 25:19 (v4) This is the history of the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Abraham became the father of Isaac.
- Genesis 36:9 (v4) This is the history of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir:
- Exodus 6:16 (v4) These are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations: Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari; and the years of the life of Levi…
- 1 Kings 18:39 (v4) When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces. They said, “Yahweh, he is God! Yahweh, he is God!”
- 2 Chronicles 20:6 (v4) and he said, “Yahweh, the God of our fathers, aren’t you God in heaven? Aren’t you ruler over all the kingdoms of the nations? Power and…
- Job 38:28 (v4) Does the rain have a father? Or who fathers the drops of dew?
- Psalms 18:31 (v4) For who is God, except Yahweh? Who is a rock, besides our God,
- Psalms 90:1-2 (v4) Lord, you have been our dwelling place for all generations. Before the mountains were born, before you had formed the earth and the world,…
- Revelation 16:5 (v4) I heard the angel of the waters saying, “You are righteous, who are and who were, O Holy One, because you have judged these things.
57 distinct cross-references across this passage (58 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (26 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 7 4. These are the generations The design of Moses…
4. These are the generations The design of Moses was deeply to impress upon our minds the origin of the heaven and the earth, which he designates by the word generation. For there have always been ungrateful and malignant men, who, either by feigning, that the world was eternal or by obliterating the memory of the creations would attempt to obscure the glory of God. Thus the devil, by his guile, turns those away from God who are more ingenious and skillful than others in order that each may become a god unto himself. Wherefore, it is not a superfluous repetition which inculcates the necessary fact, that the world existed only from the time when it was created since such knowledge directs us to its Architect and Author. Under the names of heaven and earth, the whole is, by the figure synecdochee, included. Some of the Hebrews thinks that the essential name of God is here at length expressed by Moses, because his majesty shines forth more clearly in the completed world.
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 vv4, 5, 7 Or, the original and beginning.
Or, the original and beginning.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv4–7 Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens…
Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Ver. 4. Jehovah God.] Moses first calls God JEHOVAH here, when the universal creation had its absolute being. This is the proper name of God. The Jews pronounce it not; we profane it, which is to them a great stumbling block. The first among the Christians that pronounced Jehovah was Petrus Galatinus. But if ye would pronounce it according to the own letters, it should be Jahua, as Jarmuth, Jagnakob. This essential and incommunicable name of God, is by the more ancient better minded Hebrews called Hashem, "the name," by an excellency; and Shem hamphorash, "the expounded name," because it might be expounded by a name of twelve letters, which is this, say they, Ab, Ben veruach hakkodesh, that is, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They call it also Tetragrammaton, or the name consisting of four letters. In reference whereunto, likely, the Pythagoreans used to swear by τετιραχτη, quaternity, or the number of four; which they also called "the fountain of everlasting nature," παγαν αεναου φυσεως.
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 vv4–7 i.e. These things mentioned in Gen 1 are a…
i.e. These things mentioned in Gen 1 are a true and full relation of their generations, i.e. of their original or beginnings.
In the day; not strictly so called, but largely taken for the time, as it is Gen 2:17; Rth 4:5; Luk 19:42; 2Co 6:2.
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 v4 In these verses, I. Here is a name given…
In these verses, I. Here is a name given to the Creator which we have not yet met with, and that is Jehovah - the LORD, in capital letters, which are constantly used in our English translation to intimate that in the original it is Jehovah. All along, in the first chapter, he was called Elohim - a God of power; but now Jehovah Elohim - a God of power and perfection, a finishing God. As we find him known by his name Jehovah when he appeared to perform what he had promised (Exo 6:3), so now we have him known by that name, when he had perfected what he had begun. Jehovah is that great and incommunicable name of God which denotes his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things; fitly therefore is he called by that name now that heaven and earth are finished.
II. Further notice taken of the production of plants and herbs, because they were made and appointed to be food for man, Gen 2:5, Gen 2:6. Here observe, 1. The earth did not bring forth its fruits of itself, by any innate virtue of its own but purely by the almighty power of God, which formed every plant and every herb before it grew in the earth. Thus grace in the soul, that plant of renown, grows not of itself in nature's soil, but is the work of God's own hands. 2. Rain also is the gift of God; it came not till the Lord God caused it to rain. If rain be wanted, it is God that withholds it; if rain come plentifully in its season, it is God that sends it; if it come in a distinguishing way, it is God that causeth it to rain upon one city and not upon another, Amo 4:7. 3. Though God, ordinarily, works by means, yet he is not tied to them, but when he pleases he can do his own work without them. As the plants were produced before the sun was made, so they were before there was either rain to water the earth or man to till it. Therefore though we must not tempt God in the neglect of means, yet we must trust God in the want of means. 4. Some way or other God will take care to water the plants that are of his own planting. Though as yet there was no rain, God made a mist equivalent to a shower, and with it watered the whole face of the ground. Thus he chose to fulfil his purpose by the weakest means, that the excellency of the power might be of God. Divine grace descends like a mist, or silent dew, and waters the church without noise, Deu 32:2.
Read full note →
III. A more particular account of the creation of man, Gen 2:7. Man is a little world, consisting of heaven and earth, soul and body. Now here we have an account of the origin of both and the putting of both together: let us seriously consider it, and say, to our Creator's praise, We are fearfully and wonderfully made, Psa 139:14. Elihu, in the patriarchal age, refers to this history when he says (Job 33:6), I also am formed out of the clay, and (Psa 139:4), The breath of the Almighty hath given me life, and (Job 32:8), There is a spirit in man. Observe then,
1. The mean origin, and yet the curious structure, of the body of man. (1.) The matter was despicable. He was made of the dust of the ground, a very unlikely thing to make a man of; but the same infinite power that made the world of nothing made man, its master-piece, of next to nothing. He was made of the dust, the small dust, such as is upon the surface of the earth. Probably, not dry dust, but dust moistened with the mist that went up, Gen 2:6. He was not made of gold-dust, powder of pearl, or diamond dust, but common dust, dust of the ground. Hence he is said to be of the earth, choikos - dusty, Co1 15:47. And we also are of the earth, for we are his offspring, and of the same mould. So near an affinity is there between the earth and our earthly parents that our mother's womb, out of which we were born, is called the earth (Psa 139:15), and the earth, in which we must be buried, is called our mother's womb, Job 1:21. Our foundation is in the earth, Job 4:19. Our fabric is earthly, and the fashioning of it like that of an earthen vessel, Job 10:9. Our food is out of the earth, Job 28:5. Our familiarity is with the earth, Job 17:14. Our fathers are in the earth, and our own final tendency is to it; and what have we then to be proud of? (2.) Yet the Maker was great, and the make fine. The Lord God, the great fountain of being and power, formed man. Of the other creatures it is said that they were created and made; but of man that he was formed, which denotes a gradual process in the work with great accuracy and exactness. To express the creation of this new thing, he takes a new word, a word (some think) borrowed from the potter's forming his vessel upon the wheel; for we are the clay, and God the potter, Isa 64:8. The body of man is curiously wrought, Psa 139:15, Psa 139:16. Materiam superabat opus - The workmanship exceeded the materials. Let us present our bodies to God as living sacrifices (Rom 12:1), as living temples (Co1 6:19), and then these vile bodies shall shortly be new-formed like Christ's glorious body, Phi 3:21.
2. The high origin and the admirable serviceableness of the soul of man. (1.) It takes its rise from the breath of heaven, and is produced by it. It was not made of the earth, as the body was; it is a pity then that it should cleave to the earth, and mind earthly things. It came immediately from God; he gave it to be put into the body (Ecc 12:7), as afterwards he gave the tables of stone of his own writing to be put into the ark, and the urim of his own framing to be put into the breast-plate. Hence God is not only the former but the Father of spirits. Let the soul which God has breathed into us breathe after him; and let it be for him, since it is from him. Into his hands let us commit our spirits, for from his hands we had them. (2.) It takes its lodging in a house of clay, and is the life and support of it. It is by it that man is a living soul, that is, a living man; for the soul is the man. The body would be a worthless, useless, loathsome carcase, if the soul did not animate it. To God that gave us these souls we must shortly give an account of them, how we have employed them, used them, proportioned them, and disposed of them; and if then it be found that we have lost them, though it were to gain the world, we shall be undone for ever. Since the extraction of the soul is so noble, and its nature and faculties are so excellent, let us not be of those fools that despise their own souls, by preferring their bodies before them, Pro 15:32. When our Lord Jesus anointed the blind man's eyes with clay perhaps he intimated that it was he who at first formed man out of the clay; and when he breathed on his disciples, saying, Receive you the Holy Ghost, he intimated that it was he who at first breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life. He that made the soul is alone able to new-make it.
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 vv4–7 These are the generations of the heavens and the…
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created,.... That is, the above account, delivered in the preceding chapter, is a history of the production of the heavens and earth, and of all things in them; the creation of them being a kind of generation, and the day of their creation a sort of birthday; see Gen 5:1.
in the day that the Lord God made the earth, and the heavens; meaning not any particular day, not the first day, in which the heavens and the earth were created; but referring to the whole time of the six days, in which everything in them, and relating to them, were made. Here another name is added to God, his name "Jehovah", expressive of his being and perfections, particularly his eternity and immutability, being the everlasting and unchangeable "I am", which is, and was, and is to come: this name, according to the Jews, is not to be pronounced, and therefore they put the points of "Adonai", directing it so to be read; and these two names, "Jehovah Elohim", or "Adonai" and "Elohim", with them make the full and perfect name of God, and which they observe is here very pertinently given him, upon the perfection and completion of his works.
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 v4 In these verses,
In these verses,
1. Here is a name given to the Creator, which we have not yet met with, Jehovah. The LORD in capital letters, is constantly used in our English translation, for Jehovah. This is that great and incommunicable name of God, which speaks his having his being of himself, and his giving being to all things. It properly means, He that was, and that is, and that is to come.
Read full note →
2. Further notice taken of the production of plants and herbs, because they were made to be food for man.
3. A more particular account of the creation of man, ver. 7. Man is a little world, consisting of heaven and earth, soul and body. Here we have all account of the original of both, and the putting of both together: The Lord God, the great fountain of being and power, formed man. Of the other creatures it is said, they were created and made; but of man, that he was formed, which notes a gradual process in the work with great accuracy and exactness. To express the creation of this new thing, he takes a new word: a word (some think) borrowed from the potter's forming his vessel upon the wheel. The body of man is curiously wrought. And the soul takes its rise from the breath of heaven. It came immediately from God; he gave it to be put into the body, Eccl xii, 7 as afterwards he gave the tables of stone of his own writing to be put into the ark. 'Tis by it that man is a living soul, that is, a living man. The body would be a worthless, useless carcase, if the soul did not animate it. See note at "ver. 4"
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv4–7 Verse 4. In the day that the Lord God…
Verse 4. In the day that the Lord God made, c.] The word יהוה Yehovah is for the first time mentioned here. What it signifies see on Ex 34:5-6. Wherever this word occurs in the sacred writings we translate it LORD, which word is, through respect and reverence, always printed in capitals. Though our English term Lord does not give the particular meaning of the original word, yet it conveys a strong and noble sense. Lord is a contraction of the Anglo-Saxon [A.S.], Hlaford, afterwards written [A.S.] Loverd, and lastly Lord, from [A.S.] bread hence our word loaf, and [A.S.] ford, to supply, to give out. The word, therefore, implies the giver of bread, i.e., he who deals out all the necessaries of life. Our ancient English noblemen were accustomed to keep a continual open house, where all their vassals, and all strangers, had full liberty to enter and eat as much as they would; and hence those noblemen had the honourable name of lords, i.e., the dispensers of bread. There are about three of the ancient nobility who still keep up this honourable custom, from which the very name of their nobility is derived. We have already seen, Ge 1:1, with what judgment our Saxon ancestors expressed Deus, the Supreme Being, by the term God; and we see the same judgment consulted by their use of the term Lord to express the word Dominus, by which terms the Vulgate version, which they used, expresses Elohim and Jehovah, which we translate LORD GOD. GOD is the good Being, and LORD is the dispenser of bread, the giver of every good and perfect gift, who liberally affords the bread that perisheth to every man, and has amply provided the bread that endures unto eternal life for every human soul. With what propriety then does this word apply to the Lord Jesus, who is emphatically called the bread of life; the bread of God which cometh down from heaven, and which is given for the life of the world! Joh 6:33; Joh 6:48; Joh 6:51. What a pity that this most impressive and instructive meaning of a word in such general use were not more extensively known, and more particularly regarded! See the postscript to the general preface. I know that Mr. H. Tooke has endeavoured to render this derivation contemptible; but this has little weight with me. I have traced it through the most accredited writers in Saxony and on Saxon affairs, and I am satisfied that this and this only, is its proper etymology and derivation.
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 vv4–7 Gen 2:4. The generations of the heavens — That…
Gen 2:4. The generations of the heavens — That is, a true and full account of their origin or beginning, and of the order in which the sundry parts and creatures therein were formed.
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 v4 - Part II. The development
- Part II. The development
- Section II - The Man
Read full note →
- X. The Field
4. תולדות tôledôt “generations, products, developments.” That which comes from any source, as the child from the parent, the record of which is history.
יהוה yehovâh. This word occurs about six thousand times in Scripture. It is obvious from its use that it is, so to speak, the proper name of God. It never has the article. It is never changed for construction with another noun. It is never accompanied with a suffix. It is never applied to any but the true God. This sacred exclusiveness of application, indeed, led the Jews to read always in place of it אדוני 'adônāy, or, if this preceded it, אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym, to intimate which the vowel points of one of these terms were subscribed to it. The root of this name is חוה chāvâh, an older variety of היה hāyâh, which, as we have seen, has three meanings, - “be” in the sense of coming into existence, “be” in that of becoming, and “be” in that of merely existing. The first of these meanings has no application to God, who had no beginning of existence.
The last applies to God, but affords no distinctive characteristic, as it belongs equally to all objects that have existence. The second is proper to God in the sense, not of acquiring any new attribute, but of becoming active from a state of repose. But he becomes active to the eye of man only by causing some new effect to be, which makes its appearance in the world of sensible things. He becomes, then, only by causing to be or to become. Hence, he that becomes, when applied to the Creator, is really he that causes to be. This name, therefore, involves the active or causative force of the root from which it springs, and designates God in relation with the system of things he has called into being, and especially with man, the only intelligent observer of him or of his works in this nether world. It distinguishes him as the Author of being, and therefore the Creator, the worker of miracles, the performer of promise, the keeper of covenant. Beginning with the י (y) of personality, it points out God as the person whose habitual character it has become to cause his purpose to take place. Hence, אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym designates God as the Everlasting, the Almighty, in his unchangeable essence, as he is before as well as after creation. יהוה .noitaer yehvâh distinguishes him as the personal Self-existent, and Author of all existing things, who gives expression and effect to his purpose, manifests himself thereby as existing, and maintains a spiritual intercourse with his intelligent creatures.
The vowel marks usually placed under the consonants of this word are said to belong to אדוני 'adonāy; and its real pronunciation, which is supposed to be lost, is conjectured to have been יהוה yehovâh. This conjecture is supported by the analogy of the supposed antique third singular masculine imperfect of the verb הוה hāvâh, and by the Greek forms ΙΑΩ IAW and ΙΑΒΕ IABE which are found in certain authors (Diod. Sic. i. 19; Macrob. Saturn i. 18; Theodoret, Quaest. xv. ad Exod.). It is true, indeed, when it has a prefix all its vowels coincide with those of אדדי 'adonāy. But otherwise the vowel under the first letter is different, and the qamets at the end is as usual in proper names ending in the Hebrew letter ה (h) as in others. יהוה yehovâh also finds an anology in the word ירחם yerochām. In the forms ΙΑΩ IAW and ΙΑΒΕ IABE the Greek vowels doubtless represent the Hebrew consonants, and not any vowel points. The Hebrew letter ה (h) is often represented by the Greek letter α (a). From יהוה yaheovâh we may obtain רהוּ yehû at the end of compounds, and therefore, expect יהוּ yehû at the beginning. But the form at the beginning is יהו yehô or יו yô, which indicates the pronunciation יהוה yehovâh as current with the punctuators. All this countenances the suggestion that the casual agreement of the two nouns Yahweh and Adonai in the principal vowels was the circumstance that facilitated the Jewish endeavor to avoid uttering the proper name of God except on the most solemn occasions. יהוה yehovâh, moreover, rests on precarious grounds. The Hebrew analogy would give יהוה yı̂hveh not יהוה yehovâh for the verbal form. The middle vowel cholem (o) may indicate the intensive or active force of the root, but we lay no stress on the mode of pronunciation, since it cannot be positively ascertained.
5. שׂדה śādeh “plain, country, field,” for pasture or tillage, in opposition to גן gan, “garden, park.”
7. נשׂמה neśāmâh “breath,” applied to God and man only.
We meet with no division again in the text till we come to Gen 3:15, when the first minor break in the narrative occurs. This is noted by the intervening space being less than the remainder of the line. The narrative is therefore so far regarded as continuous.
We are now entering upon a new plan of narrative, and have therefore to notice particularly that law of Hebrew composition by which one line of events is carried on without interruption to its natural resting-point; after which the writer returns to take up a collateral train of incidents, that are equally requisite for the elucidation of his main purpose, though their insertion in the order of time would have marred the symmetry and perspicuity of the previous narrative. The relation now about to be given is posterior, as a whole, to that already given as a whole; but the first incident now to be recorded is some time prior to the last of the preceding document.
Hitherto we have adhered closely to the form of the original in our rendering, and so have made use of some inversions which are foreign to our prose style. Hereafter we shall deviate as little as possible from the King James Version.
The document upon which we are now entering extends from Gen 2:4 to Gen. 4. In the second and third chapters the author uses the combination אלהים יהוה yehovâh 'ĕlohı̂ym “the Lord God,” to designate the Supreme Being; in the fourth he drops אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym “God,” and employs יהוה yehovâh “the Lord,” alone. So far, then, as the divine appellation is concerned, the fourth chapter is as clearly separable from the second and third as the first document is from the present. If diversity of the divine name were a proof of diversity of authorship, we should here have two documents due to different authors, each of them different also from the author of the first document. The second and third chapters, though agreeing in the designation of God, are clearly distinguishable in style.
The general subject of this document is the history of man to the close of the line of Cain and the birth of Enosh. This falls into three clearly marked sections - the origin, the fall, and the family of Adam. The difference of style and phraseology in its several parts will be found to correspond with the diversity in the topics of which it treats. It reverts to an earlier point of time than that at which we had arrived in the former document, and proceeds upon a new plan, exactly adapted to the new occasion.
The present section treats of the process of nature which was simultaneous with the latter part of the supernatural process described in the preceding document. Its opening paragraph refers to the field.
Gen 2:4
This verse is the title of the present section. It states the subject of which it treats - “the generations of the skies and the land.” The generations are the posterity or the progress of events relating to the posterity of the party to whom the term is applied Gen 5:1; Gen 6:9; Gen 10:1; Gen 11:10; Gen 37:2. The development of events is here presented under the figure of the descendants of a parental pair; the skies and the land being the metaphorical progenitors of those events, which are brought about by their conjunct operation.
It then notes the date at which the new narrative commences. “In their being created.” This is the first or general date; namely, after the primary creation and during the course of the secondary. As the latter occupied six days, some of the processes of nature began before these days had elapsed. Next, therefore, is the more special date - “in the day of Yahweh God’s making land and skies.” Now, on looking back at the preceding narrative, we observe that the skies were adjusted and named on the second day, and the land on the third. Both, therefore, were completed on the third day, which accordingly is the opening date of the second branch of the narrative.
The uniqueness of the present section, therefore, is, that it combines the creative with the preservative agency of God. Creation and progress here go hand in hand for a season. The narrative here, then, overlaps half the time of the former, and at the end of the chapter has not advanced beyond its termination.
אלהים יהוה yehovâh 'ĕlohı̂ym “the Lord God.” This phrase is here for the first time introduced. אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym, as we have seen, is the generic term denoting God as the Everlasting, and therefore the Almighty, as he was before all worlds, and still continues to be, now that he is the sole object of supreme reverence to all intelligent creatures. Yahweh is the proper name of God to man, self-existent himself, the author of existence to all persons and things, and manifesting his existence to those whom he has made capable of such knowledge.
Hence, the latter name is appropriate to the present stage of our narrative. God has become active in a way worthy of himself, and at the same time unique to his nature. He has put forth his creative power in calling the universe into existence. He has now reconstituted the skies and the land, clothed the latter with a new vegetation, and peopled it with a new animal kingdom. Especially has he called into being an inhabitant of this earth made in his own image, and therefore capable of understanding his works and holding conversation with himself. To man he has now come to be in certain acts by which he has discovered himself and his power. And to man he has accordingly become known by a name which signalizes that new creative process of which man forms a prominent part. Yahweh - he who causes the successive events of time to come to pass in the sight and in the interest of man - is a name the special significance of which will come out on future occasions in the history of the ways of God with man.
The union of these two divine names, then, indicates him who was before all things, and by whom now all things consist. It also implies that he who is now distinguished by the new name Jehovah (יהוה yehovâh) is the same who was before called ‘Elohiym. The combination of the names is specially suitable in a passage which records a concurrence of creation and development. The apposition of the two names is continued by the historian through this and the following chapter. The abstract and aboriginal name then gives way to the concrete and the historical.
The skies and the land at the beginning of the verse are given in order of their importance in nature, the skies being first as grander and higher than the land; at the end, in the order of their importance in the narrative, the land being before the skies, as the future scene of the events to be recorded.
This superscription, we see, presupposes the former document, as it alludes to the creation in general, and to the things made on the second and third days in particular, without directly narrating these events. This mode of referring to them implies that they were well known at the time of the narrator, either by personal observation or by testimony. Personal observation is out of the question in the present case. By the testimony of God, therefore, they were already known, and the preceding record is that testimony. The narrator of the second passage, therefore, even if not the same as that of the former, had to a moral certainty the first before his mind when composing the second.
Gen 2:5
This verse corresponds to the second verse of the preceding narrative. It describes the field or arable land in the absence of certain conditions necessary to the progress of vegetation. Plant and herb here comprise the whole vegetable world. Plants and herbs of the field are those which are to be found in the open land. A different statement is made concerning each.
Not a plant of the field was yet in the land. - Here it is to be remembered that the narrative has reverted to the third day of the preceding creation. At first sight, then, it might be supposed that the vegetable species were not created at the hour of that day to which the narrative refers. But it is not stated that young trees were not in existence, but merely that plants of the field were not yet in the land. Of the herbs it is only said that they had not yet sent forth a bud or blade. And the actual existence of both trees and herbs is implied in what follows. The reasons for the state of things above described are the lack of rain to water the soil, and of man to cultivate it. These would only suffice for growth if the vegetable seeds, at least, were already in existence. Now, the plants were made before the seeds Gen 1:11-12, and therefore the first full-grown and seed-bearing sets of each kind were already created. Hence, we infer that the state of things described in the text was this: The original trees were confined to a center of vegetation, from which it was intended that they should spread in the course of nature. At the present juncture, then, there was not a tree of the field, a tree of propagation, in the land; and even the created trees had not sent down a single root of growth into the land. And if they had dropped a seed, it was only on the land, and not in the land, as it had not yet struck root.
And not an herb of the field yet grew. - The herbage seems to have been more widely diffused than the trees. Hence, it is not said that they were not in the land, as it is said of field trees. But at the present moment not an herb had exhibited any signs of growth or sent forth a single blade beyond the immediate product of creative power.
Rain upon the land - and man to till it, were the two needs that retarded vegetation. These two means of promoting vegetable growth differed in their importance and in their mode of application. Moisture is absolutely necessary, and where it is supplied in abundance the shifting wind will in the course of time waft the seed. The browsing herds will aid in the same process of diffusion. Man comes in merely as an auxiliary to nature in preparing the soil and depositing the seeds and plants to the best advantage for rapid growth and abundant fruitfulness. The narrative, as usual, notes only the chief things. Rain is the only source of vegetable sap; man is the only intentional cultivator.
Gen 2:6
As in the former narrative, so here, the remaining part of the chapter is employed in recording the removal of the two hinderances to vegetation. The first of these is removed by the institution of the natural process by which rain is produced. The atmosphere had been adjusted so far as to admit of some light. But even on the third day a dense mass of clouds still shut out the heavenly bodies from view. But on the creation of plants the Lord God caused it to rain on the land. This is described in the verse before us. “A mist went up from the land.” It had been ascending from the steaming, reeking land ever since the waters retired into the hollows. The briny moisture which could not promote vegetation is dried up. And now he causes the accumulated masses of cloud to burst forth and dissolve themselves in copious showers. Thus, “the mist watered the whole face of the soil.” The face of the sky is thereby cleared, and on the following day the sun shone forth in all his cloudless splendor and fostering warmth.
On the fourth day, then, a second process of nature commenced. The bud began to swell, the tender blade to peep forth and assume its tint of green, the gentle breeze to agitate the full-sized plants, the first seeds to be shaken off and wafted to their resting-place, the first root to strike into the ground, and the first shoot to rise towards the sky.
This enables us to determine with some degree of probability the Season of the year when the creation took place. If we look to the ripe fruit on the first trees we presume that the season is autumn. The scattering of the seeds, the falling of the rains, and the need of a cultivator intimated in the text, point to the same period. In a genial climate the process of vegetation has its beginnings at the falling of the early rains. Man would be naturally led to gather the abundant fruit which fell from the trees, and thus, even unwittingly provide a store for the unbearing period of the year. It is probable, moreover, that he was formed in a region where vegetation was little interrupted by the coldest season of the year. This would be most favorable to the preservation of life in his state of primeval inexperience.
These presumptions are in harmony with the numeration of the months at the deluge Gen 7:11, and with the outgoing and the turn of the year at autumn Exo 23:16; Exo 34:22.
Gen 2:7
The second obstacle to the favorable progress of the vegetable kingdom is now removed. “And the Lord God formed the man of dust from the soil.” This account of the origin of man differs from the former on account of the different end the author has in view. There his creation as an integral whole is recorded with special reference to his higher nature by which he was suited to hold communion with his Maker, and exercise dominion over the inferior creation. Here his constitution is described with marked regard to his adaptation to be the cultivator of the soil. He is a compound of matter and mind. His material part is dust from the soil, out of which he is formed as the potter moulds the vessel out of the clay. He is אדם 'ādām “Adam,” the man of the soil, ארמה 'ădāmâh “adamah.” His mission in this respect is to draw out the capabilities of the soil to support by its produce the myriads of his race.
His mental part is from another source. “And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” The word נשׁמה neshāmâh is invariably applied to God or man, never to any irrational creature. The “breath of life” is special to this passage. It expresses the spiritual and principal element in man, which is not formed, but breathed by the Creator into the physical form of man. This rational part is that in which he bears the image of God, and is suited to be his vicegerent on earth. As the earth was prepared to be the dwelling, so was the body to be the organ of that breath of life which is his essence, himself.
And the man became a living soul. - This term “living soul” is also applied to the water and land animals Gen 1:20-21, Gen 1:24. As by his body he is allied to earth and by his soul to heaven, so by the vital union of these he is associated with the whole animal kingdom, of which he is the constituted sovereign. This passage, therefore, aptly describes him as he is suited to dwell and rule on this earth. The height of his glory is yet to come out in his relation to the future and to God.
The line of narrative here reaches a point of repose. The second lack of the teeming soil is here supplied. The man to till the ground is presented in that form which exhibits his fitness for this appropriate and needful task. We are therefore at liberty to go back for another train of events which is essential to the progress of our narrative.
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 vv4, 7 Day. Not that all things were made in one…
Day. Not that all things were made in one day: but God formed in succession; first, heaven and earth, then the ornaments of both. Every plant, &c. which on the first day did not spring up, (as water covered the surface of the earth,) on the 3d, by the command of God, without having any man to plant, or rain to water them, pushed forth luxuriantly, and manifested the power of the Creator. (Haydock) --- Thus Christ founded his Church by his own power, and still gives her increase; but requires of his ministers to co-operate with him, as a gardener must now take care of the plants which originally grew without man’s aid. (Du Hamel) --- By observing that all natural means were here wanting for the production of plants, God asserts his sole right to the work, and confounds the Egyptian system, which attributed plants, &c. to the general warmth of the earth alone. (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).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v4 Man—Paradise—the Paradisaical Pair and the Paradisaical Institutions,—Theocratic—Jehovistic.
SECOND SECTION
Man—Paradise—the Paradisaical Pair and the Paradisaical Institutions,—Theocratic—Jehovistic.
Read full note →
Gen_2:4-25.
A.—The Earth waiting for Man.
4These are the generations [genealogies]14 of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [here the six days are one day] that the Lord God [not God Jehovah, much less God the Eternal. Israel’s God as God of all the world] made the earth and the heavens [the theocratic heavens are completed from the earth], 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man [Adam] to till the ground [adamah].
B.—The Creation of the Paradisaical Man.
6But there went up a mist from the earth [including the sea] and watered the whole face of the earth [the adamah or the land]. 7And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became15 a living soul.
C.—The Creation of Paradise.
8And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden [land of delight], and there he put the man whom he had formed: 9And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted and became into four heads. 11The name of the first is Pison [spreading]; that is it which compasseth 12[winds through] the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good [fine]; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13And the name of the second river is Gihon [gushing], the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia [Cush]. 14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel [swift-flowing]; that is it which goeth toward the East of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
D.—The Paradise Life.
15And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it. 16And the Lord God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat [אכל תאכל]. 17But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [מות תמום].
E.—Paradisaical Development and Institutions.
18And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him [כנגדו, his contrast, reflected image, his other I]. 19And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see16 what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And 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 a help meet for him. 21And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. 22And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man [ischah, man-ess, because taken from isch, man]. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. The present section, Gen_2:4-25, is connected with the one that follows to the end of Genesis 3, by the peculiar divine designation of Jehovah Elohim. It has also a still closer connection with Genesis 4, inasmuch as the next toledoth, or generations, begin with Gen_5:1. That, however, Gen_2:25 is really a separate portion, appears from the strong contrast in which the history of the fall, Genesis 3, stands to the history of Paradise, Genesis 2. Keil denotes the whole division, even to the next toledoth (Gen_5:1), as the history of the heavens and the earth. Upon the completing of the creative work, Genesis 1, there follows the commencing historical development of the world, with the history of the heavens and the earth in three sections: a. Of the primitive condition of man in Paradise (Gen_2:5-25); b. of the fall (Genesis 3); c. of the breaking up of the one human race into two distinct and separately disposed races (Genesis 4). It must be remarked, however, in the first place, that in Genesis 2 there is not yet any proper beginning of historical development in the strict sense, and, secondly, that Gen_4:1 to Gen_6:7 do evidently cohere in a definite unity presenting, as consequence of the history of the fall, 1. the unfolding of the line of Cain, 2. the unfolding of the line of Seth, and 3. the inter-folding of both lines to their mutual corruption. So far, therefore, does the history of the first world proceed under the religious point of view. But the generations of the heavens and the earth go on from the beginning of our present section to Genesis 5. In respect to this, Keil rightly maintains that the phrase eleh tholedoth (these the generations) must be the superscription to what follows (Gen_2:33). The question arises: in what sense? On good ground does Keil insist that toledoth (a noun derived from the Hiphilהוליד, in the construct plural, and denoting properly the generations, or the posterity of any one) means not the historical origin of the one named in the genitive, but ever the history of the generations and the life that proceeds from him—or his series of descendants (we may add) as his own genesis still going on in his race. This word, therefore, in its relation to heaven and earth, cannot denote the original beginning of the heaven and the earth (Delitzsch thinks otherwise), but only the historical development of heaven and earth after they are finished. For the toledoth or “generations of Noah,” for example, do not denote his own birth and begetting, but his history and the begetting of his sons. From what has been said it follows, therefore, that the human history, from Genesis 2 to the end of Genesis 4, is not to be regarded as a history of the earth only, but also of the heavens. And in a mystical sense, truly, Paradise is heaven and earth together. Let us now keep specially in view the section of Jehovah Elohim, chs. 2 and 3. When we bear in mind that the name Jehovah Elohim occurs twenty times in this section in place of Elohim that had been used hitherto (the exceptions, Gen_3:1; Gen_3:3; Gen_3:5, are very characteristic), and that, besides this, it is found only once in the Pentateuch (Exo_9:30), the significance of this connection becomes very clear. When once, however, the documentary unity of the Elohim and Jehovah sections is clearly entertained, this section becomes immediately a declaration that the Covenant-God of Israel, originally the Covenant-God of Adam in Paradise, is one with Elohim the God of all the world. Immediately, too, is there established the central stand-point of the theocratic spirit, according to which Jehovah is the God of all the world, and Adam, with his Paradise, is the microcosmic centre of all the world (in respect to the names Jehovah and Elohim, see Keil, p. 35). As far as specially concerns our section, Genesis 2, Knobel gives it the superscription: “The Creation, Narration Second.” It must be remarked, however, that here the genesis of the earth, in contrast with the generative series that follows, is presented according to the principle that determines the ordering of things; so that Adam, as such principle, stands at the head. (It is according to Aristotle’s proposition: the posterior in appearance, the prior in idea.) The representation must, indeed, give him a basis in an already existing earth; yet still for the paradisaical earth is it true that the earth is first through man. The paradisaical earth with its institutions, uniting as they do the contrast of heaven and earth, or rather of earth and heaven, is the fundamental idea of the second chapter. For an apprehension of this contrast, in part akin to and partly variant, see Delitzsch, p. 138. From the very supposition of the earth as existing, it appears that the author presupposes still another representation of the creation, and that the present is only meant to give a supplement from another side. It is incorrect to say here, as Knobel does, that the origin of plants in general goes before the origin of man.
2. Gen_2:4. The construction of De Wette is to this effect: “At the time when God Jehovah made earth and heaven, there was no shrub of the field,” etc. Still harsher and more difficult is the construction of Bunsen: “At the time when God the Ever lasting made heaven and earth, and there was not yet any shrub of the field upon the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprouted (for Jehovah God had not yet made it to rain upon the earth, etc.), then did God the Everlasting form man,” etc. Both of these are untenable and opposed to the simple expression of the text. (See also Delitzsch and Keil.) Gen_2:4 is indeed not altogether easy. On the day in which the Lord made the earth and the heavens, that is, on the one great day, in which here the hexaëmeron is included (with special reference, indeed, to its closing period), there commenced the history of the heavens and the earth in their becoming created—that is, in the same period in which they became created. Out of the paradisaical history: Earth and heaven, arose the converse history: Heaven and earth, in a religious sense, just as in a genetic sense there was the same order from the beginning.
3. Gen_2:5-6. And every plant of the field.—The word כֹּל with the negative particle is equivalent to the German gar nichts, not at all. The Hebrew conjunction ו leaves it at first view undecided, whether the superscription goes on so as to take in the words, and every herb, etc. And yet, on that view, there would be a failure of any concluding sense. The most probable view, therefore, is that which regards the conjunction as merely a transition particle, and passes it over in the translation. According to Knobel and others this narration is actually at variance with that of Genesis 1, as, for example, in its view of the dryness of the earth before the introduction of the plants, etc. (see Gen_2:22), and, therefore, we must conclude that it belongs to another narrator. In regard to this assumption of different documents, we may refer to the Introduction (for the modes of representation in the Jehovistic portions, see Knobel, p. 23; likewise the head Literature, p. 24). The designed unity of both representations appears from the manner and way in which, even according to Knobel, the second of these narrations, in many of its references, presupposes the first. The full explanation of this unity becomes obvious from the harmonic contrast which arises when the universal creation of the world is regarded from the ideal stand-point of the Jehovah belief (see Joh_17:5; Eph_1:4). The author carries us back to the time of the hexaëmeron, when no herb of the field had yet grown. Nevertheless there is not meant by this the beginning of the third creative day, but the time of the sixth. The apparent contradiction, however, disappears, when we lay the emphasis upon the expression “of the field,” and by the herbs and plants of the field that are here meant, understand the nobler species of herbs that are the growth of culture. In opposition to Delitzsch, Keil correctly distinguishes between שדה and ארץ. Delitzsch has not sufficiently removed the difficulty that arises when we carry back the date of this to the time before vegetation existed. There would be (apparent) contradiction (he admits) between the two narratives, but not an inexplicable one—then it is no contradiction at all. It is the paradisaical plants, therefore; these did not yet exist; for they presuppose man. See other interpretations in Lange’s “Positive Dogmatic,” p. 242. Keil connects our interpretation with that of Baumgarten: “By the being of the plant is denoted its growth and germination.” This is ever wont to follow very soon after the planting of the germ. By assuming, indeed, a certain emphasis on the verbs יהיה and יצמח, we may get the sense: the herbs of the field were not yet rightly grown, the plant was not yet come to its perfection of form or feature, because the conditions of culture were as yet wanting. But this thought connects itself more or less with that of plants produced by cultivation, which, as such, presuppose the existence of man.—Had not caused it to rain.—To the human cultivation of the world belong two distinct things: first the rain from heaven together with sunshine, and secondly the labor and care of man. Both conditions fail as yet, but now, for the first time, comes in the first mode of nurture. The fog-vapor that arose from the earth (ha-aretz, including the sea) waters the earth-soil (the adamah). It is rightly inferred from Gen_2:6 that the vapor which arose from the earth indicates the first rain. If it means that the mist then first arose from the earth, there would seem to be indicated thereby the form of rain, or, at all events, of some extraordinary fall of the dew. From this place, and from the history of the flood (especially the appearance of the rainbow), it was formerly inferred that until the time of the deluge no rain had actually fallen. But from the fact that the rainbow was first made a sign of the covenant for Noah, it does not at all follow that it had not actually existed before; just as little as it follows from the sign of the starry night which Abraham received (Genesis 15), that there had been no starry night before, or from the institution of the covenant-sign of circumcision, that circumcision had not earlier existed as a popular usage (two points which the Epistle of Barnabas has well distinguished, although the critics have partially failed in understanding it. Epistle of Barnabas ix.). A similar view must be taken of the previous natural history of the paschal lamb, of the dove, and of the eucharistic supper; they were ever earlier than the sacramental appointment. In fact, there is in this place no express mention made of rain proper, and it may well suggest here one of those heavy falls of dew that take place in the warmer climates. Our text may fairly mean, not that the rain was a mere elementary phenomenon, but that it belonged to the divinely ordered economy of human cultivation in its interchange with the labor of man. The most we can say is, that the watering of the soil was a precondition to the creation of man himself. Just as cultivation after this, so must also, primarily, the cultivator of the soil come into existence under the dew of heaven. Moreover, the earthly organization of man consists, in good part, of water. The words Adam and adamah are used here, as we may well believe, to denote a close relationship of kin. As Adam, however, is not simply from the earth (ha-aretz), so the adamah is not simply the theocratic earth-soil prepared by the God who created man. Adam is the man in his relation to the earth, and so is adamah the earth in its relation to man.
[Note on the Summary of the First Creative Account in the Second.—Knobel has to admit the internal evidence showing that this second account recognizes the first and is grounded upon it, thereby disproving the probability of a contrariety either intended or unseen. The attempt, however, of Lange, and of others cited, to reconcile the seeming difficulties, can hardly be regarded as giving full satisfaction. Another method, therefore, may be proposed, which we think is the one that would most obviously commend itself to the ordinary reader who believed in the absolute truthfulness of the account, and knew nothing of any documentary theory. The two narratives are a continuation of the same story. The second is by the same author as the first, or by one in perfect harmony with him, and evidently referring to all that had been previously said as the ground-work of what is now to be more particularly added respecting man, and which may be called the special subject of this second part. Hence the preparatory recapitulation, just as Xenophon in each book of the Anabasis presents a brief summary of the one preceding. This reference to the previous account thus commences: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth”—that is, as has been already told. That תלדות refers to the creative growths, births, evolutions, or whatever else we might call them, would be the first and most obvious thought. When told that they mean the generations of Adam, as subsequently given, and this because “Paradise is heaven and earth together,” or “Adam with his Paradise is the microcosmic centre of the world,” we admit the justness and beauty of the thoughts, but find it difficult to be satisfied with the exposition. Again, whoever will examine the uses of אלה (these) in Noldius’ “Concordance,” will find that it refers as often, and perhaps oftener, to what precedes than to what follows. The context alone determines, and here it decidedly points to the first chapter. There is, however, no difficulty in taking it both ways, as a subscription to the first passage, or as a superscription to the second, at the same time. That “the generations of the heavens and the earth” means the previous creative account, and not that which comes after, would seem to be decided by the words immediately added, בְּהִבָּרְאָם, “in their being created”—“in the day (that is, the time or period taken as a whole) of the Lord God’s making the earth and heavens.” To seek for mysteries here in the transposition of the words “earth and heavens,” would be like a similar search by the Jewish Masorites of something occult in the little (ה׳ זעירא) ה of the word בהבראם. Either the whole previous time is referred to, or, as is more probable, the earliest part of it, before not only man but vegetation also. Or, in the day, may mean, as some have thought, the first day, when the material of the earth and heavens had been created, but all was yet unformed. Now this seems to be very much what is meant by what follows in Gen_2:5-6. In the day when God made the earth and heavens; here the writer might have stopped, so far as his main design was concerned, and gone on immediately to give the intended more particular account of man; but he is led to enlarge his recapitulating summary by an addition that may be regarded either as parenthetical or exegetical—“the earth and heavens, and every shrub of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb before it grew,” etc. He puts the greatest and the smallest things together to denote totality. All was made before man. And then, to make the language more emphatic in the assertion of its being a divine work, and that it was before man, who is excluded from all agency in its production, it is further declared that this first appearance of the vegetable world was not, in its origin, an ordinary production of nature (such as growth produced by rain), and was wholly independent of human cultivation. It had not yet rained in the ordinary way, that is, the regular production and reproduction of the seasons had not yet taken place, and there was no man to till the ground. It was after this first supernatural vegetation that the irrigating processes commenced, when God made “a law for the rain (חֹק לַמָּטָר, legem pluviis, Job_28:26), and caused the mist to go up (the evaporation and condensation) that watered the whole face of the אדמה, the earth’s soil. This assertion of supernatural growths being premised as antecedent summary, the writer immediately proceeds to the main and direct subject of this second section: וַיִּיצֶר, and after this (as is demanded by the ו conversive denoting sequence of event) the Lord God formed man.”
The language is irregular and parenthetical, but artless and clear, at least in its general design. The terms employed are those that a writer with those primitive conceptions would use in impressing the idea of the supernatural. The first plants were made to grow without that help of rain and of human cultivation which they now require. A striking difference between this and the first account is that it is wholly unchronological, just as would be expected in a summary of a recapitulation. It is an introduction to man, as showing briefly what was done for him before he is brought into the world, and then what follows is wholly confined to him. Thus viewed, there is the strongest internal evidence that the two accounts are from one and the same author, who has neither desire nor motive to enlarge upon what he had previously said. It is the style of one who understands himself, and who has no fear of being misunderstood, or taken for another, by his reader.
Perhaps the best view of the whole case would be gained by making a fair paraphrase, which is only putting it into a more modern style of language and conception: ‘Such were the generations of the heavens and the earth in that early day when God made not only the great earth and heavens, but even the lowly shrub and plant—made them by His own divine word—made them when they yet were not (as Raschi gives the sense of טרם, without preceding causality) without the aid of rain—before the rain and before any human cultivation. For it was after this early day (ו in ואד being grammatically both illative and denoting sequence) that the mists began to go up (יעלה, the unconnected future form here denoting series, habit, or continuance, see Job_1:5; Jdg_14:10; Psa_32:4), from which come the descending rains that now water the earth. And it was after all this that the Lord God made man, his body from the earth (from nature), his spirit from His own divine inspiration; and thus it was that man became a living soul.’
The אד or mist here that went up can mean nothing but the rain itself. It is the same process, and that the word is to be so regarded is evident from its use, Job_36:27 : “For He maketh small the drops of water, when they pour down the rain of its vapor,” יזקו מטר לאדו. It may be a question whether כל שיח (Gen_2:4) is to be taken as the object of עשות, Gen_2:3, as it commonly is, or is to be regarded as connected with what follows, so as to be the subject of the verbal force that is in טרם. This word is not well rendered before, as though a thing could be before it was, unless in an ideal sense, which we cannot suppose to be the writer’s meaning here. The being in the earth was essential to its being a plant; otherwise it is but the idolon or imago of a plant, according to the crude and untenable view that would represent God as outwardly or mechanically making it and then putting it in the earth to be brought forth (see Introduction to the First Chapter, p.—). The word טרם, says Raschi, is equivalent to עד לא, until not, or, not yet, and contains averbal assertive force. So the Targum of Onkelos renders it, and the Syriac by a similar idiom, ܐܐܒܝܠ܂ܠܝ̣. It would then read: And as for the shrub, it (was) not yet in the earth, the herb had not yet begun to grow; thus giving to טֶרֶם the force of a negative verb, like אין, only with the idea of time. And then, with this negative force in טרם, the כל, according to the Hebrew idiom, makes a universal negative of the strongest kind, being equivalent to gar nichts, as Lange says—nothing at all. Thus the expression: every shrub was not, etc., which with us would be a particular or partial negative equivalent to not every, is the widest universal in the Hebrew: In the day of God’s making the earth and the heavens, when (as ו may well be rendered) there was not the least sign of shrub or plant growing in the earth. See Lud. de Dieu: Critica Sacra, in loc.
This is, in the main, the view of Delitzsch, though he still seems to have some perplexities about the time. We get clear, however, of the difficulties of Lange and others. There is no need of bringing this vegetation down to the sixth day, and referring it to the growth of cultivated plants from the adamah. The language will not bear it. In like manner there is disposed of the explanation of some of the Jewish Rabbis, that the plants barely came to the surface on the third day, but for the want of rain did not come forth and reach their perfection until the sixth. Maimonides says justly, that this is against the positive declaration that the “earth did bring them forth” (Gen_1:12). In refuting it, however, he lays the emphasis on שדה, the field, in distinction from the earth generally, and so regards it as spoken of cultivated plants. But this seems forced, and there stands in the way of it the word שיח, which is especially used of uncultivated growths, as of the desert, Job_30:4; Job_30:7, or of the wild bushes in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba, Gen_21:15.
See the attempts to reconcile the two accounts in Wordsworth, Murphy, and Jacobus. The trouble springs from the assuming of a chronology, and endeavoring to find it, when the chief feature of this second narrative, or of the summary that precedes it, is its wholly unchronological character. There is no time in it. The near and the remote are brought together: In the day when God made the heavens and the earth, from the firmament down to the shrub—or, when there was not a sign of a plant in the earth—made them by His divine word, before there was any rain (compare Pro_8:24, באין מעינות נכבדי מים, when there were no fountains full of water), though afterwards “He made a law for the rain,” and the mists went up and descended to fertilize the earth, etc. This absence of rain was somewhere in this summed-up day of creation; its place, however, is not fixed in the series, and it is alluded to not for its own sake, but in connection with the plants as originating from a higher causality.—T. L.]
4. Gen_2:7. The Lord God formed man.—Knobel: “As the principal creation of the earth the author has him created before all his fellow-creatures.” This is incorrect, inasmuch as the representation evidently has in view no genealogical or chronological order. It only presents him as the chief divine thought, at the head of the Paradise-creation. “In respect to the mode of origin of the divine-formed man the first chapter says nothing; it only indicates that man is of a higher, and, at the same time, of an earthly nature, without being a product of the earth. But now, on the threshold of a history rising and revealing its purposes, there is need to know something more particular in respect to his mode of origin, so that, along with the fact of his existence, we may understand his established relation to God, to the surrounding vegetable and animal world, and to the earth in general.” Delitzsch. The spirit of the Old Testament, with all correctness, represents the nature of man, in respect to his bodily substance, as earthly; and just so does physiology determine. In the matter of his body man consists of earthly elements; in a wider sense he is out of the earth (Gen_18:27; Psa_103:14), and at his death he goes back to his mother-earth (Gen_3:19; Gen_3:23; Job_10:9; Job_34:15; Psa_146:4; Ecc_3:20; Ecc_12:7). “According to the classical myth Prometheus formed the first man of earthy and watery material (Apollodorus, Ovid, Juvenal), and in the same manner Vulcan made the first woman (Pandora) out of earth (Hesiod). In other places the ancients represent man as generated out of the earth (Plato in the Kritias, and others, Virgil) as well as the beasts.” Knobel. The name Adam does not denote precisely one taken from the earth (ארץ, γηγενής), but one formed from the adamah, the soil of cultivation in its paradisaical state; just as the Latin homo from humus, and the Greek χοϊκός from χοός, do not refer back to the earth-matter generally, but to the earth-soil as adapted to cultivation. This derivation from adamah is adopted by most (Kimchi, Rosenmüller, and others). On the contrary, others, after Josephus, derive the word from the verb אדם, to be red, with reference to the ruddy color of man, or the reddish soil of Palestine. Knobel, again, explains it, with Ludolf, from the Æthiopian אדם, to be pleasant, agreeable, according to which it would denote something of comely form.17 One Jewish Doctor, and after him Eichhorn and Richers, would make the word דם (Eze_19:10 = דמות) the etymological ground, and would, therefore, give it pre-eminently the meaning of image or likeness. The two first explanations are in so far one as the primitive contemplation saw the reflection of the reddish earth in the glow of the ruddy cheek or in the color of the blood. In this it must be maintained that the earthly lowliness of man, as thereby expressed, becomes modified by the superior excellence of the primitive paradisaical earth. First after the fall does it thus properly become the lowliness of this lower earth. As, therefore, in respect to one half, the lower descent of the outward human nature is expressed by the name Adam, so also, on the other side, there is the hidden nobleness of the adamah, and the destiny of man to draw the adamah along with it in its development to a higher life. In respect to the Greek word for man, ἄνθρωπος (= ὁ ἄνω ἀθρῶν, the upward looking), compare Delitzsch, p. 141, and Knobel, p. 25. So also for the Indo-Germanic Mensch, in the Sanscrit manu (from mna, to think, related to manas, spirit), see the notes in Delitzsch, p. 619. The translations of עפר, dust, also clay, soil (Lev_14:42; Lev_14:45; English Version, mortar), are exegetical; Vulgate: De limo terrœ; Luther: Out of the earth-clod; Symmachus and Theodolion: χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀδαμᾶ, God formed him out of the dust of the earth. The verb יצר must certainly have its emphatic distinction here from ברא and עשח. It denotes the curious structure of man according to his idea, as an act of the divine conscious wisdom (Psa_139:13; Pro_8:31).—And breathed into his nostrils.—“The inbreathing takes place through the nostrils; for this is the organ of the breath, but the breath itself is the expression and sign of the inward existing life. From the breath of God comes the life of man (Job_33:4; Isa_42:5), and the breath in the nostrils of man is the divine breathing (Job_27:3). In a similar manner does the Challaic myth make the creature to be formed of earthy matter and the divine blood; the blood is taken for the seat of life (see Gen_9:4).” Knobel. The expression evidently presents the formative agency of God in an anthropomorphic form. There is the mouth of God and the nostrils of the man as he comes into existence; it is as though He had waked him into life with a kiss (compare 1Ki_17:21). It evidently means the impartation of the divine life, on which depends the divine kinsmanship of man (Act_17:28-29). נשמה (from נשם), breath, spirit, breath of the spirit, breath of man, life of the spirit, is more specific than רוח, more universal than נפש, but may be interchanged with both, as something that stands between them; yet only in relation to man. Here it evidently denotes something which is common both to God and man, something which goes forth from God and enters into man—God’s “breath of life,” that is, the spirit of God in its active self-motion, as in man it calls out the spiritual principle, the spirit of his life, but none the less as the spirit in its actual personality. The נשמה, or breath of God, has the predicate חיים (life or lives) from the adjective חַיָּה (Genesis 1), in order to distinguish primarily the living subject, and, in the next place, the life itself. The life, in its most intensive sense, is the unity of the life in all living persons, and in any living thing;—it is the personality. נֶפֶשׁ (from נָפַשׁ, to breathe), the life’s breath, the soul of life, anima, ψυχή, the principle of the animal vitality, and, in this respect, the life itself; in a wider sense it is animus, the personal spiritual soul, the psychical affection, the man himself. In our text it denotes the man in his totality as living soul. In consequence of the formation of the human figure out of dust from the earth-soil, and the animation of this figure through the impartation of the life from God, does man become a living soul. For the psychology of the passage, see the Fundamental Ideas.
5. Gen_2:8. Planted a garden in Eden.—As Jehovah-God (farther on, Gen_2:15-16) is named as the establisher of the order of life, of natural science, or of the human knowledge of it (Gen_2:19), of marriage and the law of the family (Gen_2:21; Gen_2:24), as the judge and founder of the religion of the promise and of the moral conflict on the earth, of the earthly state of sorrow and discipline (Gen_3:7), and, finally, as the immediate director of human chastity and the author of the human clothing (Gen_2:21), so also here, in the beginning, is He represented as the first Planter, the Founder of human culture, which is as yet identical with the human cultus or worship. Delitzsch transfers this planting to the time of the first vegetable creation (p. 146); but this is not agreeable to the sense of the text, which does not relate things chronologically, and presupposes the creation of man. In consequence of the previous preparation for the future of man in the bedewing of the earth, an Eden is already originated. The name Eden (enjoyment, pleasure, delight), as the region of Paradise, would denote, according to Delitzsch, a land determinate but no longer ascertainable by us; since the Assyrian Eden, he thinks, which is vocalized by the doubled segol and mentioned Isa_37:12, and the Cœlo-Syriac Eden mentioned Amos 15, are altogether different. But if the garden in Eden had its name from a determinate boundary and enclosure, and if the paradisaical streams went forth in all the world, then it becomes a very serious question whether the author had in view any distinct boundary of Eden itself, as any determinate land. It appears, at all events, to have been his intention to represent the whole paradisaical adamah as an Eden in respect to its nature and laying out, although he meant by it, primarily, the undetermined wide environs that surrounded man, whilst, at the same time, supposing a distinction between Eden and the earth generally. There is also the passage, Gen_4:16, which seems to presuppose a limitation of Eden to one determinate region; still it must be noticed, in the mean time, that the soil becomes cursed for man’s sake. According to the representation, it is a view that takes the form of three spheres: the earth, the Paradise, the garden. At all events, the best supposition in regard to man is that he was created in Eden, although by a new act of God he is early transferred to the centre of Eden, that is, of the Paradise. Besides this place, the name Eden occurs Gen_2:10; Gen_2:15; Gen_3:23; Gen_4:16; Gen_13:10; Joe_2:3; Eze_31:16; Eze_31:18.—A garden, גַּן. The Septuagint translates it παράδεισος; the Vulgate: Paradisus. “Spiegel explains this word (Avesta, i. p. 293) according to the Zend: Païri daéza, is a heaping round, an enclosing, with which the Hebrew גן (properly, something covered or sheltered) well agrees. It is carried out of the Indo-Germanic into the Shemitic, and is found in the Hebrew, where it has the pronunciation פַרְדֵם (Par-dhes), Cantic. Gen_4:13; Neh_2:8; Ecc_2:5.” Knobel. An explanation, now set aside, is that which derives it from the Sanscrit paradîça (alien, foreign, wondrous land). The conceptions—Garden of Eden, Eden Garden, Garden of God—by reason of the symbolical significance of these expressions, play into each other. By the garden, according to Knobel, is to be understood “a garden of trees.” Thus much is clear, that the garden of the paradisaical nature was distinguished for its trees. The garden lay in the eastern district of the Eden region (מקדם); there is probably indicated along with this the stand-point of the reporter. The Eastern land is the home-land of humanity.—There He put the man.—As the creation of Eve is transferred to Paradise, it is as well not to lay stress upon the fact of Adam’s having been created outside of Paradise; the fundamental idea consists in this, that Adam was immediately transferred from his state of nature (or his universal relation to the adamah) into the state of culture, or his particular relation to Paradise. “Both facts are announced before in a summary way, but are unfolded in what follows; just as the facts summarily announced in the first verse of Genesis 1 receive afterwards a wider explanation.” Delitzsch.
6. Gen_2:9-14. And out of the ground made the Lord to grow.—We must not regard this act as a chronological following of the preceding. Man finds himself well-cared for in Paradise by means of its abundance. This consists in fruit-trees of every kind. It may fairly be regarded here as an indication of the spirituality of the human enjoyment, that the lovely aspect of the trees is named first, then the good that is given along with it—that is, agreeable and healthsome food—but this spiritual side of the human enjoyment comes out, in its perfection, with the mention of the two trees that form a contrast in the midst of the garden; for, according to Gen_3:3, the tree of knowledge stands likewise in the midst of the garden. The significance and efficacy of the tree of life are more particularly given Gen_3:22; it could have procured for Adam the power of living on forever. That this efficacy is not to be regarded as something purely physical appears from the contrast of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whose efficacy, again, on its own side, is not to be regarded as purely spiritual (see Gen_3:22). The spiritual side of the tree of life is also supposed Rev_2:7; Rev_22:2. It is, therefore, just a false contrast when Knobel tells us that “the narrator supposes in Paradise two trees, of which the fruits of the one strengthen the physical power of life and sustain the life itself, whilst that of the other arouses and advances the spiritual power, and thereby induces a higher knowledge.” (!) Truly, the garden appears a “region of wonder, on account of this tree not only, but as the place of God’s personal presence, the place of the vocal utterance of a spiritual voice by the serpent, and on account of the cherubim. The wonderful consists, in the first place, in this, that here is the region of innocence, of the integrity both of the human spirit and of the surrounding nature, and that, consequently, here the spiritual and the natural are embraced in perfect union; whilst therefore it is, that outward things become of typical and symbolical significance in their potential measure. It belongs now to the perfection of the garden, not merely that it is watered with its own Paradise rivers, but also, that by means of the four streams that go out from its one united stream it stands in close connection with the whole earth, and sends forth to it its own peculiar blessings. From the reading of the text: a stream went out, instead of, a stream goes out, Delitzsch finds proof that the author speaks of Paradise as of a thing purely past. Much rather, however, does he speak of Paradise after the fall, as of a place at least still existing, but closely shut up by means of the cherubim. That is, the representation is not now purely geographical; it is also, at the same time, throughout symbolic. According to our representation, the stream originates, not in Paradise itself, but outside of it, in the land of Eden; and so here, too, as in the case of Adam, must we distinguish between the origin in nature, and the destiny that was to have its development in culture. In Paradise itself, therefore, does this one stream, on its going out of the garden, divide itself into four (ראשים) flood-heads (not “rain-streams,” nor “brooks”), which as four rivers part themselves in all the world, the stream-heads become head-streams.—The name of the first is Pishon: The free-flowing (Fürst); the full-flowing (Gesenius). By the name Pishon has been understood 1. the Phasis, 2. the Phasis-Araxes of Xenophon, 3. the Bisynga or Fradatti (Buttmann), 4. the Indus (Schulthess), 5. the Ganges (Josephus, Eusebius, Bertheau), 6. the Hyphasis (Haneberg), 7. the Nile (the Midrash), 8. the Goschah (C. Ritter). See the Doctrinal and Ethical.—That is it which encompasses the whole land of Havilah.—According to Fürst, it is the same with circuit, region. (This is what Havilah probably signifies; according to Delitzsch it means sandy land.) The word סבב (primarily, to surround) may be interpreted of a circuitous flowing round, though it also occurs in the sense of surrounding on one side. The verb may also denote a winding passage through (Isa_23:16, סבי עיר, “Go round about through the city”), and here it may be better conceived of as a winding through than as an encompassing. We choose an expression that at the same time calls to mind a region of streams.—Where there is gold.—That is, especially or abundantly—the mother-country of gold, not only in respect to quantity, but also in respect to quality.—The gold of that land is good.—Besides its fine gold, Havilah is also famous for its spices, such as Bdolach (Num_11:7), similar to manna, or according to Josephus Bdellion, and, similarly named (see Knobel), “an odoriferous and very costly gum, which is indigenous in India and Arabia, in Babylonia and Media, and especially in Bactriana. It must have been well known to the Hebrews.” To this is added, in the third place, the precious stone שֹׁהַם, schoham. According to most interpreters it is an onyx stone, sardonyx, or sardius, which belong together to the species chalcedon. The Targumists and others would understand by schoham the sea-green beryl. The onyx, on the contrary, has the color of the human finger-nails, and that is denoted by the name. With this agrees שֹׁהַם as “signifying something thin, delicate, pale” (Knobel). In respect to the geography, see further on.—The name of the second river is Gihon.—“According to Josephus, Ant. i. 1, 3, Kimchi, and others, also as might be inferred from the Septuagint translation of Jer_2:18, Ben Lira 24, 27, there was understood by it the Nile, which flows through all the south-lands (כוש) that fell within the circuit of the narrator’s view” (Fürst). Under the Gihon, moreover, according to the Shemitic use of the word, there have been understood the Oxus, the Pyramus, and the Ganges. כוש, the dark-colored (?), is a proper name for the oldest son of Ham, the ancestor of the Æthiopians. Thence it is given to the south-land, especially Meroe, and, thereupon, to Æthiopia and the south-region generally. And yet under the like name may be understood a dark-colored people that dwelt in southern India, in Upper Egypt, and in South Arabia (Ktesias and Arrian). In like manner are there different geographical districts under this name (see Fürst: Lexicon).—The name of the third river is Hiddekel.—The Tigris, the rushing, so named from its violent flowing. Dan_10:4, it is called the great river—so also the Euphrates. The Zend form is tigra, tigr, tigira, swift, raging.18—Toward the east of Assyria (Lange: Before or in front of Assyria). The word קדמת before Assyria can also mean to the east, but as a preposition it has the more common sense before, frontward. The latter sense, taken freely, is here to be preferred; since the Tigris, in fact, forms the western boundary of Assyria. According to some, Assyria is to be taken here in a wider sense.—The fourth river is Euphrates.—The outbreaking, the violent. It is the greatest river of Western Asia, and, therefore, called the great river, or the river, without anything more. The origin of the Greek form Εὐφράτης is explained either from פְרָת = אֶפְרָת, or from the Persian Ifrat, Ufrat. For the different derivations, see Fürst.
7. Gen_2:15-17. Took the man and put him in the garden.—The author takes up again what is said in the 8th verse about the transfer of Adam to Paradise, but adds to it, at the same time, the purpose for which it was done, namely, to dress it and to keep it. According to Delitzsch man was created outside of Paradise; since he must first see the extra-paradisaical earth, in order that he might have a worthy estimation of the glory of Paradise, and of his own vocation as extending thence over the whole world. Such an assignment of a purpose is altogether too didactic. The garden is the place of the human vocation, and of the human enjoyment in its undivided unity. This enjoyment has two sides, to eat and to refrain. In like manner the vocation has two sides, to dress and to keep. The first thing is to dress it; for nature, which grows wild or rank without the care of man, becomes ennobled under the human hand (Delitzsch). Says the same writer, this work was as widely different from agriculture proper, as Paradise itself differed from the later cultivated land, but it was still work; “and work was so far from being unparadisaical, that, according to Gen_2:1-3, even the creation is regarded as a work of God.” We must distinguish, however, work in its narrower sense, as it stands under the burden of vanity (made subject to vanity, Rom_8:20) from the paradisaical work, or activity. Even of the later Israel is it said: There is no toil in Zion.19 According to Delitzsch, the whole earth, from Paradise out, was to become a Paradise: “The garden is the most holy (or the holy of holies), Eden is the holy place, whilst the whole earth around is its porch and court.” The comparison is not wholly applicable; since where there are no spiritual orders, there could be no proper mention of court and sanctuary.—And to keep it.—The garden, as such, is uninclosed and unwalled; still must Adam watch and protect it. This is, in fact, a very significant addition, and seems to give a strong indication of danger as threatening man and Paradise from the side of an already existing power of evil (Delitzsch and others), although, even in that case, the guarding of the garden belonged to man’s vocation; since against the misuse of his freedom, he had only to take care of his own free will, and, with it, the possession and the integrity of Paradise. Knobel refers the care with which Adam was charged, to the task appointed him of guarding Paradise against the mischief of the wild beasts.—Of every tree of the garden.—Says Knobel: “The author clearly assumes that in the early period men lived alone from the fruit of trees, and at a later period first advanced to the use of herbs and grain (Gen_3:17), whilst the Elohist, in the very beginning, assigns both to men (Gen_1:29). According to the classical writers, such as Plato (Polit. 272), Strabo, and others, men in the beginning ate herbs, berries, bark, and fruit of trees, especially acorns; the raising of grain came in later.” That the paradisaical man did not eat herbs is nowhere said; but the fruit of the trees is prominently presented because of its symbolic relation to the two mysterious trees in the midst of the garden. The free enjoyment of all trees is strongly expressed by the intensive idiom, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל. So much the more precise, therefore, is the limitation of the freedom.—But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.—According to Hoffmann and Richers, טוב ורע means good and bad simply. Delitzsch denies this, and rightly. “The good,” says he, “is obedience with its good, the bad is disobedience with its evil consequences. Here it must be remarked, that the conception of physical evil can be, at the most, only as a consequence of moral evil, and that, therefore, the ethical contrast is the main thing, though not to the exclusion of the physical side. The tree, in any case, was a tree that might produce this knowledge; that is, it was the tree of probation, through which Adam might come to a conscious distinction of good and evil, and, thereby, to a moral transition from the state of innocent simplicity into a state of conscious, religious virtue. Did he not sin, then he learned, in a normal way, to know the distinction between good and evil—the good as the actuality of believing obedience towards God, which was, at the same time, the maintaining of his own life in its self-command and freedom—the evil, as the possibility of an unbelieving and disobedient behavior towards God, which must have for its consequent, slavish desire and death. The opinion of Hilarius cannot be sustained (Spicilegium Solesmense, i. 162): Arbor futuri de se mendacii nomen accepit. For, ‘not to know good and evil,’ is the sign of the infantile childishness (Deu_1:39) or of senile obtuseness (2Sa_19:36); the conscious free choice of the one or the other indicates the most mature period of life (or that of the so-named anni discretionis, Isa_7:15; Heb_5:14). So to know good and evil, and to distinguish between them, is called the charisma or gift of a king (1Ki_3:9), the wisdom of the angel (2Sa_14:17), and, in its higher exercise, of God Himself (Gen_3:5; Gen_3:22). By the tree of knowledge of good and evil man is to attain to a consciousness and to a confirmation of his freedom of choice, and, in fact (according to God’s purpose in his determination for good), to a freedom of power—that is, to a true freedom available for the choice of good or its opposite. It was designed to bring out the necessary self-determination of a creature choosing freely, either for or against God, either for the God-willed good or the possible evil—and so to make perfect its independence. The very idea of a free personal being carries with it the necessity that its relation to God be a relation of free love” (Delitzsch). It is an entire perversion of the meaning of this probation-tree to teach, as the Gnostic Ophites did, that, only through the eating of this tree, is man enabled to attain to his self-conscious free development, or, as Hegel and his school have taught in modern times, that sin is a necessary transition-point to good. The victory of Christ in the temptation shows us how it is for man to come to the knowledge of good and evil in a normal, and not in an abnormal, way. The knowledge of the distinction which Adam obtained in this way, was in him from the beginning, though dark and confused. Along with his freedom of choice, heretofore undeveloped, there was established, not only his capability of probation, but also his need of such probation. This probation does, indeed, suppose the previous existence of a divine νόμος, or law (Delitzsch, p. 154); but we err when we confound this paradisaical νόμος with the law of Moses as it was given to sinners. Moreover, the Mosaic commands are not mere positive instructions; they are, to the extent of the ten commandments, moral laws of nature precisely adapted to the human state, but because of their having become foreign and objective to the consciousness of the sinner, they are, therefore, placed before him in the way of positive revelation. In the νόμοι, or institutions of Paradise, however, must the abiding laws of life constitute the ground of that revelation-form which is adapted to the commands. That is, in relation to the tree of probation, God could not have made it to be a tree of probation in the exercise merely of an arbitrary positiveness; there must lie in the tree itself an innate efficacy; and a natural speech, that may serve as a warning to man against its use. The sign-word of the tree (or the designating name) would, through the divine interpretation, become to man a positive paradisaical prohibition. Even granting, moreover, that the tree was not properly a poison-tree, still the explanation that belongs to it has been too lightly treated, since it might have led us upon the proper track; but that its tendency must have been to produce a change in the human spiritual frame, is a doctrine to be firmly held (see Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 409). It becomes important as an elucidation of this mysterious fact, when we are told that the sin of Noah, the second head of our race, became manifest through the enjoyment of wine. To say nothing of the coarse conceptions of Böhme and others as lately taken in a mythical sense by Sörensen, we must decidedly protest against the theosophical dualistic representation of the probation-tree as we find it in Baumgarten (p. 43), and still later in Delitzsch. “When we remember,” says Delitzsch, “that the paradisaical vocation and destiny of man had for its aim the overcoming of evil that had intruded into the creation, we cannot wonder at there being a tree in Paradise itself, created indeed by God, but whose mysterious background was a dark ground of death and evil placed by God in ward; which tree, in order that man might not fall into the participation of evil, and thereby of death, is hedged around by the divine prohibition, not as by an arbitrary sentence, but as by a warning rather of holy love” (p. 155). We may not resort to the myths of the Thibetans, Hindus, etc. (p. 155), in support of an assertion of such a nature that, according to it, we cannot think of anything determinate or ordained, without setting forth under it, in opposition both to the Scriptures and to the monotheistic consciousness, a material evil (or an evil inherent in matter). According to Delitzsch, the tree actually carried in it “the power of death.” The question arises: What is meant by the threatening: “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Knobel holds the sense to be, that he should die immediately; because the infinitive absolute before the finite verb, he says, expresses the undoubted, the certain, the actual. But notwithstanding this, Adam must have lived quite a long time after the fall. In vain is it attempted to set aside this difficulty either by the rendering to become mortal (Targum, Symmachus, Hieronymus, and others), or by making it that introduction of pain and sorrow into life which goes before death in our conception of it (Calvin, Gerhard, and others). Still less, indeed, can we think of a death-penalty to be positively inflicted (Batav., Tuch, Ewald, and others). The nearest solution is overlooked, namely, that the expression must have, even here; an ideal symbolical force; in other words, that death here, corresponding to the biblical conception of death, must be taken primarily to mean a moral death which goes out of the soul, or heart, and through the soul-life, gradually fastens itself, in every part, upon the physical organism (Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 471). The sign of becoming suddenly dead does not necessarily belong to the conception of death. It allows too of a long dying in the physical department. Hoffmann has not thought of this in that very strange exposition of his, which it is hardly worth while to cite. Knobel lays much stress upon it, that man, according to Gen_3:19; Gen_3:22 (as he insists), was not created immortal. It is true, that after the fall the tree of life is named as the condition of permanent duration; but the possibility of falling into death, under the supposition of transgression and separation from the tree of life, is something quite different from what we embrace under the conception of mortality. Knobel, with Clericus and others, would refer the threatening, in the first place, to the hurtful, life-endangering power of the fruit, and supposes, therefore, that the strong expression: thou shalt immediately die, is to be understood in a pedagogical sense (or as a warning is given to children); and yet it would be rightly an announcement of death, since man, through his sin, throws from him the enjoyment of the tree of life. Let it be then a representation of the Hebrew mode of thinking; but the connection of the promise of long life to the observance of the divine commands throughout the Old Testament (Knobel, p. 33) is not a mere Hebraic representation; it is carried still farther in the New Testament in the words: Whosoever believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. And yet it must be perceived that already in the Old Testament, and so certainly here, the conception of life, as also the conception of death, hath its ethical and ideal ground; on account of which the tree of life is not to be thought of as having a merely physical efficacy. Rightly, too, has Keil, who is here in special opposition to Delitzsch, defended the spiritual propriety of the ethical conception.
8. To Gen_2:18-25. It is not good that the man should be alone.—Keil: “As the creation of man is introduced by a divine decree, so the creation of woman is preceded by God’s declaration: It is not good, etc.” On the supposition that the second chapter, like the first, presents the genesis of man in a generic chronological series, as we find it in Delitzsch, there arises a difficulty in respect to the second. Then must man have existed so long a time before the creation of the trees of Paradise that he must have died of hunger; since he would have had around him only a plant-producing district, and would have existed then for himself alone as the one only completed being; just as the body, too, of this man would have been something first completed, and then the soul imparted to this body from without. Without doubt, however, this genetic chronological conception of the second chapter is a misapprehension of its antithetical and complementary relation to the first. It is not good that man, etc. What can this mean after it had been so often said in the first chapter, He saw that it was good? The expression does not denote a condition positively bad, but rather an incompleteness of being, whose continuance would eventually pass over from the negative not good, or a manifest want, into the positive not good, or a hurtful impropriety. It must be observed that this point of time lies between the last preceding declaration respecting God on the fifth day: and He saw that it was good, and the final judgment very good, at the close of the sixth. According to Knobel the sense would be this: Jehovah shows that a solitary existence is not good for man; He determines upon the creation of some being that may correspond to him, and forms first the beasts for the purpose of seeing whether they would satisfy the human want. (!) To this conception the text is throughout opposed, and especially in the words: I will make a help for him (כְּנֶגְדּוֹ) as his opposite (his converse), not merely his like (Delitzsch). The exposition of Delitzsch: He needed such a one that when he had it before him he might recognize himself, obliterates the peculiar point of the expression. It allows, too, of its application to the relation of one man to another. The opposite (or converse) here spoken of, depends not upon any if, or casual condition. What is meant by this obliteration becomes evident farther on. The primary thing (he seems to think) is to provide a help for man in his vocation-destiny; but then there comes also into view the possibility that he may transgress the command of God, and die the death, in which case the aim of the creation would be rendered vain. How suspicious this! the making the motive for the creation of the woman to be this future possible eventuality—especially since Eve herself it is who realizes that possibility. Moreover, Delitzsch means that Adam would then, as the second seduced, have been rather the object of the divine compassion (but Eve, the first seduced, what of her!), and finally leaves us to conclude that it does not mean: I will make one like to him that he may propagate his race. But see Gen_1:28, where the theosophic deriving of the propagation of the race from the eventuality of the fall is clear, and without reserve, and forever cut off. When there is given to כְּנֶגֶד the sense to be conformable, or correspondent (see Knobel), it does not bring out the emphasis of the word, in this place, according to the original import of the root נגד; although, on the other side, the sensual meaning, anteriora, i. e., pudenda (Schultens, and others), can only be regarded as a coarse exaggeration of the expression.
Gen_2:19. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field.—Obviously does the representation that follows serve as an introduction to the representation of the creation of the woman; that is, the order observed in mentioning the creating of the beasts is determined by a motive not at all chronological, but looking only to the fact itself. But in what could this motive lie? In bringing the beasts before him, was there something of a purpose in the Creator to awaken in man a consciousness of the need of some help of kindred birth to himself? This is the supposition of Michaelis and Rosenmüller. Delitzsch and Keil have something of the same thought (p. 48). On the other hand, it is the supposition of Jacob Böhme and other theosophists that from looking at the beasts in pairs, there was awakened a sinful desire in the as yet androgynic Adam. These wild phantasies (Myst. Mag. p. 116) have yet been able to influence the latest representations of the paradisaical relations. Böhme’s views of the sexual relations are perfectly abominable. It has been maintained that in the first chapter the creation of the stars is laid on the fourth creative day for the purpose of counteracting the heathen star-worship; since the stars, or heavenly bodies, are brought in as conditioned by the preceding creations, especially that of light. In analogy with this view, and in opposition to the animal-worship of the heathen-world, would the passage before us represent the beasts as creations subordinate to man: in the first place, because man had to give them names, and, secondly, because among them all he found nothing of like birth with himself, to say nothing of any superiority. At all events, for the Oriental mind, the passage presents a very significant elevation of the woman, as human, over the lower animal-world, and her equality of birth with the man. It is no real difference, as Knobel holds it is, that here the Creator forms the beasts out of the ground, whilst in the first chapter they come forth (and yet in consequence of the creative word) from the earth. Creating and forming are just different points of view of the same conception. The apparent difference proceeds partly from this, that here we have the more definite, namely the forming of the beasts out of the earth. The beasts of the field; taken here in the comprehensive sense—the wild and the tame.—And every fowl of the air (the heavens).—The fish of the sea and the reptiles are passed over. Keil finds the ground of it in this, that both classes, the beasts of the field and the birds of heaven, are like men in being formed out of the earth, and, therefore, stand to him in nearer relation than the water-animals and the reptiles. But the earthy matter is found also in the two last, although it may not be without meaning that both the classes here preferred were formed out of the adamah. More to the purpose is the second ground mentioned by Keil, that “God brought the beasts to Adam to show him the creatures that had been ordained to his service.” At all events, the domestic animals are of these two classes. It is specially to be considered, moreover, that in these beasts there is already a more distinct pairing, which is a symbol of human marriage; especially is this the case with the birds. Still the main purpose set forth is: to see how he would name them. With the intuitive knowledge of the beasts there follows the naming of them; for speech is the thought outwardly realized20 (on the essential connection of thinking and speaking, see Keil, p. 47); and with the naming commences the dominion. Consequently the first science to which God introduces man is the science of nature; his first speech, to which he is led for the mention of zoological properties, is the naming of the animals. That this his naming was an actual calling out, and that the assigned domestic animals followed his call, lies included, as matter of fact, in the very representation itself. From this centre spreads out the knowledge of man over all nature.
Gen_2:20. And the man gave names.—Here the cattle have the first place in the selection, because their place, in the future, is next to man.—But for Adam.—We do not translate for man, since the principal thing here is the care for the individual man, for Adam. The new knowledge satisfied his need but not his heart.
Gen_2:21. A deep sleep to fall.—תַּרְדֵּמָה, a deep sleep, in which the consciousness of the outer world, and of his own inward life, is wholly gone. “Sleep, in and of itself, is ordained for the divinely created human nature, and is as necessary for man, as a creature of earth, as the change of day and night for the universal earthly nature. But this deep sleep is different from natural sleep, and God causes it to fall upon man in the day-time, in order that out of him. he might create the woman.” Keil. Thereto the remark of Ziegler: “Everything out of which some new thing is to come, sinks down before the event into such a deep sleep,” In fact, this preparation for a new being suggests to our minds the preceding creative evening. In Job_4:13, תרדמה denotes a deep sleep in which a dream-vision (a clairvoyant or seeing dream) unfolds itself. On this account, probably, have some interpreters thought that here also there was intended an ecstasy or vision.—And took one of his ribs.—According to Böhme, man had lost the magical propagation (of which he was capable by means of his androgynic nature), through his longing in sleep (the forty-days’ sleep of the temptation) for the sexual contrast, and that the woman proceeded from him not in consequence of a creative act, but by means of the divine fiat remaining in Adam; because God saw that now he must have the object of his desire, since he could no more propagate himself magically. The confident theosophist here becomes Moses’ tutor (p. 111). According to Hoffmann, God must have made the woman not out of parts of man’s breast, but out of his abdomen, where there might be found a portion of the body capable of being lost. Keil strives in a manner worthy of acknowledgment to express himself fairly in respect to these fantasies (p. 49). As in themselves they wrong not only the scriptural text, hermeneutics, and reason, but also the moral feeling, so are they still more strange through their combination with the consequences of the fall. On the other hand, Delitzsch finds something of an ideal human in the manner and way of the woman’s creation (p. 160). Still as to the further formation, or restoration of Adam, it is not perhaps to be understood that “he closed the cavity that was made by putting flesh in the place of the rib that was taken away,” but rather, with De Wette, “he closed the flesh in its place.” In respect to the literal conception, the question must still arise, Whence could such flesh have been taken? But it is just this filling from without, by which that vacuity, or that want, which was ordained to man, is removed. Delitzsch lays stress upon this, that Adam must have been already complete as man before Eve was taken from him. But thereby the symbolical side of the representation is marred. So far as the fact is concerned, it is satisfied by recognizing that the sexual contrast is first called into being in the way of the unfolding of the first human form. This fact, on its physical side, is ever reflected in the child-world. Delitzsch presents the view that the outward form of Adam was not double-sexed. “To speak generally, it was without sex. In its most refined nature Adam had the sexual contrast in himself. With its going forth from the unity of his personality, there necessarily connected itself that configuration which was demanded for the then commencing sexual life.” The expression: he built (בנה), indicates the farther maternal appointment of the woman (from בנה, to build, comes בן, ben, a son). In respect to the wide-spread view of antiquity concerning the sexual unity of man, see Knobel, p. 35.
Gen_2:22. And brought her unto the man.—“In the passage above we recognize God as the first teacher of language; here he appears as the first bridesman; speech is, in some respects, emblematical of the divine, and so, too, is marriage.” Delitzsch.
Gen_2:23. This is now.—Literally: this once, or this time. In contrast with the long missing of his help, he finds at last his desire realized. She it is—or this is it. The demonstrative pronoun זֹאת not only expresses, by its threefold repetition, the joyful appropriation of Adam, but also serves as a specific feminine indication. He immediately recognizes the fact that she is formed out of his being, out of his solidity (his bone), out of his sensibility (his flesh), and yet his counterpart; therefore, in correspondence with the fact of her derivation from him, and her belonging to him, does he give her the name maness (woman, as the old Latin has it, vira from vir). It is not exactly certain that the woman was taken from The heart-side: nevertheless it is a probable interpretation of this symbolically significant narration. At all events is she taken out of his breast, and not out of the lower part of his body. According to Knobel it is, because she stands by his side (Psa_45:10) and is his attendant, his companion, and his helper. The Hebrew readily expresses the conception of attendance through such phrases as at hand, by the side (Job_15:23; Job_18:12), שמר עלע, to be a companion, a friend (Jer_20:10).
Gen_2:24. Therefore shall a man.—The question arises whether this is something farther said, and to be understood as Adam’s speech, or whether it is the remark of the narrator. In Mat_19:5, Christ cites this language as the word of God. That, however, makes no difference; since Adam may utter the word of God derived from the divine fact, as well as the narrator. It seems to favor the idea of the narrator’s speaking, that he so often inserts his remarks with an עַל־כֵּן (wherefore; Gen_10:9; see Delitzsch). On this account Keil decides that it is the language of the narrator, especially since it is spoken of father and mother. Delitzsch, however, insists that the words must be taken as a prophetic or divining expression of Adam himself. The word must evidently have the significance of a moral life-ordering for all humanity—a meaning which results from this expression maness, or woman. It is, therefore, most closely connected with what precedes, and suits better here the mouth of Adam than that of the narrator. With the latter it would have been merely a historical remark, with which, moreover, the future tense would not have been consistent. In the mouth of Adam it is a law of life for all human time, and, indeed, of such a nature that it expresses, at the same time, a feeling of self-denial in that he gives to his children, in the conclusion of marriage, a free departure from the ancestral home. It is evident that here all the fundamental laws of the marriage-life are indicated. 1. The foundation of the same, the sexual affinity; 2. the freedom of choice (as this avails also for the wife in relation to the recognition of the man, and the free departure from father and mother); 3. the monogamic form of marriage and its original indissolubility. They become one flesh—an expression which does indeed include the sexual connection, but, as something lying beyond all that, it expresses the essential unity and higher wholeness of man in man and wife. 4. The relativity of the departure from father and mother; the first relation is not taken away by the second, but only made subordinate to it; it supposes the relations to be normal.
Gen_2:25. And they were both naked.—“In this view, that the first men went naked, all other antiquity agrees with the Hebrews, e. g., Plato: Politicus, 272; Diod. Sic. i. 8.” Knobel. Expositions of this condition of nakedness entirely opposed to each other are found in Knobel and Delitzsch. “They had, therefore, in the beginning, no feeling of shame, and none of that moral insight to the beginning of which such feeling of shame belongs. After the entrance of the latter they made themselves aprons to cover their shame (Gen_3:7), and at a later period they were furnished with clothing from the skins of beasts. People wholly uncultivated go perfectly naked, those that are somewhat cultivated have partial coverings, whilst those who have a complete civilization go wholly clothed.” Knobel. On the other hand, Delitzsch: “Their bodies were the clothing of their inner glory, and this glory (rightly understood) was the clothing of their nakedness.” And, finally, Keil, with a more apt conception of the case: “Their bodies were made holy through the spirit that animated them. Shame first came in with sin, which took away the normal relation of the spirit to the body, begat an inclination and a desire in conflict with the soul, and turned the holy order of God into sinful enticement and the lust of the flesh.” In the view of Knobel, Grecian art must be accounted a coarser thing than many a crude mythological representation. Put as the first men must be distinguished from mere naked savages, so also are they not to be regarded, according to a Jewish Midrash cited by Delitzsch, as something transparent or luminous “which the clouds of glory must have overshadowed.” Nakedness is here the expression of perfect innocence, which, in its ingenuousness, elevates the body into the spiritual personality as ruled by it, whilst, on the contrary, the feeling of shame enters with the consciousness of opposition between spirit and sensual corporeity, whilst shame itself comes in with the presentiment and the actual feeling of guilt.
[Note on the Time-Successions of the Sixth Day and of the Eden-Life.—This second account, in its latter part, appears to be an enlargement, or magnified picture, of the sixth day. Taking it in its intrinsic character, or apart from any outside difficulties of science, it strongly suggests two thoughts: First, its pictorial aspect, on which we have already dwelt (Introd. to Genesis 1 p. 153), and, secondly, that the events here narrated, or painted, could not have been regarded by the narrator himself as all taking place, in their consequential nexus, within the time of a few solar hours, or the latter half of one solar day. He could not so have told the story had such a view been constantly present to his own mind. The consistency of impression would be utterly destroyed by the rapidity. Here is a consecution of events growing regularly out of each other, each one preparing the way for what follows. Here are formations, growths, seeming natures, conditions of life, wants growing out of such conditions, adaptations to such wants, preparations for such adaptations, a course of discipline for man, a development of knowledge and of language out of such discipline, the means for such development, a strange state of humanity called a trance or deep sleep, a wondrous change in the previous human nature arising out of it—all most briefly sketched, but all there, in coherent continuity. Besides this, there is the preparation of a part of the earth for the new inhabitants, a state of conscious innocence without shame, implying some course of life, longer or shorter, to give the representation any moral significance—the ordaining a law indicating some course of life according to it, a divine intercourse and teaching, a probation, a temptation, and a fall into sin. All of this, at least down to the making of Paradise, was on the sixth day, and the rest in consecutive series with it. Now did this chain of events, or the greater part of them, take place in the afternoon of one solar day? It is not a sufficient answer to say that God’s almighty power might have caused such a rapid shifting of scene. It is a question of style, of consistency, of descriptive impression. It might have been so; but then the aspect given of causation, of series, of adaptation, would be but a show, a seeming. It would be an appearance of a causation without that consistent nexus that makes it easily conceivable; it would be a seeming succession without that proportion of antecedent and consequent which we find it difficult to separate from it; events, great events, growing out of each other—so treated—and yet without any real growth, or that proportional gradualness without which growth has no true meaning. There would seem to be a new formation, or a re-formation of the animal races brought into the picture—or if it refers to the old, a modification of them for the instruction and discipline of man. They are to be the means of developing his powers of knowledge and of speech. Through their unlikeness to himself and their unfitness for rational human intercourse, there is awakened in him the desire for higher society. And then that most mysterious trance-state of being, in which there is vailed from him, as now from all science, that ineffable transformation out of which comes the duality of our human nature. The fact is told us according to the easiest conception, but it was a trance-vision to Adam, and we have no reason to suppose that his narrating descendant had the knowledge of it in any revelation more objective than was given to his ancestor. Adam had longed for some one like himself, inspired from above, and lifted out of the surrounding animality, yet sharing with him the earthly nature. The language ascribed to him shows the vehemence of his desire, the deferring of his hope, and the patience of his waiting: זאֹת הַפַּעַם, diesmal, this now, ipsa tandem—there is an intense significance in this small Hebrew particle—come at last, bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. Three times does he repeat this feminine זאת (see Delitzsch, p. 161). Bone of my bone:—can we doubt as to the origin of the peculiar symbolism in which the narrative is clothed? His want was satisfied, and the vivid picture of his dream becomes the language, the only possible language, perhaps, of a divine work which no merely human speech could adequately set forth—one of the deep mysteries of God, itself shadowing forth the still deeper mysteries of the Incarnation and the Church.
Similar suggestions of time present themselves in what is said of the planting of Paradise: And the Lord God caused to grow, etc. Did the great trees grow in the same time with the herb and the flower? Confine it all to a few hours and the difference is as nothing; yet growth, without proportion according to the natures or products grown, is in itself both conceptionless to the sense and idealess to the reason. We may conceive it, however, from a picture, or a vision, and such a mode of representation, therefore, as appearing in the style, is one of the strongest critical arguments for the vision-theory of the creative revelation. It is perfectly consistent, too, for in the subjective delineation time is given in perspective. But the grouping shows that the great things represented could not have been thus, unless the picture itself be but a phantasy, or phantasmagoria, not supernatural or contranatural merely, but wholly unnatural, according to any conceptions our human faculties can form of time, succession, cause, and effect. Great truths, great facts, ineffable truths, ineffable facts, are doubtless set forth. We do not abate one iota of their greatness, their wonderfulness, by supposing such a mode of representation. It is not an accommodation to a rude and early age, but the best language for every age. How trifling the conceit that our science could have furnished any better! Her field is induction, and, by this creeping process, though she may travel far relatively, she can never ascend to the great facts of origin that belong to the supernatural plane. Her language will ever be more or less incorrect; and, therefore, a divine revelation cannot use it, since such use would be an endorsement of its absolute verity. The simpler and more universal language of the Scripture may be inadequate, as all language must be; it may fall short; but it points in the right direction. Though giving us only the great steps in the process, it secures that essential faith in the transcendent divine working, which science—our science, or the science of ages hence—might only be in danger, to say the least, of darkening. It saves us from those trifling things commonly called reconciliations of revelation with science, and which the next science is almost sure to unreconcile. It does so by placing the mind on a wholly different plane, giving us simple though grand conceptions as the vehicle of great ideas and great facts of origin in themselves no more accessible to the most cultivated than to the lowliest minds. There is an awful sublimity in this Mosaic account of the origin of the world and man, and that, too, whether we regard it as inspired Scripture or the grandest picture ever conceived by human genius. To those who cannot, or who do not, thus appreciate it, it matters little what mode of interpretation is adopted—whether it be one of the so-called reconciliations, or the crude dogmatism that calls itself literal because it chooses to take on the narrowest scale a language so suggestive of vast times and ineffable causalities.—T. L.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. In respect to the opposition between this section and the preceding, see the Exegetical and Critical Notes of the former. It must be very clear that in the present section the chronological order stands in the background, whilst, on the contrary, the symbolical presents itself in a more significant degree.
2. The present section is distinguished by the name Jehovah-Elohim: The meaning is, that Jehovah, the Covenant-God of His people, is also the God of all worlds, the Lord of all creatures, who made Adam for His first Covenant-child, and appointed him His vicegerent in this dominion. Adam is the princeps, and so the ideal prius of the creaturely world. This point, of the Covenant of God with Adam, appears in Cocceius as the foundation of the federal theology. With Schleiermacher, again, it is modified into the representation of a religiousness overlying the contrast of sin and mercy.
3. Nature presupposes man, if it would be prevented from running wild. Only in man, through him, and with him, can it find its glorious transformation. Therefore was man also, in his integrity, the presupposing of nature in her integrity; his religious and moral destiny is the condition of her higher destiny, his cultus the foundation of her culture. In pure nature, moreover, are the nobler plants as well as the nobler animals to be regarded as in a special sense an appurtenance of man; in a special measure, therefore, are they conditioned in their being and well-being, by his being and well-being. Whatever, too, there might have been before man, it was still as though it were not, so long as it found not in him its cosmical destiny. It was all an enigma; the solution was first to be found in man.
4. The moistening of the earth’s soil before the creation of man points to the share of the waters in the creaturely formations (and sustenance), especially the human. Through the observation of this came Thales by his system.
5. The creation of man. It is rightly regarded as an entirely new creative Acts , 21 and, indeed, as the very highest. And yet it is a falsely literal view of the anthropomorphic and symbolical representation, when in this act of God we are led to regard the earthly nature as wholly passive. Rather does this act, in its truest realization, presuppose the highest excitation and effort of the earth—we may even say with Steffens, its animation. The representation has for its leading fundamental idea: Man the prime thing of the earthly creation; not that it can or ought to be carried out into its philosophical consequences, for then man must have been introduced before the earth-soil, and the formation of his body must have been before the creation of his soul. On this account we are not authorized to assign separately the formation of the body and of the soul to two acts following each other in a temporal series—as was held in some respects by the Gnostic Saturninus.
6. The anthropological, physiological, and psychological ideas of the passage. Compare the writings before cited: Von Roos, Zeller, Beck, Delitzsch, Von Rudolf, and others. Before all things does the passage affirm that man became an indissoluble, that is, a creatively established, unity—a living soul proceeding out of the contrast, or the duality, of the dust of the earth, on the one side, and the divine breath of life on the other (נשמה), and that these were the substances out of which he was formed. He is, in his one total appearing, a living soul; that is, the body too, in this human constitution, is only a special ground-form of the whole man, as the divine breath of life, on its side, is the ground-principle of the whole man. Spirit and body are joined together with the soul. These three are mutually inseparable, and they together make the individualized unity of man. To this extent may we deny that man consists alone of body and soul. He is always, and at any moment, body, soul, and spirit; though the outer form of the body may, by death, be loosed from its life, and the spirit, by sin, may sink into a latent state (see 1Co_15:44; Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 1243). As man, in respect to his inner life, is not divided into feeling, intelligence, and will, but is present in each of these ground-forms as the entire man, so also is he ever the entire man in respect to his outer or concrete life; as body he is related to his earthly appearing, and to the sphere of such appearing; as spirit, in the relation of his principial unity to his unitary ground, he is related to God and divine things; as soul, or essential form and life, he is related to the world of souls and the life of the whole universe. Man is a one with himself: individuality in his singleness, personality in his universalness, subjectivity in the mode and way of mediating between his singleness and his universal relation. And so far is the passage atomic, as it represents man as becoming a living soul (monade) through the highest and most intensive creative act of God.
In reference to the essential elements and relations of human life, however, it is predominantly dichotomic, as other places of Holy Writ (Ecc_12:7; Mat_10:28) distinctly represent.
Concerning the relation of the corporeity of man to the earthly nature, compare Schubert’s “History of the Soul,” § 10. The constituents of the animal body: Calcareous earth (bone), nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, oxygen gas, iron (in the blood), sulphur, phosphorus (in the nerves), silica (in the teeth), and, combined with this, fluoric acid.
In respect to the spiritual nature of man as akin to God, compare Gen_3:6; Mat_22:32; Jer_31:3; Luk_15:11; Joh_1:49; Act_17:28-29; Rom_8:16; 2Pe_1:4; Rev_1:6; Rev_2:17, and other places.—Delitzsch disputes against the supposition that there is in man an uncreated divine (p. 144); for the word וִיברא, Gen_1:27, embraces, he says, the essential being of the entire man. Of the man, certainly, as a whole, but is it so especially of his spiritual nature? Is man, moreover, as an eternal individual thought of God, by virtue of his election in Christ, a thought in some way created? We cannot say that God has created the thought of his love. The older theology was very much afraid of the idea of emanation. If God imparted anything to man from his own being, it meant either that God must have given away some of His own being, or that something still of His being could have sinned in man. We must, by all means, avoid both representations as we must generally do in respect to every emanation-view. But does there follow from this the pure creatureliness of the human spirit—that is, of its God-likeness (or that in it called divine, or which is supposed to have come from God)? Or is it only, as Delitzsch says, the πνοὴ of the πνεῦμα (the breathing of the Spirit)? Still it is a πνεῦμα, a human spirit. And certainly this needs the spirit of God for its well-being—for its own life (see 1Co_2:14; Jud_1:19). The mere existence of the human soul does not fail from the fact of its unspiritualness (the want of the higher spirituality, or its sensuality). Delitzsch touches upon the true relation when he says, “a creative word, although of a divine being, is not the Logos clothed with the eternal being of the Father.” Yet still does the decree concerning humanity embrace in Christ the individual elect. Between the emanation-representations, on the one side, and the pure creatureliness on the other, lies the conception of the free impartation of life in the mystery of the quickening: life from life, light from light, spirit from spirit. Man may be begotten of God by the seed of the new birth, which is the word of God; and when we take this as the basis of our belief that he can receive the Holy Spirit, we cannot deny that original state of man which corresponds to it.
But the passage contains already the germ of a trichotomy-body, soul, and spirit, which impliedly pervades the Holy Scripture, and is most expressly set forth 1Th_5:23; Heb_4:12 (see Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 307). A similar trichotomy, as is well known, is found in the writings of the Platonists, and so, too, in connection with biblical doctrines and Platonic ideas, among the oldest church-fathers. This continued, until through the heresy of Apollinaris, the trichotomy became suspected, and in the following time of the middle ages, gave place to the more popular dichotomy. In modern times, again, in connection with a deeper study of psychology, trichotomic views presented themselves. It must herewith be remarked that the dichotomy, when simply held, is no more in contradiction to the trichotomy, than those dual places of Holy Scripture in which only God and His Logos, or the Wisdom, or the Angel of the Lord, are named, contain a contradiction of the trinity. The triad just as easily holds together for a dual (soul and spirit being taken as one) as for a monad. Or rather, the monad resolves itself over all, first into a duality, then into a triad.
That the spirit is the principle and the form of unity in man—his derivation from God, and his relation to God—is declared in Ecc_12:7. It is God who has given the spirit. In like manner does the same text of the Preacher say that the body is the finishing and the form of appearing for man, showing his descent from the earth, and his relation to the earthly sphere. But that the soul is the form of being in man, the configuration and the form of life, his descent from and his reciprocal relation to the whole world, is declared in the very expression “living soul.”
The נשמת חיים (breath of lives), as the divine principle of all life, imparted to man an individual divine principle of life, and in consequence thereof it became, in the whole, a living soul, and in the vitality, or vitalizing, a conscious self-revealing soul. Man, as related to the eternal and the divine, is spirit; man, as related to the universe, is soul; man, as related to the earth, or to any particular world-sphere wherein he dwells, is body. Concerning the relation of the psychological system of Delitzsch to the conception of Von Rudloff, see “Notice of Remarkable Writings,” in the German Periodical, edited by Von Hollenberg, No. 3, 1859.
For the various defective and marring statements respecting the triune form of man’s being, see Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 307. Gnosticism refuses to regard the corporeity as belonging to the essential being of man (so, too, the Book of Wisdom, Gen_9:15). Hegelianism regards the soul as only the band that connects body and spirit. Later psychologists and theologians (Heinroth, Hoffmann, and others) have denied to man, in himself, a spirit-being; he has spirit, they say, only so far as the spirit of God enlightens him. Beck speaks of a spiritual power, at least, as belonging to the human soul. It must be held fast, however, that man could not receive the spirit of God if he was not himself a spiritual being (“were not the eye adapted to the sun,” etc.). It is, at all events, a supposition of the Scripture, that since the fall the spiritual nature is bound in the natural man, and does not come to its actuality (see Jude Gen_2:10; Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 311). In relation, however, to the body of man, we must distinguish between his σῶμα, the organism, and his flesh σάρξ, the material merely, the filling out of his appearance. In relation to his soul, we must distinguish between soul as the animal principle of life, and as conscious form of being. In relation to his spirit, we must distinguish between his spiritual nature and the element of the spiritual in which the individual spirit lives, and which enters into it.
7. For the doctrine of the divine image, see the remarks on the first chapter. For what belongs specially to the immortality of man, see the title Literature as above given. We must distinguish, however, a threefold conception of immortality: 1. The paradisaical immortality of Adam; 2. the ontological immortality of human nature; 3. the religious ethical immortality which is shared by man through his communion with God—the life in its deeper significance, or the eternal life. As to what concerns the immortality of Adam, the Scripture supposes that he could avoid death under the condition of continued normal rectitude in the strength of his communion with God, or that he might fall into death through an abnormal conduct conformable to his connection with the earth. But the Scripture does not suppose that man could have remained immortal without objective conditionings for the eternal renewal of his life. These conditionings are embraced in the symbol of the tree of life (see below). There is, too, the further disclosure, that man, in the case of the confirmation of his innocence, must undergo a metamorphosis resembling death, and yet not death, in order that he might pass out of his first physical state of existence, where there is yet a possibility of his dying, into a second spiritual state of existence which is raised above the sphere of death. This appears from the translation of Enoch, in connection with the long enduring of the Macrobii (the early long-living antediluvian patriarchs), from the translation of Elias, and, above all, from the glorified form of Christ after his resurrection. It appears, too, from the passage, 2Co_5:2-3 (see Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 318), and from the doctrine of the apostles respecting the transformation of Christians who should be living at the end of the world (1 Corinthians 15). The form of death that proceeds from sin had opposed itself to this tendency of man to transformation—had changed and subverted it. In respect to the various ecclesiastical views of the original immortality, compare Winer: “Comparative Representation,” p. 49. 2. The ontological immortality of man. At the bottom of the wide-spread prejudgment that the Mosaic books, as also the Old Testament generally in its first periods, did not teach the doctrine of a personal immortality, lie the following misunderstandings: 1. In various ways was the ontological supposition of the imperishable continuance of man which pervades the whole Old Testament (namely, in the doctrines of Sheol, of the Rephaim in Sheol, of the conscious condition, and in the expressions for life, in Sheol), confounded with the doctrine of the ethical eternal life. This has also occurred to one of the latest writers on the subject before us (H. Schultz: “The Presuppositions of the Christian Doctrine of Immortality,” Göttingen, 1861). As we must distinguish, however, between the conceptions of the physical and the ethical life in the Scriptures (a life without God no life, but death), and between the conceptions of the physical and the ethical death (a death without the sting of conscious guilt no death), so also must we distinguish between the conceptions of the physical and the ethical immortality. Although the Scripture does not acknowledge the physical, without the ethical, as the true immortality, still it denotes it as continuous individual existence with the two attributes of consciousness and imperishability (Isa_66:24; Rev_14:11). 2. The pathetic and poetical expressions for the mournful condition in Sheol have been regarded purely as dogmas, without calling to mind that there are praises of the rest in Sheol of a directly opposite character (as in Job 3), and that, in like manner, the dogma of the perfect nothingness of the present worldly life may be deduced from many of the songs of the Church. 3. The fact has been overlooked that the immortality of the soul is just as distinctly a supposition of the Old Testament as the existence of God, and that on this account neither article is expressly taught, but only appears in language on occasions which call it out, and then wholly as something thus presupposed. 4. No distinction has been made between the first germ-form which is peculiar to this doctrine, as it is to most others in the earlier books of the Old Testament, and its later development; and, therefore, too, has there been no distinction made between the ramifying ontological definitives (such as Sheol, Rephaim, appearings of the dead, awakenings of the dead, questionings of the dead), the ethical definitives (such as covenant with God, confidence in God) and the synthetic, out of which the doctrine of the resurrection gradually came forth (such as the tree of life, the translations of Enoch and Elijah, together with the doctrine of the resurrection that prevailed in the prophetic period). Still less has it been considered how gradually Sheol came to be regarded as a place of life, how gradually the shades come to form two divisions, those that are enjoying the holy rest, and those that are the subjects of penal suffering—how gradually faith in the living God becomes faith in that eternal life which consists in communion with him (Psalms 16), and how gradually the resurrection comes to its most definite form (2 Maccabees 7). The decisive word, as Christ interprets it, Mat_22:32, is the designation which God gives to Himself, Exo_3:6. Its meaning is that the doctrine of covenants made with the pious by a personal God contains in itself the supposition of their own personal imperishable nature. For an explanation of this point it must be observed: 1. That the abode in Sheol is to be regarded primarily as the continuance of the death-doom incurred by sin. Just as death, the wages of sin according to Paul, or the birth of sin according to James, begins in this world with sin (the inner death according to John), with mortality and sickness, so does it also continue on in the other world under the relative ideas of nakedness, imprisonment, restlessness—in a word, under the intensified form of a penal or disciplinary relation to a future redemption. Therefore it is that even in the pious of the Old Testament, the condition beyond the grave is reflected in this world-consciousness, presenting itself in a form for the most part gloomy, sad, trembling, and terrific. 2. It must be kept in mind that Moses had to establish the theocratic belief of the Jews in direct contrast with heathenism, and especially the heathenism of the Egyptians, from the midst of whom they came, and was therefore led to give the strongest and most significant emphasis to the present life; because the Egyptian religion was most specifically a worship having relation to the state beyond the grave—that is, to death. 3. Add to this that it was in entire correspondence with the disciplinary degrees by which Israel was to be educated that Moses should represent the retribution as being principally in this world, and, indeed, as impending every moment, like something that followed close upon every step of human conduct. In entire conformity to truth did he direct the people in this first step of belief in retribution; for, in fact, retribution is an immediate (or ever-impending) thing. Everywhere, however, the hope of a future life gleams out of his doctrines and his institutions. The promise of long life was the outward hull of the promise of eternal life; the symbolic death-offering was the emblem of hopeful resignation to God in death; and how shall piety in death find its reward otherwise than in the time beyond the grave? Above all, it was the covenant of God that furnished the richest guaranty (Exo_3:6).
[Idea of a Future Life in the Old Testament.—The doctrine of a future life is in the Old Testament as well as in the New, but in a different manner. In the latter it is for all who read, declared undeniedly, if not dogmatically; in the former it is for the devout and believing. There is thrown over it a vail of holy reserve, making it all the more impressive when the truth is seen through it. But for this the Sadducee had no eyes. He could not find texts declaring it preceptively as he found the law laid down for marrying a brother’s widow. He came to our Saviour with his puzzle, and doubtless deemed it unanswerable. The course taken by Christ, Mat_22:29, is very remarkable, and it is astonishing how little weight it seems to have had with writers of the Warburton school. He does not meet the caviller with the texts we would have expected. He does not cite such passages as Psa_17:15 : “I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness;” or Psalms 16 : “Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol;” or Psa_73:24 : “Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel and afterward receive me to glory;” or Isa_26:19, where a resurrection seems to be spoken of; or Dan_12:2, where it is expressly declared. The Sadducee would probably have been prepared with some explanations of these, such as are now offered by the modern rationalist. Instead of them our Saviour quotes one of the most common passages in the Old Testament: I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. The Sadducee had heard it read hundreds of times in the synagogue, but saw nothing in it about a future life. It may have been to him, in other respects, a favorite passage; for though called infidels in modern times they were the strictest of Jews, glorying strongly in their ancient patriarchal descent. “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob:” this they were familiar with; but Christ’s appendix was as startling to them as it was conclusive: He is not the God of the dead but of the living. God’s covenant with man proves His immortality. He does not deal thus with beings of a day. He does not thus solemnly declare Himself the God of things non-existent. Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, are still present realities, not living in their children, simply, but rather their children living in them. The divine care of a chosen people thus continued from generation to generation implies a continued being in the individuals that compose it, and without which the whole series would have no more spiritual value than any linked succession in the animal or vegetable world. They still “live unto Him.”
Let the reader test this by endeavoring to fix in his mind the idea that the Old Testament writers all regarded themselves as beings destined soon to depart into nothingness—in other words, that they were all sheer animal materialists. Let him carry along this impression, and keep it constantly present in reading the Psalms, the Prophets, or even the Book of Proverbs. What a discord will arise between it and many of their vivid utterances, even though there is nothing in them, dogmatically or didactively, about a future life. Did men who believe in no hereafter ever talk so? “Whom have I in heaven but Thee, and there is none in all the earth that I desire beside Thee: Flesh and heart fail, but Thou art the strength (the rock) of my soul: Thy favor is life: Thy loving-kindness is more than life: My soul faints for Thee, the living God: For with Thee is the fountain of life, and in Thy light do we see light: Thou art our dwelling-place in all generations: Doubtless Thou art our Father even though Abraham be ignorant of us and Israel acknowledge us not; Thou, Oh Lord, art our Father and our Redeemer: Art Thou not from everlasting, Jehovah, my God, my Holy One? we shall not die.” Or take that oft-repeated Hebrew oath: As the Lord liveth and as thy soul liveth; what meaning in such a connection of terms? How does all this lofty language immediately collapse at the presence of the low materializing idea! Even the language of their despondency shows how far they were from the satisfied animal or earthly state of soul: Shall dust praise Thee? Shall Thy loving kindness be declared in the grave, or Thy righteousness in the land of oblivion? It was bidding farewell to God, not to earth, it was losing the idea of the everlasting covenant and its everlasting author, that imparted the deepest gloom to their seasons of scepticism. It was in just such travail of the spirit that the hope was born within them. This was the subjective mode of its revelation; and, thus regarded, the very texts which the Sadducee, ancient or modern, would quote in favor of his denial, testify to a true spirituality—to a state of soul most opposite to his own. And this style of language is not confined to the devotional or prophetical Scriptures. It gleams out in expressions interspersed among the historical details of the Jewish home-life. What a people, says Rabbi Tanchum (citing the words of Abigail, 1Sa_25:29), where even the women speak so sublimely, and beyond even the philosophers of other nations, about souls bound up in the bundle of life (or lives, צרור החיים). See Pococke’s “Notes to Porta Mosis,” p. 93. It may be very easy for the rationalizing interpreter to put another face on such a passage as this, but it may be only because in his case, as in that of the Sadducee of old, there is a vail upon his heart in the reading of the Old Covenant.
Such an expanding spiritual sense (in distinction from the merely fanciful or the cabalistical) is for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear; and, thus regarded, it may be said that the future life of the Old Testament, even with this vail thrown over it, has far more of moral power than the Greek Hades, or any spirit-world mythology of other ancient nations whom the rationalist would represent as surpassing the Jews in this respect. The latter were doubtless far behind the Greeks in distinctness of conception and locality; but this was because God did not mean to leave His people to their fancies. He gave them, and especially the pious among them, the spirit of the doctrine, but so kept it in holy reserve that they could not turn it into fables.—T. L.]
8. From the circumstance of its not being said that the woman was inspired by the breath of God, Delitzsch is inclined to follow, with Tertullian, the so-called traducian theory, or the generic propagation of the human soul. This argument, however, de silentio, proves nothing; since Adam, in relation to Eve, also is the type of the creation of humanity. And so we adhere to this: The body of man proceeds from propagation (traducianism), the soul is created (creationism), the spirit is pre-existent as the idea of God.
9. Paradise.—See the article “Eden” in Winer, and the literary catalogue there given. See also Herzog’s “Real-Encyclopedia.” Paradise (Hebrew, גַּן; Septuagint, παράδεισος, that is, a walling or fencing round, a place enclosed as a garden), like all facts in Genesis, especially of its earlier history, was, on the one side, an actuality, on the other a symbol; and the latter, indeed, in a special degree. In favor of its actuality there is, first, the fundamental thought: there was a home of the human race; secondly, the territory of this home, the region in which the Euphrates and the Tigris had their sources, or Western Asia as appears probable from other reasons; thirdly, the mention of the well-known rivers Phrat (Euphrates) and Hiddekel (Tigris), together with other features. In favor of the clear symbolical significance of Paradise there is the figure of the one stream that afterwards divided itself into four different streams running out from thence into the world, as also the inclosure of the garden, and especially the two trees with their wonderful significance. The theological views respecting Paradise embrace two extremes: whilst some would regard it as extending over all the earth (Ephraim the Syrian; and a multitude of Such extravagant opinions as cited by Calmet: Comment. litter. in Genesin, p. 81), others, on the other side, would reduce it to one common section so appropriated as to have a commensurate influence upon the first men. Between these lies the sound view of the church, which supposes for the pure a pure sphere of nature, for the care-needing a motherly bosom of nature, for the innocent a heavenly, peaceful, holy region, for the child-like a garden with its fruits (see Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 396). The exegetical views respecting the passage divide themselves into the historical, the allegorical, and the mythical. The historical views, again, fall into two classes: those that maintain the possibility of yet determining the region of Paradise, and such as suppose the configuration of the earth to have been so changed by the flood that the place of union of the four rivers cannot now be pointed out. Both assume a significant change of the earth, especially since the fall of Adam, or the beginning of the human race. The allegorical views divide themselves into the Gnostic or the theosophic-allegorical (Philo, Jacob Böhm, and others), and into the
mystic-allegorical (Swedenborg and others). The mythical views may be divided into the predominantly theological or philosophical, or the predominantly geographical. First Class: a. Calvin, Huetius, Bochart, and others: Paradise, they say, lay in the district in which the Euphrates and the Tigris unite (Schat al Arab); the Pishon and the Gihon are the two principal mouths of Schat al Arab. b. Hopkinson: Paradise was the region of Babylon; the two canals of the Euphrates form half of the number of the four rivers, c. Rask: The same region probably, only let there be added to the two well-known streams the two subordinate streams of the Schat al Arab. d. Harduin: Galilee, e. Hasse: Paradise lay in East Prussia. Second Class: Change in the course of the rivers. Clericus, and others: Paradise lay in Syria (Kohlreif and others: Damascus). Third Class: Philo: De Mundi Opificio; Jacob Böhm: Mysterium Magnum. Fourth Class: See the article “Swedenborg” in Herzog’s “Real-Encyclopedia.” Fifth Class: The mythico-theological, or strictly mythological, view, which makes it the story of the four world-rivers that come from the hills of heaven, and wander over the earth (Von Bohlen and others). Sixth Class: The mythico-geographical. Sickler, Buttmann, Bertheau: “Geographical Views that form the Ground of the Description of the Situation of Paradise,” Göttingen, 1848. Winer distinguishes a literal view (Hengstenberg, Tiele, Baumgarten), a half-literal, which attempts to separate the distribution of the streams from the matter of fact contained (Less, Cramer, Werner, and others), an allegorical (Von Gerstenberg), and a hieroglyphical, not very distinguishable (J. G. Rosenmüller and others), p. 290, wherein he protests against the conjectures of Hüllmann and Ballenstedt.
According to Verbrugge, Jahn, and others, the one Paradise-stream may be understood of a region abounding in streams. We suppose that the stream has a most special symbolical importance, and denotes, generally, the well-ground of the Paradise-earth. With this, however, there is easily connected the historical view of Reland and Calmet. According to this, Pishon denotes the Phasis which rises in the Moschian mountains, stands in connection with the gold-land of Colchis so famed in antiquity (Colchis = Chavila), and flows into the Black Sea; Gihon is the Aras or Araxes (the Phasis of Xenophon, גִּיחַ, to break forth = ἀράττω), which likewise rises in Armenia, and flows into the Caspian Sea. But Cush is the land of the Kossæans, which Strabo and Diodorus place in the neighborhood of Media and the Caspian Sea. According to this, Armenia would have been the territory of the ancient Paradise. Knobel also had first presented the grounds (p. 28), which are in favor of Armenia, out of which, moreover, the postdiluvian men proceeded. On this account have Reland, Link, Von Lengerke, Kurtz, Bunsen, and others, supposed it to be Armenia. It is objected, however, to this: 1. That the names Havila and Cush, in other places, belong to the South. The name Havila, it may be said generally, is not geographically determined; but the name Cush, together with the Cushites, can just as well be extended from the north to the south as that of the Normans (see Kurtz: “History of the Old Testament,” p. 59). 2. No Armenian district can be summarily denoted as the native land of gold, bdellium, and the onyx. In regard to the gold, however, Colchis presents no difficulty. Just as little are the bdellium and the onyx to be denied of this district, since it evidently has something symbolical. Objection 3d: It is said that the cherubim are not to be found in Armenia: but where on the earth was the home of these? And then, too, must many indications point to a more northern highland. But the places commonly cited for this purpose, Psa_48:3; Isa_48:13, prove nothing, and Eze_28:13 is a pure ideal painting. Moreover, the analogies of the Albordi, the Medo-Persian mountains of God, and the Indian mountains Meru, appear to be merely reflexes of the Paradise-story; and the same may be said of the Chinese mountain-tract Kuenlun. In other respects the analogies and combinations collected by Knobel are communications of great interest. Keil states a reason why the Cyrus (now the Kur) should be put in place of the Phasis (p. 42); it is the fact that the rising of the Phasis lies beyond Armenia. This reason would be decisive, if we had to insist upon the pure literalness of the origin of the Paradise rivers. He holds, in like manner, that the Gihon is the Araxes: the sundering of the four streams he explains by changes in the earth’s surface, yet not alone through the flood (Note, p. 44). Finally, according to Delitzsch, the Pison must relate to the Indus and its river territory to India, whilst the Gihon is the Nile (pp. 149, 620). Afterwards he came to regard the combination of Bunsen as having a good degree of probability (p. 150), and then he represents the mutually opposing difficulties by the concluding alternative: We must either acknowledge the incomprehensibility of the narration, or accommodate ourselves with the admission that the certain knowledge of the four rivers has been lost in the disappearance of Paradise itself.—The actual and symbolical importance of Paradise. The garden in Eden. Historical. The heavenly earth-bloom which surrounded the new-born man, who is to be regarded, indeed, as full-grown, and yet childlike and inexperienced. The point of the earth’s congeniality, wherein the divine earth-culture is in unity with the earthly nature—when the fruit-trees are of the noblest quality, the grain grows wild, the beasts attach themselves to men in the domestic state, whilst there is allotted to men an abundance of simple food (fruit of trees, the nourishment of children) to be procured by an easy labor of the body, and a thoughtful care on the part of the mind.—Symbolical significance of Paradise. The general correspondence between the pure, peaceful, serene, and blessed man, and the pure, peaceful, serene, and blessed world of God or the inward communion with God, and, corresponding to it, the outward, sensible presence of God in the surroundings of humanity. In its more special significance: 1. The heavenly disposition of the earth, the rich paradisaical soil; 2. the objective paradisaical aspects of the earth, as the subjective in the contemplation of children and of men attuned to a festal life; 3. the promised land, the consecration of the earth through the salvation; 4. the kingdom of glory above (Luk_23:43; 2Co_12:4); 5. the earth glorified for its union, at some future time, with the heavens (2Pe_3:13; Revelation 20).—The vocation in Paradise. Historical: The serene, free activity of the child in contrast with the necessity and the pains of labor proper. The true keeping of entrusted good against a damage yet unforeseen, especially through self-keeping in contrast with the later anxious watching. Symbolical: The calling of the pious and blessed, according to its positive and negative sides. A holy office of labor, a holy office of defence, and, through both, a holy ministry of instruction.—The Paradise-rivers: 1. Historical (see above). 2. Symbolic. The four world-streams in their high significance, as the streams of life and blessing that flow conditionally from the paradisaical home of man.—The trees in the garden. Historical: The abundance that surrounded the first man still simple and conformable to his childlike degree; food both lovely to the eye and ennobling in its efficacy. Symbolical: The riches of the pious and their freedom from want (Psalms 23).—The two trees in the midst of the garden. Historical: Nature in its centre endowed with a wonderful power of health, as also with intoxicating gifts of dangerous efficacy, which, through an enjoyment rash or immoderate (or, in general, having only the form of nourishment), exert a destructive influence, and both alike represented there by a central vegetable formation, whether it be tree or bush. Symbolical: The tree of life: The power of health and life in nature, which, in connection with the word of God, rises to a fountain of everlasting life in Christ soteriologically, and to be the nourishment of everlasting life in Christ sacramentally.—The tree of knowledge of good and evil. Nature as the tree of probation every way, namely in excessive, in dangerous, and in forbidden means of enjoyment.—The paradisaical command. Historical: The warning, inviting, and dissuading signs of God in the productions of nature themselves, and the transformation of the signs into miraculous words for the ear through the present spirit of God. The mention of all the trees in the garden is in so far a command as the arbitrary abstinence from permitted enjoyment has for its consequence the inclination to forbidden enjoyment. There is also a reminder in it that he has no need of the forbidden enjoyment. Symbolical: The revealed will of God, in general, not a constraint nor an abridgment, but only a healthful barrier for the sake of freedom and happiness.—The beasts brought before Adam in Paradise. Historical: Original sympathy between the animal and the human worlds. Symbolical: The destiny of man, to learn to understand, through the gospel, the sighing of the creature, or to have, in general, a right knowledge of the animal-world and of nature, and how rightly to use them.—The naming of the beasts. Historical: First exercise of the human spirit—and especially of speech. Symbolical: The religious and scientific development of man through nature.—Human speech. Historical: Hereditary disposition taking root in the very life of the spirit and its plastic organization, awakened through the most excited contemplations of childhood—such as that of life in the beast. Symbolical: Man’s first prophecy of nature, a presage of his destiny to know and predict perfectly the law and gospel of nature.—The creation of woman. Historical: The formation of the human pair falls in the period of the physiological creation of the man. Not after the manner of ready-made or at once completed being, but in the way of becoming, does the one developing human form become perfected in the contrast of one man and woman. Man, as a personality, is not conditioned through sexual completion or integration; and man and wife are not, somehow, only two halves which make one whole in a personal sense, but perhaps in a social. The wife, however, is just as much whole man as the man himself. She proceeds not only from the substance of the man, but also from his trance-vision in that deathlike sleep into which he had been cast by God. In respect to substance, as formed from one of man’s ribs, she comprehends less than Adam; in respect to form she is a creation of secondary power in the region of paradise. God brings Eve to Adam. Marriage is instituted by God, not only in respect to the divine creation of its contrast, but also in respect to the divine guidance of the individual choice. Man must not anticipate the decision of God, but neither is he to reject the destined one whom God brings before him—the one who through a divine revelation, as it were, and a divine consideration, is marked out for him as his counterpart.—Adam’s salutation and blessing. Symbolical: The first of all high and sacred songs of love. Marriage the principle of the family state, superordinate to all other domestic relations. Marriage in contrast with the sins of sodomy and fornication—in contrast with incest (leaving father and mother, etc.)—in contrast with an arbitrary and sinful taking and forsaking. (The paradisaical indissolubility of marriage is conditioned upon its paradisaical infallibility.) Duties to father and mother receive an emphasis from the fact that they are measured by the law of love. The greatness and the limit of the parental right. It extends to, but not into, the marriage state.—The nakedness of the first human beings. Symbolical: The childlike simplicity, the freedom, beauty, and majesty of innocence.
[Excursus on the Paradise Rivers.—The search for the Gihon and the Pishon in the north is attended with the greatest difficulties. Chief among them is the necessity it involves of finding another Cush in the same direction. The language of the writer gives the impression of a territory of great comparative extent, and that could not easily be misunderstood by a reader familiar with, the geographical terms employed. הוא הסובב כל ארץ כוש: that is, the river that goes round the whole land of Cush—clear round it—a wide and notable circuit. The sense of winding or meandering through cannot be got from the verb, and the references to Isa_23:16, and Other places (סבו ציון ,סבי עיר, Psa_48:13 : Go round about the city—round about Zion), do not support it. The ancient view that the Gihon was the Nile, and Pishon the Indus, though having difficulties of another kind, is more near to what would seem to be the general idea of the passage: four great rivers (waters rather) prominent in the earth, and having their courses, in some way, connected with Eden. Even if the Nile and the Indus are not the rivers, it is more easy to see how they came to be anciently, and almost universally, so regarded, than to find anything corresponding to this graphic representation in the region north of the Euphrates and the Hiddekel or Tigris. One thing is clear on the very face of the account: the writer himself had no difficulty, and thought of none for the reader. He is certainly not speaking of things supposed to be obliterated by the deluge, but of places recognized, however vaguely, in the knowledge of the day. To this assumed knowledge the picture is presented, though with that inadequacy of conception, and that generality or undefinedness of language, which necessarily marked the first geographical notions of mankind. It was very much as an early Greek writer would have done, in a similar case, who had nothing else to go by but the map of Eratosthenes, or the still older one of Hecatæus. This does not at all detract from the inspiration of the account, whether we adopt the vision-theory, or some more objective mode of raising the conceptions in the narrator’s mind. In either case such conceptions would be shaped by his supposed knowledge, as this would also be the ground of presentation to other minds. The picture which St. John had of the Euphrates, in his apocalyptic vision, was doubtless according to the geographical ideas, more or less correct, which he had previously possessed of that river. Geographical language has undergone a great change. Everything now, and for a long time, has been so precisely defined that we need to get out of our modern conceptions to be in a condition to understand satisfactorily the most ancient modes of dividing and describing the earth. The nomenclature has become greatly enlarged and varied. We have rivers, lakes, seas (the Greeks in Homer’s time called these two last by one name, λίμνη), oceans, friths, arms of the sea, gulfs, bays, sounds, etc. In the earliest times they were not fixed, and we cannot be always certain, therefore, that a general name like נָהָר, a flood or flowing water, presented just that limited conception in every case that we now invariably connect with river, flumen, ποταμὸς, etc. For examples of the wide sense of נהר, see such passages as Psa_93:3 : The floods lift up their voice, נהרות, lift up their dashing waves, דכים; Psa_66:6, it is joined with יָם, and most obviously used of the Red Sea; see also Psa_89:26. So Hab_3:8, where בנהרים and בים are spoken of in the same way; comp. Isa_48:18. We deduce, too, this wide primitive sense from its employment in metaphors where there is to be denoted width, enlargement, fulness: Peace like a river, כנהר, Isa_66:12, like a flood; so Isa_59:19, enemy come in like a flood. Beyond the floods of Cush, Isa_18:1; the same expression, Zep_3:10. See especially Jon_2:4 : נהר יסבבני, the flood went round me (the deep sea); compare with this Homer’s ὠκεανοῦ ῥέεθρα, streams of ocean, Iliad xiv. 245. So it seems to be used, not so much of a river, in the limited sense, as of any great water, in such passages as Job_22:16, Psa_46:5. In Psa_24:2 it denotes the floods of chaos, the old Tehom rabbah, or “great deep,” and is put in direct parallelism with ימים: For He hath founded it upon the seas, and built it upon the floods, על נהרות. See the same word used in the same way, Eze_31:15.
Thus the נָהָר, or great water, in the passage before us, Gen_2:10. In the Eden territory itself it might have had the form of a lake—an idea, in fact, which the whole aspect of the account greatly favors. It was certainly not a spring or fountain-head to four commencing streams, but rather a reservoir in which all were joined, whether as flowing in or flowing out. From thence they were parted, or began to be parted (יִפָּרֵד, see remark on יעלה and references, p. 202) into four ראשים. This is rendered heads in our version, and so the Vulgate, in quatuor capita. But they both mislead in their literalness; the Hebrew ראש never having, like our word, the sense of fountain-head or spring; the Shemitic tongues called the remote upper part of a stream a foot or a finger rather than a head. It became four principal waters or floods, four arms (brachia) or great branches. Two of these were rivers within the modern limits of the term, but very great rivers; so that one comes afterwards to be almost constantly called נהר with the article as a proper name—the great river, the sea or flood. See Gen_15:18; Gen_31:21; Num_22:5; Deu_1:7; Deu_11:24; Jos_24:2-3; Jos_24:14-15; 2Sa_10:16; Neh_2:7; Isa_7:20; Isa_11:15; Isa_27:12 and others. From such a use as this, perhaps, came the more common secondary or specific application of נהר to rivers proper. The other two, probably, presented a different appearance. Beyond the bounds of the Eden territory they may have become friths, or arms of the sea, or two diverging shores of a great water soon losing sight of each other, yet each still keeping the name נהר as more applicable, in fact, to them (if we may judge from its primary sense) than to the streams on the north.
Such a view may not, at first, seem in harmony with our preconceptions, but there are considerations to be mentioned which, on closer examination, will more and more divest it of any strange or forced appearance. In the first place, two of these נהרים are determined, and we may regard them as furnishing the necessary data for the determination of the others according to some sense once clearly recognized. They are waters in close and even immediate connection with the Euphrates and the Tigris, not at their obscure sources, or springs, where they could not be recognized as נהרים, but where they both appear as parting from a common junction in the Eden-land. The two well-known branches are north of this junction; we must, therefore, look for the others on the south, and the region first to be examined in our search for Eden is that in which the Euphrates and the Tigris come together. This was near the head of the Persian Gulf, where most of the ancient authorities agreed in fixing it, and to which place also there points a concurrence of Arabian and Persian tradition. Here Calvin and Bochart find it. But where, then, are the two southern נהרים, one of which goes round the land of Havilah, the land of gold (India, says the Jerusalem Targum), and the other goes round the whole land of Cush, that is, Southern Arabia (see Gen_10:7; 1Ki_10:1; Homer: Odyss. i. 20)? The branches of the Schat al Arab, which completes the junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris, fall altogether short of this graphic description. We might regard this delta as the remains of the ancient confluence in Eden, but it will not answer for Pishon and Gihon. The key to the difficulty, we think, will suggest itself, if the reader will keep in mind the view here taken of נהר, and carry it with him in a steady contemplation of all the waters that meet in this region of the earth. An ancient map, such as that of Ptolemy or Strabo, or the still earlier one of Hecatæus, would be best for this purpose; but the simplest delineation could hardly fail to awake the thought that in the general contour of the system of waters presented by these two mighty streams as they come down from the north, and the two diverging seas, or shores of seas, that, parting just below their junction, sweep round the land of India on the one side, and Arabia on the other, we have the data that determine for us the location of the ancient Eden-land. It suggests, too, the origin of the general language, and of this special naming. Knowledge has not yet introduced geographical distinctions; the internal wastes of seas and their connections are unknown; the pioneers or travellers on either diverging shore simply recognize them as two great waters, two mighty נהרים, and they name them according to their most visible characteristics and directions. Hence the earliest representation, which is afterwards enlarged and becomes a fixed tradition. One is the broad-spreading Pishon, trending far away to the eastern land of gold and diamonds, the other is the deep-flowing Gihon (compare the favorite epithet of Homer’s “Ocean-River,” βαθυῤῥόου ’Ωκεανοῖο, Odyss. xi. 13; Iliad xiv. 311), surging far round to the south and the west. Observe, too, the contrast they present to the other names, the fertilizing Euphrates (פרה), and the swift-darting Hiddekel or Tigris. The inland and maritime features could hardly have been distinguished by more significant epithets.22
But such an opinion should be fortified by historical argument, and this, we think, is found in a fact of Greek archæology, having much interest for its own sake, but to which sufficient attention has not been given in its bearing on the names, and the primitive significance, of these neharim. Homer calls Oceanus a river. It had been so called, doubtless, long before his time. He connects with it, indeed, much wild mythology, but that does not affect the fact, nor the interest, of such a naming. Whence came it? It is not a sufficient explanation to call it poetical. All early conceivings of nature were poetical in this sense of vastness and wonder. The great unknown of things was full of it, and the wonderful was ever divine. Hence Homer’s divine ether, divine fire, divine sea (αἰθέρος ἐκ δίης–θεσπιδαὲς πῦρ–εἰς ἅλα δῖαν, Iliad xvi. 365; xii. 177; Odyss. v. 261—compare הַרְרֵי אֵל, montes Dei, Psa_36:7). But Homer, though a poet, speaks here in the most matter-of-fact style. He believes in Oceanus as he believes in the Peneus and the Eurotas. Ulysses navigates this ocean-river in a black ship; he sails along its one shore until he leaves it and enters the κῦμα θαλάσσης, the swell of the inland sea, Odyss. x. 639; xi. 1. Homer’s poetry makes him none the less a good witness for the most ancient geographical ideas, and to this purpose does the prosaic Strabo speak in quoting him: “Homer,” he says, “not only calls the great ocean a river (ποταμὸν καὶ ποταμοῖο ῥόον), but gives the same name to a part of it; otherwise he would have (absurdly) represented Ulysses as going out of the ocean into the ocean.” See Strabo: lib. i. 75; also lib. i. 3; ii. 3, 5; ii. 18, where he speaks of the four great sinuses which were regarded as inlets from the ocean-stream, the Caspian and the Pontus on the north and the Persian and Arabian sinus on the south. See, also, how he speaks in other places of the Northern Oceanus, and its supposed connections. It is worthy of note, too, how Homer’s frequent ῥόος, and Strabo’s use of it in his remarks upon him, corresponds to the primary sense of the Hebrew נהר, as a full, majestic flowing rather than a gliding or rapid running stream, like rivus or amnis. It would take up too much space to cite other passages from the Greek poets, Herodotus, etc., where similar language is used. One reference, however, may be made to Pindar: Pyth. Carm. iv. 250,
ἔν τ’ ὠκεανοῦ πελάγεσσι πόντῳ τ’ ἐρυθρῷ;
because in it this river Oceanus is directly connected with the Persian Gulf. Jason is represented as returning “by the channels of Oceanus and the Erythrian or Red Sea,” by which name the Greeks denominated not the Egyptian but the Persian sinus. Josephus names it in the same way, Ant. lib. i. ch. i. 3, where he says “the Euphrates and the Tigris go down into the Red Sea, whilst Gihon (Geon, as he calls it) runs through Egypt, the Greeks calling it the Nile.” He seems to have regarded the Egyptian river as in some way connected with the Scripture Gihon on the unknown South.
This usus loquendi may be explained by supposing that the sons of Javan, Elisa and Tarshish, Kittim and Rodanim, carried it with them from the old
home-land in the east, and applied it in their pioneering among the friths and sounds of the Mediterranean. The Egyptians, or sons of Ham, had it in the same way; and this makes simple and natural what otherwise might seem forced or far-fetched, in such an interpretation of the earliest geographical language. This idea, too, of a great Oceanus river with its one far-stretching continuity of shore winding round an extensive portion of the earth, must have had its origin in the east, and in that region of it where two such vast shores met each other, and, at the same time, some great inland water. It would never have come from any aspect of things presented to the first migrations in the Mediterranean with its many islands, sinuses, friths, and sounds, ever breaking up such continuity, and seldom affording a view in which land does not show itself, however distantly, in some direction. Hence it was that this part of the earth got the name of “the isles of the sea,” so frequent in Scripture. As such, it became opposed to the continent or main eastern land of Asia; the two together making up the world, or orbis terrarum, and thus presented in the parallelism of Psa_97:1 :
Jehovah reigns, let the earth (the land) rejoice,
Let the many isles be glad.
If we suppose that the Phœnicians in their earliest voyages carried with them this idea of the Ocean-river, they must have had it from some more primitive source, and this is the more easily understood if we adopt the tradition mentioned by Strabo, lib. i. ch. ii. 35, that the Phœnicians, in distinction from the Sidonians, came to the Mediterranean from the neighborhood of the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf.
The roving Greek imagination, as usual, carried the thing farther than the no less vivid but more sober Shemitic. They prolonged the course of the Ocean-river, not only round the Arabian, but also the Western or African Æthiopia (see Hom.: Odyss. i. 23; Iliad i. 423; Pind.: Pyth. iv. 26; Herod, iv. 42), and so clear round Africa itself as they conceived it to be. On the other hand, the eastern flood turned north, and encompassed the boreal regions, and so the idea became complete of a ποταμός, or ῥόος, that encircled the earth, according to the Orphic or Homeric description:
’Ωκεανός τε πέριξ ἐνὶ ὕδασι γαῖαν ἑλίσσων.
The idea appears in all the old representations of the world down to the map of Ptolemy, and in this point of view it is not extravagant to regard the scriptural account of the Paradise-streams as the seed from which it all grew. Once loosed from its sober scriptural moorings and become a myth, there was no limit to the fancy. It was transferred to every great and unknown sea, and the legend of Jason, the old ocean circumnavigator, arose from the desire ever manifested by the Greeks to give to every world-idea that came to them a national aspect. Hence it took so many traditional forms. Pindar, as we have seen, makes him return home by the way of the Persian Gulf and Æthiopia; Appollonius Rhodius brings him back by the Ister, or Danube, and a branch, or break-off, of the ocean-stream (ἀπορρὼξ ’Ωκεανοῖο; see Argonautica iv. 283, 637), into the Ionian, and so, round again, into the dangerous Libyan Sea; whilst the writer of the other Argonautica (falsely ascribed to Orpheus) gets him somehow into the boreal regions, making him return by the German Ocean and ’Ιέρνη, the most ancient name for Ireland. See also the treatise De Mundo, falsely ascribed to Aristotle (Arist.: Opera, Leip. iv. sect. 3d). So again. Strabo tells us (lib. i. ch. ii. 10) that Homer transferred some things from the Pontus, such as the Symplagades and the Aæan isle of Circe, to the voyage of Ulysses—that sea having been anciently regarded as another Oceanus. It may be said, too, that when the primitive idea began to float away into the boundless and unknown, Cush went with it, passing over into Eastern Africa, the land of the Habessenians (Abyssinians), ַׁײ ַָ׃ֹ, as the Judaico-Arabic translator (Arabs Erpenianus) renders this very name כוש in the place before us, Gen_2:13. Æthiopia is afterwards carried still farther south and west, and the name is sometimes given to what was obscurely known of Western and Central Africa, or the land of the Niger and Senegal. Thus it becomes a word for the remote and unknown regions of the South,23 as Tarshish is used for the distant West. In this way, we think, it is employed Zep_3:10, and Isa_18:1, the land of the shadow of wings, ארץ צלצל כנפים (so the Syriac renders it, ܐܪܐܥܐ ܪܛܠܐܐ ܪܒܵܐ), terra umbrœ alarum, that is, as Abulwalid explains it, whose wings or sides are shaded (obscure or unknown)—the land כוש מעבר לנהרי, beyond the floods of Cush. The thought gives force and vividness to the passage Psa_68:32 : Even Cush shall stretch forth (תריץ, cause to run swiftly or eagerly) her hands unto God. The two lands of Cush, “the one at the rising (the Arabian Cush) and the other at the setting sun” (the African), were distinguished in Homer’s day, and it is not difficult to see how the African Æthiopians came from the Arabian, or Sabæan, Cush, by crossing the lower narrow part of the Red Sea (one of the windings of the Gihon), instead of being derived from the Egyptians above, that is, from Mizraim, the younger brother of Cush. In thus regarding the Red Sea as a continuation of the Gihon, as in fact it was, if our view be correct, we may understand how the Nile may have become connected with the name, and afterwards been taken for the Gihon itself.
The Indian Ocean in the most ancient times was the widest extent of water known. It was, too, nearer the primitive birth-place of man in the East, and, therefore, known before the Mediterranean. Even after men became acquainted with the latter, it was, in comparison with the older water, but a λίμνη, or a θάλασσα, an irregular broken mass of bays and islands instead of one long continuous flow. Here, therefore, in this earlier region of the Indian and Persian seas should we naturally look for the origin of that name Okeanos which it is so difficult to deduce from the Greek. This is what Diodorus Siculus does, Lib. i. 19, in what he says of the journey of Osiris to India. The derivation of Okeanos from ὠκὺς νάω, as we find it in some of our lexicons, is wholly untenable, since νάω denotes only the trickling flow of a fountain, and ὠκύς never enters into any of the many epithets of ocean used by the poets, which it could hardly have avoided doing had it belonged to the radical idea of the name. ’Ωκεανός is βαθύῤῥοος, βαθυκύμων, βαθυδίνης, εὔρροος, etc., but never ὠκύῤῥοος. Besides, the ω has every appearance of a prefix, being either α privative (turned into ω), as Suidas holds to accommodate it to an absurd derivation of his own, or, as is far more likely, the article lengthened—the kean, or keon. The etymology which traces it to ogyges, ogen, ὠγῆνος (if there ever was such a word in Greek) has as little support in any traceable significance, as in any tenable phonetic ground. A word meaning ancient could never have been a primitive name, although, inversely, such a name as Okeanos, when its primitive significance had been lost, might be used for the old and the unknown. We may disregard, in the same way, what is said of the Coptic oukame and the Arabic kamus. The true explanation of this name will, we think, suggest itself in a careful consideration of four things: 1. The obvious fact that the ω is a prefix, as Suidas regards it, and that it must, therefore, be the article; 2. what Josephus says when he calls Gihon γεων, Geon, as mentioned in the scriptural description of this great encompassing water; 3. the graphic nature of the Scripture language as suggesting an idea held and emotionally conceived by the writer and his first readers; 4. the part of the world in which, even according to Greek historians, the name Okeanos had its origin. In the light of these considerations there is no extravagance in saying that ̔Ω-κεαν-ος is ὁ Γι-ὁν–ὁ Γεων–ὁ Κεων–ὁ Κεαν.24 In other words, it is the old full-flowing Gihon that was connected with the Eden-territory, and whose long winding shore went round that laud of Cush in the neighborhood of which the name was first found. This is in perfect accordance with the usage of the root גיח, or גוח, wherever it occurs. It does not denote turbulence (an angry river). That notion has come from the effort to connect the Gihon with the Araxes (Greek: ἀράττω). It denotes, rather, force and fulness (see Job_37:8), like the βαθύῤῥοος, which is such a favorite epithet for ’Ωκεανός, and hence stateliness, as in the Aramaic, where it is used of a soldier or an army issuing forth to battle. So Pishon, the spreading (redundans), the wide-flowing, εὐρύπορος, from פוש, dispergere—a fluvio redundante, Ges.; comp. Hab_1:8; Mal_3:20 or Mal_4:2; Jer_50:11. The image is wholly lost in the Phasis, or any other stream in the mountains of Armenia, where some have so earnestly sought to find it.
The difficulty of finding any other place for Eden but the neighborhood of the Persian Gulf is shown in the labored effort to transfer the famed Cush of the Scriptures, or the “land beyond the floods of Cush” (the terra obumbrata, or “land of the shadow of wings,” Isa_18:1, with its expanding bounds), to the Caucasian tribe of the Cossæans (κοσσαῖοι) barely mentioned by Diodorus and Strabo along with the Mardi, the Uxii, the Elymaei, and other predatory hordes of like insignificance who inhabited the sterile plains near the Caspian lake. If we studiously compare Isa_18:1 and Zep_3:10 with Gen_2:13, the inference can hardly be avoided that כוש מעבר לנהרי, “beyond the floods of Cush,” can mean nothing more nor less than beyond the encompassing Gihon, הנהר הסובב את כל ארץ כוש, “the flood or water that goes round the whole land of Cush.” In truth, what other floods or water can it mean? Such a description would never have been lost, and must be supposed to have been in the mind of every subsequent writer, prophet, or historian, that refers to a land so surrounded. A like studious contemplation will convince us that Psa_68:32; Isa_18:1, and Zep_3:10, are all one prophecy, the gathering of God’s chosen, His suppliant people, פוצי עתרי בת, as Zephaniah calls them, dispersed to the remotest regions of the earth—beyond the floods of Cush, beyond the Gihon, even from the remoter Æthiopia, just as “Tarshish and the isles,” Psa_72:10, are used to indicate remoteness in the other direction.
It only remains to fortify what has been said by adverting to the fact that this mode of speech (that is, calling the sea a river, or a stream, and, inversely, a great river a sea) remained in the Hebrew down to its latest use as a living language. We may refer to Isa_19:5, where the Nile is called both ים and נהר in the same verse; Isa_27:1, the leviathan or crocodile, בים, in the sea; Isa_21:1, the burthen of the desert of the sea, supposed to mean Babylon on the Euphrates; Job_41:23, where the Nile is indicated; Nah_3:8, the same; see also Eze_32:2, ZeGen Gen_10:11, and others, and compare Koran Surat xx. 39, where, in the same manner, the Arabic ַבםד (הים) is given as a name to the river, when it is said that Moses was cast into the sea, and the sea cast him, with the ark, upon the shore. See also Lud. de Dieu: Critica Sacra, 555, and Bochart: Hierozoican, vol. ii. 789, where he cites Pliny as calling the shore of the Nile not ripam, but litus, a name usually given to the shore of the sea. Compare, moreover, the long note on the oceanic streams of Western Asia in Rawlinson’s Herodotus, Appendix, vol. i. p. 446. The usage still exists in the Oriental languages. To this day ַבָל, the sea, is applied in Arabic not only to the Nile, but to any great flumen, or wide-flowing water; and they speak of the shore of such a river as they would of the shore of the sea. If the account in Genesis had been originally given in the Arabic language, whether in its oldest or latest forms, there can hardly be a doubt that it would have been expressed in similar terms. The word ָל would have been alike applicable to the great inland rivers and the two long winding oceanic shores.
Nor is such usage so strange as it might at first seem to our stricter occidental logic. Rigorously defined as inland streams, our greatest and our smallest rivers have the same specific appellation. To the eye, too, that views them merely as traced upon the map, they all appear as single lines. To the actual sight, however, and to the emotion, the case is quite different. These refuse the logic that would place the Amazon and the Tweed in the same category. Such mighty sea-like flowings as the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi claim more affinity to the Atlantic and the oceanic Gulf-stream than to the canal-like Mohawk, or to the mountain-torrent of the Housatonic. From the actual and the emotional, thus regarded, arose this early language which is still continued, in the East, in its application to such rivers as the Euphrates, the Indus, and the Nile. In the same manner, in our North-American Indian tongues, is the term “great water,” like the Hebrew הנהר הגדול, used not only of an arm of the sea, or of the great lakes, but even of such rivers as the Ohio and the Missouri. Such a mode of speech is, in fact, one of the striking evidences of the subjective truthfulness of this early scriptural account. It represents an actual, though perhaps indefinite, knowledge, and the emotional naming that grows naturally out of it. It shows that it is not itself a myth, though, doubtless, the seed of myths that afterwards came out of it. Legends, historical or geographical, are the result of a later process. They do not belong to the most primitive ages, occupied, as they must be, with the greatness and novelty of the real as it lies before the sense. The mythical succeeds. It betrays a semi-philosophizing spirit, a disposition to create an ideal by carrying the actual beyond its ascertained or supposed bounds, or to make some primitive knowledge, or event, the representative of a wide unknown. In this early story of the Eden-streams there is the seed of the Egyptian and the Greek oceanic legends. Its sober truthful character, like that of the modest Hebrew chronology, is shown by its matter-of-fact limitation, and its evident appeal to existing observation. The mythical spirit would have carried the Pishon and the Gihon not only round Havilah and the whole land of Cush, but, as it afterwards did, round the whole earth known or unknown. This Eden account, too, may be regarded as the beginning of geography. We need only trace the successive delineations of the earth, from the earliest map of Hecatæus down to that of Ptolemy and the modern charts of the world, to have the thought suggested that their ever-widening scales were simply expansions from this primitive central sketch.—T. L.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
In relation to the whole section.—God’s government of men in the beginning.—His covenant with Adam. 1. His gift and blessings: a. The soil of the earth prepared for man; b. the hand of God the instrument of his formation; c. the breath of God, his innermost life; d. Paradise his home, the wide earth his country; e. the abundance of Paradise his food; f. the beasts his school for the study of form, and his attendant service; g. the wife his helper. 2. The commands laid upon him in Paradise: a. To dress the garden and to keep it; b. to beware of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; c. to give names to the beasts (that is, contemplate, recognize,25 and distinguish the nature of things); d. to keep holy the society of marriage.—The glory of God as displayed in the first paradisaical world (His power, wisdom, goodness, love).—The creation of man: 1. So grand the preparation made for him (Gen_2:4-6); 2. so wonderfully and richly grounded (Gen_2:7), so carefully established (Gen_2:8-18), and so gloriously completed (Gen_2:19-25).—The appearing of man upon the earth as the revelation of its destiny: 1. The presentation of its fundamental idea, of its purport, its aim; 2. the perfection of its structure; 3. the solving of its enigma; 4. the consecration of its being; 5. the bond of its connection with heaven; 6. the beginning of its transformation from a state of pure nature to a paradisaical spirit-world.—Man and nature. Man: 1. The elevation of nature; 2. the exaltation of nature, and at the same time, 3. the pupil of nature.—The first transformation of nature through the entrance of the first man a prognostic of its second transformation through the second man, the one from heaven (1 Corinthians 15).—The history of Adam a history of the heaven and the earth.—The reflected splendor of the glory of the first humanity in the glory of Paradise.—The inward connection and reciprocity between man and nature: 1. His innocence, its beauty and its peace; 2. his fall, its ruin or subjection to the “law of vanity;” 3. his resurrection, its hope of renewed glory.—The man and his wife as the crowning work of creation.—The bridal of Adam a presignal of the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev_19:7).—The old as well as the new world prepared for a marriage chamber.
The First Section (Gen_2:4-6).—The earth waiting for man, a figure of the humanity waiting for the God-Man.
The Second Section (Gen_2:7).—The creation of Man_1:1. The formation of man the work of God’s master-hand; 2. the nature of man: akin to the earth and akin to God, or at the same time earthly and divine; 3. the character of man as a unit, a living soul.—Man in his unity, in his duality,—in his threefold nature.—The original human dust of the earth in the splendor of heaven.
The Third Section (Gen_2:8-14).—Paradise.—Paradise: 1. As a fact in the earth, the bloom of the earth, the home of the first Man_1:2. as an emblem, of the paradisaical disposition of the earth, of its paradisaical power, namely for children and in festal contemplation, of its paradisaical prefiguration, as of the new paradise in the other world and in this.
The Fourth Section (Gen_2:15-18).—The first man in Paradise. His relation to the earth-world, to Paradise, to the vegetable world, to the animal world, to Eve.—The Paradise-life, moreover, not an unrestricted state: 1. Limitation of action: the calling (to dress and keep); 2. limitation of enjoyment (not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil); 3. limitations in the treatment of nature and especially of the beasts (no enclosing); 4. limitations on human society (regulation of marriage and domestic life).—The restrictions upon life the measure and the development of freedom. The ground features of the paradisaical life: heavenly innocence, festal work, pure enjoyment, clear knowledge, quiet waiting (the deep sleep), inward love and greeting, unconstrained and childlike being.—Single verses and themes. Gen_2:4. The history of the heaven and the earth in the history of man.—The rich significance of the name Jehovah-Elohim: 1. Jehovah is Elohim; 2. Elohim is Jehovah (analogous to the New Testament in respect to the name Jesus Christ, that is, Jesus is Christ, Christ is Jesus).
Gen_2:6. The world without man a desert; the world everywhere incomplete until man comes (the child of the election). The first dewy rain and its blessing a presignal for all times (children yet believe that they grow from the rain).
Gen_2:7. The creation of man as, 1. a divine forming; 2. a divine inbreathing (so goes the ideal before the life, art before the realization, the shadow or the type before the truth).—The descent of man, his earthly descent (Adam from adamah); his divine descent (a soul from God’s breath of life).—The original harmony and unity of the earthly and heavenly nature of man. How we ought to be on our guard against those suspicions of matter, of the body, and of the sense-nature, which claim to be profound, and yet are not taught in the Scriptures.—Why the church has always held dualism to be spiritually dangerous. Man, in his being an exaltation of the dust, a humility of the spirit. The nature of man a type of his destiny: 1. To build the dust into form; 2. to reveal the inspiration of God in his life. The lowliness and the sublimity of the first man Adam without father and mother, a foreshowing of the wonderful descent of Christ.—Paradise (Gen_2:8-14, see number 9 of the Doctrinal, etc.). Paradise at the beginning of the world, and Paradise at the end (the tree of life in the beginning and the tree of life at the end, Revelation 22).—The rivers of Paradise, figures of the spiritual life that, proceeding from Paradise, spreads through the world. Gold, spices, and precious stones according to their higher paradisaical appointment, or the riches of the earth an emblem of the higher heavenly riches.—The calling of Adam (Gen_2:15): In the first chapter he is appointed ruler of the earth. This divides itself here into two aspects, 1. to dress, 2. to keep. The calling of Adam a type of our calling. The entrusted goods (spiritual talents, outward goods of culture, spiritual goods): First to dress it, that is, to increase, ennoble; second to keep it, that is, to guard it against injury and loss.
Gen_2:16. In Adam’s life, calling and enjoyment are united; therefore are they both paradisaical; so in a still higher degree are calling and enjoyment united in the life of Jesus (Joh_4:34).
Gen_2:17. The paradisaical freedom not without limitation. Outward restraint educates to a free self-restraint. As God binds Himself in His love to man, so also should man bind himself in love to God and to obedience. “For it is the self-limitation that first shows the master.” Freedom and limitation, right and duty, inseparably united. The tree of probation, 1. a fact (a hurtful enjoyment of nature, as explained from God’s spirit and word); 2. an emblem of all natural enjoyment that is hurtful and destructive. According to God’s will, the tree was primarily only a tree of probation; it first became a tree of temptation by the coming of the serpent. The threatening of death is indirectly a promise of imperishable life. Death is the wages of sin.—The animal world. How the right treatment of these rests upon the right knowledge and naming of them. Peace in the paradisaical nature (all the animals are brought before Adam).
Gen_2:18, etc. It is not good that man should be alone. God’s judgment respecting the unmarried state, 1. as universal, 2. as conditional.—How all the riches of nature leave man still alone in the failure of kindred society. Man alone, in the midst of all the beasts, with all his knowledge. The true helper of Man_1:1. As his image; 2. as his counterpart (his antithetical complement).—The marriage of man, how grounded, 1. on the judgment of God; 2. on the solitary state of Man_1:3. on his deep sleep (trance-vision, see Job_4:13); 4. on the divine creating of the woman out of the side of the Man_1:5. on God’s bringing Eve to him; 6. on the love-greeting of Adam; 7. on its rich and noble destiny.
Gen_2:25. The clothing of innocence: 1. The purest, 2. the fairest, 3. the most substantial. The infinite contrast between innocence and coarseness. The nobility of marriage: communion of the spirit, the consecration of the sexual association.
Starke (Gen_2:7): Out of the dust of the earth, which by moistening with water is capable of an easy moulding. How thoughtless the conduct of men, who adorn their body made from earth and to earth again returning, whilst losing all care of their immortal souls!
Gen_2:15. Even in a state of innocence man must work, and not go idle. 1. He must be ever active like God; 2. he must have joy in the work of his hands, as God has (Gen_1:31); 3. he must have opportunity to show, as God does, wisdom, power, and goodness to the creatures committed to him.
Gen_2:17. This is the covenant which God established with Adam. On the one side was God, and on the other side Adam, who in his own person represented the whole human race.—See that thou dost immediately choose the best way, and hold fast to the tree of life which is Christ. Taste this fruit, so shalt thou become well.—God the first lawgiver.
Gen_2:20. Is the question asked what language did Adam employ in this transaction? the most probable answer is that it was the Hebrew.
Gen_2:21. Since at the present day a man has twelve ribs on each side, some have supposed that Adam must originally have had thirteen ribs on one side. It is, however, more probable that God must have given him another in place of the one he took away.
Gen_2:22. Luther: Therefore stands fast this consolation against all the teaching of the devil, namely, that the marriage state is a divine state, that is, ordained of God Himself. As Adam gave names to the beasts, so also did he name his wife, and that, too, after himself: “maness“ (woman); on this ground is the custom to be defended whereby a wife lays aside the paternal name, and takes that of the husband.
Gen_2:24. Some would deduce from this merely a prohibition of incest with father and mother.(!) Others would derive from it a proof that in contracting marriage children need not trouble themselves about the approbation of their parents. As this, however, is clearly opposed both to divine and human commands (it is still more opposed to the divine command, we may add, when parents force their children to a marriage) so is it, on this account, the more strongly indicated that the man as well as the wife, go forth from the father’s house and commence a family of their own. To this we may add that with the vocation of marriage, the childlike dependence must also cease, though the filial obligations of love, reverence, and care, do still remain. Col_3:19; Eph_5:25; Mat_19:4; 1Co_7:2.
Burmann: The rest of God in the week is a type of the heavy week and labor of our Mediator Jesus Christ, who in the hard toil of His soul was wearied even unto death for our salvation, and, finally, on this seventh day, entered into his rest (Isa_53:11). So are then here also created a new heaven and earth, and creatures, namely, new men; a new light of the Gospel, new fruits of righteousness, new water welling up to everlasting life.—Wherein does Paradise agree with heaven?—And, therefore, is the family state established as the fountain-head and origin of all human society.
Schröder: Moses makes the primeval history of the microcosm follow the history of the macrocosm.—The hints already obscurely given here and there in the first section (comp. Gen_22:21) in relation to the fall, assume a more distinct form in the second, as though it were designed as a prologue to that world-historical tragedy which begins with chapter 3.—The hypothesis of the so-called Pre-Adamites, that is, of men who lived before Adam, is clearly and distinctly excluded by the remark at the end of Gen_2:5, that before Adam there was no man to till the ground. As a proof to the contrary there is also 1Co_15:45, and Act_17:26.—The body of man appears, therefore, as a fine artistic structure of God.—“Stand in awe, oh man! for upon each of thy consecrated members was the finger of God!” Herder.—As Isaiah says: Thou art our father, Thou art our potter, and we are Thy clay (Isaiah 64). Luther.—The spirit of life comes to the human soul as a gift from God immediately received into the human frame (Gen_1:26-27). The soul of the beast, at God’s command, has its origin in that breath of God which pervades the elements of nature (Gen_1:2; Gen_1:20; Gen_1:24).—Only as inspired by God does the soul live its true life, its human life; only by means of a vitalizing communion with the divine spirit has it true independence, and a blessed continuance.
Gen_2:8-15. The whole earth as “very good“ was created to be a garden of God. But the Father, out of His abundant goodness to His human child, plants in this garden a little garden more peculiarly His own—a little Paradise in the greater.—God planted: The image is grounded on that of a human gardener (Joh_15:1; Isaiah 5).—Elsewhere the Scripture gives the name Paradise to the abode of the blest, when we, perhaps, would say “to be in heaven” (Luk_23:43; 2Co_12:4; Rev_2:7).—A garden: And what could have been a fairer place for the planting of our race? “The schools of wisdom in the East are usually gardens, blooming places by the side of rivers.” Herder. “Moses expressly tells us, how this garden was gloriously filled by the Lord with fruit-trees of every kind, that the appetite of man might have no excuse.” Calvin.—“The description of the fruit of the trees: Captivating to the sight and good for food, is not without its purpose; it shows that inclination and the proof of sense in respect to food and drink should be guides to men.” Herder.—Among the trees of Paradise two enigmatical names strike us. Both belong to the same place; both are found in the middle of the garden.
Gen_2:17. The God of the covenant is called Jehovah-Elohim. A covenant requires two sides.—Dying, death, the sense of these words he can only anticipate, according as their contrast with the sense of the tree of life grows more clear. At the moment of the fall began the death of man. Death waxes stronger with us until it outgrows life, and conquers it.
Gen_2:20. In his wedded wife man receives what no help or friendship, however fair it might be, could otherwise have given him.—One heart and one soul.—Man gives names to the beasts.—As the son of God he discerns his father’s footsteps, that is, the divine ideas in the things created.
Gen_2:21-25. The becoming many out of one. This is the way of God.
Roos: The sleep of Adam.
Rambach: God acts like a painter or a sculptor who draws a curtain before him when he is working upon an excellent picture or an artistic statue.—Adam’s eyes are veiled that God’s love may unveil itself. The old writers noted six examples in the Scriptures where a miraculous work follows sleep: 1. The case of Adam, 2. of Elias (1 Kings 19), 3. of Jonah (Genesis 1), 4. of Christ (Matthew 8), 5. of Peter (Acts 12), 6. of Eutyches (Acts 20). “Moreover, the Son of God is become weak that He might have His members strong.” Calvin. (Eph_5:25; Col_3:19).—The wife is from a rib; she is taken from near man’s heart. As in man there appears an image of the Creator, so does the wife present an image of His providence. The man was created without; the wife was created in Paradise. Her place is by the fireside and in the nursery, but nevertheless most true it is that the world is ruled, in a most peculiar manner, from the mother’s bosom.
God builded. (Gen_2:22.) “Designedly does Moses use the expression to build, that he may teach us how in the person of the wife the human race finally becomes perfected; whereas before it was like to a building only begun. Others refer it to the domestic economy, as though Moses meant to say, that at that time the right ordering of the family state became complete—a view which does not deviate much from the first interpretation.” Calvin.—“It is worthy of note that what Moses adds: and brought her to him, is an elegant description of the espousal, or the marriage presentation. For Adam does not rashly follow his liking, but waits for God, who brings her to him; as Christ also says: what God hath joined let not man put asunder.” Luther.
Gen_2:23. “Love here makes the first poet, lawgiver, and prophet. It is the song of songs proceeding from the mouth of Adam.” Herder.—Adam makes himself known to his wife, in that he gives her a name in the very act of declaring her origin. With their name the beasts become the property of Adam; with her name does the wife become his own (Isa_43:1; Psa_147:4). He names himself man; the relation to woman causes man now to become a man, in a peculiar sense. Through marriage the circuits of human love are made wider (Eph_5:25; 1Co_7:3; 1Co_7:39; Mat_19:6; Mat_19:9).—In the Scriptures, idolatry and the denial of God are called fornication and adultery. The hieroglyphs of the anti-Mosaic law of marriage have been renewed by Christ in their full splendor. To the Gospel does humanity owe the restoration of its original worth. In our old German speech the word marriage is the stem-word of all law, fidelity, order, religion, covenant; not so in the new.—Naked. In the nobler class of men the bodily formation still reveals itself through its spirituality.
Lisco: The development of individuals, and of the whole race, is grounded on society. The monastic solitariness is not the will of God (Ecc_4:9). If man would reach his destiny, he needs help in the sphere of the bodily as well as that of the spiritual. The root of all other society is that marriage state, established by God, out of which are evolved the three relations of the family, the church, and the state; in like manner, on account of their root (is it merely on this account?) are they divine institutions. All determinations of God have for their aim the highest good of man; but how greatly, through sin, are the blessings of communion, the advantages of society, perverted into mischief! This peace between man and beast belongs also to the prophetic Paradise (Isa_11:6). Before the fall nakedness was moral, modest, chaste; after the fall it becomes indecorous, a remembrance of the fall, an enkindling of sin.
Gerlach: In the Hebrew writings, the first man is called simply Adam, that is, man; for man is just as much the designation of the human race as it is the proper name of the first man. In the first man there was contained the whole human race, which on that account is called children of Adam (sons of man) or Adam (man) simply (just as it is with the names Israel, Edom, Moab, Ammon).—Adam from adamah. Nature must be ruled by one like herself, but who, nevertheless, belongs to a higher order, even as humanity has for its lord a God-Man.—The breath, the condition of the bodily life, is an emblem of the divine life which is breathed into man.—Just as heaven and earth were originally created as a contrast whose two sides must more and more interpenetrate each other, so also in man is there the body from the dust, and the spirit from God.—Man must not be simply a living soul; he must also have a life-making spirit, even as the second Adam possessed it, and all believers receive it from Christ (1Co_15:47).—As being from the dust, man belongs to the earth, and, therefore, to corruptibility; like the other animals which die in respect to their individual being and only live on as creations, he has a natural life; as far as that was concerned he could die, but through the spirit derived from God was he related to Him as an imperishable personality, and, therefore, also could he keep from dying (there was given to him the possibility not to die); for even the dust in its relation to him, as also the earth itself, was created for a higher life of glory.—Garden-work in a mild climate is the easiest and the most appropriate for the childhood of humanity. In this may the active powers exercise themselves for the more severe employments of agricultural labor. The oldest known fruit-trees, the domestic animals, and the grain, were the portion that remained to him out of this original time.—For the tree of knowledge, etc. To know good and evil is the conscious freedom of the will (Isa_7:16; 1Co_8:3).—No want (for he lived in abundance), no enticement of the sense merely (for that arose first after the fall (Gen_3:6), could mislead him to transgress the command, but only his self-exaltation, his striving after a false self-sufficiency and independence.—In a way of childlike feeling does Luther regard the tree of knowledge (standing as it did in the midst of the garden) as the church of the yet innocent man.—“This tree of the knowledge of good and evil has become Adam’s altar and pulpit, in which he ought to have learned the obedience he owed to God, to have known God’s word and will, and to have thanked Him for it; and so, if Adam had not fallen, this tree would have become like to a common temple and cathedral.” Therefore must we be on our guard against every view that would represent the tree as proceeding from the devil’s kingdom, or as being hurtful in itself.
Calwer Manual: The body from the dust of the earth, the spirit inbreathed by God: Thus man belongs to two worlds, the earth and heaven; he is akin to the least of all created things and to the highest, the uncreated, from whose efflux is his spirit.—The work in Paradise: There for them was their desire and joy, which afterwards becomes a burden, care, and toil.—The forbidden fruit. God only forbids us that which brings to us danger and hurt, and that is often in the proportion of one to many things allowed and right, and which is useful and healthful to us.—The threatening of death. Not a sudden dying like an immediately accomplished fact, but, thou wilt become subject to death; it means, to become mortal. With us, too, is death only the end of dying, which last begins often long before. That the man was created before the woman, and that, therefore, a precedence is adjudged to him, is clear from 1Ti_2:13.
Gen_2:19 : God the Creator is also man’s first schoolmaster. It is also indicated in this place that before the fall the animal world had been more confiding and dependent on man than it is now, and that it gladly yielded itself to his dominion; whilst now, in part, it stands to him in a hostile attitude (Rom_8:19-20).—Not all marriages are from God, decided in heaven, but all can become sharers in its blessings if they seek it.
Bunsen: There follows now the representation of the thought of creation, in connection with Paradise and the fall, in contrast with what precedes as the work of creation in its chronological progress. There man was necessarily the last thing, here he is necessarily the first. For God as eternal reason can only think Himself (or He must ever be essentially His own thought), and, therefore, in creation He can only think His image, the conscious finite spirit. What lies between is the mediation of the eternal with the finite. This second history of creation is neither addition nor complement to the one preceding; it is not, to say the least, its repetition. It is the figurative representation of creation as proceeding outward from the central point of the everlasting idea (the doctrine of the fall that follows this [in Bunsen] is Platonising and Gnostical).
Footnotes:
[14][Gen_2:4.—תלדות. Rendered by Lange genealogies. More properly generations in the primary sense, and without any reference to time, like דֹּר, or γενεά. Births, Greek: γενέσεις, whence the name of the book in the Septuagint. It is directly applied to births, or successions (one thing, or event, proceeding from another), in nature, and this may be regarded as primary. For example, see Psa_104:2, הרים יֻלָּדוּ, before the mountains were born, generated.—T. L.]
[15][Gen_2:7.—Lange renders: “und so ward der Mensch eine lebendige Seele.” Luther has alfo. The Hebrew has simply ויהי, which we render: and man became, like the Vulgate and LXX.; but the verb seems to have an emphasis, which Lange rightly aims to give, and so man became, etc.: in this special manner, namely by the divine inspiration directly; since the animals also are called נפש היה, living soul, though their life comes mediately through the general life of nature or the רוח אלהים, as mentioned Gen_1:2. See Psa_104:29.—T. L.]
[16][Gen_2:19.—לִרְאוֹת, to see. Lange: “um zu sehen.” Some of the Jewish commentators raise the question whether this has for its subject God or Adam. If the latter, then לראות has the sense of judging, determining, which it will well bear.—T. L.]
[17] [Why should we go to the remote Æthiopic here, and take a secondary sense of a secondary, when the primary derivation seems to lie right before us in the Hebrew: אדם from אדמה, man from the earth, whether homo be from humus or not. The reasoning of Gesenius will not bear close examination. “There must have been a name for man,” he says, “much earlier (multo antiquior) than the tradition of the Mosaic cosmogony.” As far, however, as we can learn anything of the first history of the race, from whatever source derived (biblical, heathen, or mythological), cosmogonies, or notions about cosmogonies, belonged to the earliest human thinking, and might as well have furnished the ground of the most popular names as anything else. The question, however, is not about “a name” for man (any name), but this name Adam which seems the established one in the Hebrew books. What more natural origin than the traditional could there have been, even without deriving it from a cosmogony? Names ever have a reason for them, though that reason, in many cases, may be lost or undiscoverable. They are given from that fact or quality which most impresses us in the thing named. Man is ever returning to the earth, and this might easily suggest the name, and the idea, too, that in some way he also came out of the earth: “Who am but dust and ashes,” עפר ואפר, Gen_18:27; Job_30:19; Psa_103:14. Homo and humus certainly suggest each other, and the etymology is not wholly impaired by the n in the genitive. Those names are most impressive and likely to be most ancient that are taken from the sorrowful aspect of humanity. Such is the case with that other Hebrew appellation for man, אֱנוֹשׁ, weak, sick, afflicted. Compare it with Homer’s βροτοὶ (mortales), which he seems so fond of using, and in similar connections of thought. איש, although having the more exalting sense when in contrast with אדם (see Psa_49:3; Isa_2:9; Isa_5:15), is clearly allied to אנש (the n lost or compensated by the long vowel). The plural אנשים, the n in the Arabic ַה׃ַה and in the Arabic name for woman ַהֻל = אשה, show this beyond a doubt. The first name for man, or the more common one, would not ho from strength, or from a ruddy color. These do not distinguish him, at least, to the emotions. They are not such as would affect the soul, like his sorrowful return to the earth. Afterwards, when he forgot himself in his pride, and began to boast, he might call himself (גִּבּוֹר) גֶּבֶר, vir, ἀνήρ—hero, strong one—but these names are not the primitive ones. Least of all would be think of calling himself anmuthig according to Knobel’s notion, that is, pleasant, agreeable, handsome one. Certainly not, if his primitive condition were that which the “higher criticism,” in spite of history as well as of revelation, is determined it shall be. The squalid dweller in the cave, surrounded by wolves, and bones, and stone-axes, and hardly distinguishable from his beastly companions, would be the last one to be called, or who would think of calling himself, the agreeable one, according to this derivation for which the rationalists go to the Æthiopic.
The same thought of depression, lowliness, and dependence, may be traced, if we mistake not, in the Greek ἄνθρωπος as contrasted with the later ἀνήρ. The etymology favored by Lange, ὁ ἄνω ἀθρῶν, is untenable. So we may say of the kindred one sometimes given, ἄνω τρέπων ὄμμα, turning the eye upward, to denote the proud commanding look (comp. Ovid: Metam. lib. 1:85). It is not only unphilological, but also too artificial for a common name, though it might do for a poetical epithet. It would rather seem to come directly from τρέφω, to feed, nourish, bring up. The alpha is probably an article, as contracted in ὥ ’νθρωπος, or ἄνθρωπος with the rough aspirate and the nun euphonic. Ἄνθρωπος, man, a nursling, a foundling, a child of earth and nature. So from the same verb is θρέμμα, often used for the feeble young of animals, and so applied, especially by the comic poets, to a feeble, worthless man. In this way we account for what otherwise seems strange, the contemptuous use of ἄνθρωπος as distinguished from ἀνήρ; as ὦ ἄνθρωπε, Oh fellow, Oh poor creature!
The higher we ascend in language, the more numerous, in all departments, as well as the more impressive, do we find names derived from this sense of human frailty. It is the wailing cry called out of man by a feeling of the contrast between his hopes and his apparently dark earthly destiny—between his ideal and his actual, his young vigorous life and the certainty of the death that awaits him. “Who am but dust and ashes!” Notwithstanding what Gesenius would maintain in respect to its improbability, this style of naming belongs to the earliest patriarchal speech. Whether it was before or after any cosmogonical traditions (a question on which Gesenius and Knobel would seem to lay so much stress), it certainly points to an older idea as its origin; and what more likely to have been such than the Scripture favored derivation on which we have been dwelling?—T. L.]
[18][There would seem, at first view, but a faint resemblance between hiddekel and Tigris. There can be but little doubt, however, of their etymological connection. The ח in חדקל may be the article hardened, or it may be part of the syllable הד (sharp, swift) in composition. The remainder דקל and Tigris have cognate letters—DKL, TGR. The intermediate or transition form is seen in the Aramaic ܕܓܠܬ; Arabic, ּֿבֹ; Diglath, DGL. The Zend TGR is the same word.—T. L.]
[19][The reference here would seem to be to Num_23:21, which the German Version gives: “Keine Mühe in Jacob, und keine Arbeit in Israel; no toil in Jacob, no labor in Israel,” instead of our more correct Version: “no iniquity in Jacob, no perverseness in Israel.”—T. L.]
[20][For a very able and a very full discussion of this primitive naming—the philosophy and the theology of it—see Kaulen’s Sprachverwirrung, pp. 90–106.—T. L.]
[21][This is doubtless true of that decisive act of God (whether the inspiration, or the image, or both) that in a moment constituted the first man, and the species homo, which, a moment before, was not. But this does not exclude the idea that the human physical was connected with the previous nature, or natures, and was brought out of them. That is, it was made from the earth in the widest signification of the term. That it was not a mere plastic shaping, or outward mechanical structure, is implied in what Lange says just below in respect to the non-passivity of the earth. There are immense difficulties connected with the idea of an outward Promethean image, a dead organization which, although having the appearance, is really no organization at all in the strict sense of the word, any more than the marble statue or the waxen image. No one supposes that the making of the human body was an immediate making de nihilo. It was made from earth, and this earth already had. its nature according to its varieties of carbon, nitrogen, etc., and these, as natures, connected with other natures, entered into the human body. If it is not a creation de nihilo, which is expressly contrary to the language of the account, we must suppose a connection with nature to a certain extent. What difficulty or danger, then, in giving to-the phrase “from the earth,” the widest sense consistent with the idea of man’s having an earthly as well as a heavenly origin? It is this latter idea, and the higher psychology connected with it, that furnishes to the faith its shield against all mere theories of development that may proceed, with weaker or stronger evidence, from a naturalizing science. From the one thus first inspired, and constituted homo, came all humanity—the one humanity, as a transmission of that one inspiration and that one spiritual image (see Remarks, Introduction to the First Chapter of Genesis, p. 156). Even on this view, however, the human body did not precede the human soul, as Lange observes in what follows; since, whatever may have been the precedent causation, it was not a human body, any more than it was a human soul, before that decisive man-creating, man-constituting act which made the species, or the specific character, of both.—T. L.]
[22] [The annexed figure would present the outline appearance of the supposed Eden-region, with its four great waters, or neharim, as given by the modern maps:
[23]Our English version of Isa_18:1 mars the passage by its rendering of the interjection הוֹי: “Woe to the land, etc.” It should be Ho, as in Isa_55:1, היי כל צמא: “Ho, every one that thirsteth.” Whether it is a particle of threatening, of lamentation, or of invitation, depends entirely on the context. Here it is a call to the far-off: Ho, to the land of the shadow of wings—the land of the expanded wings—beyond the floods of Cush—beyond the Gihon, that ancient river that went round the whole land of Æthiopia. Ho, to the remotest Cush!—T. L.]
[24[The Greeks never allow the h, either as aspirate of as guttural, to stand in the middle or at the end of a word, either native or derived. Such a word, therefore, as Gihon, Kihon, or Kehan, would necessarily become Geon, as we have it in Josephus, κεων, or κεαν. Just so the Hebrew גי חינם, Ge-hinnom, Gehenna, becomes γέεννα; יוֹחָנָן, Johanan, Iohan, becomes Ιωαν, ’Ιωάννης. In roots, too, allied to the Shemitic, they have κ for γ, as Hebrew: גלל—Greek: κυλ–κυλίω, κυλίνδω; Hebrew:גלגל—Greek:κύκλος. The article having become constant as a prefix in ὁ-κεανος, and lengthened because of its emphasis, shows the former particularity of the name, and at the same time its celebrity: The Gihon, the Kehan, the κεαν, the Ocean-river.—T. L.]
[25][Gen_2:19 : To see what he would call them, לראות מה יקרא. As this is commonly read and understood, לראות, to see, is referred to God. It corresponds, however, better with the context, and the view that Lange takes of it, to refer it to Adam in the sense of judging—the sight of the mind—an easily derived secondary sense, appearing in other places in the use of this common verb, and becoming, in fact, predominant in the Rabbinical Hebrew. It is simply the transfer that takes place in the Greek ειδ -οιδ (to see, to know), and perhaps in most languages: that Adam might see (judge), what he would call them. It denotes an intuition or an intuitive judgment—the first calling out of his faculties in the observation of things. It is no objection to the other sense that it is anthropopathic, although it would seem to represent something like curiosity on the part of Deity. The view taken, however, which is equally correct, lexically and grammatically, makes it the beginning of the first development of language in the perception of some intuitive fitness between names and things named.—T. L.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 7 These are the generations of the heavens and of…
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth--the history or account of their production. Whence did Moses obtain this account so different from the puerile and absurd fictions of the heathen? Not from any human source, for man was not in existence to witness it; not from the light of nature or reason, for though they proclaim the eternal power and Godhead by the things which are made, they cannot tell how they were made. None but the Creator Himself could give this information, and therefore it is through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God (Heb 11:3).
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 vv4–7 4. These are the generations — This verse is…
4. These are the generations — This verse is the heading to Gen_2:4 to Gen_4:26, and, of course, refers to what follows, not to what precedes. In every other passage of the Pentateuch where this formula occurs, it serves as a heading to what follows, and never as a summary of what precedes. Compare Gen_5:1; Gen_6:9; Gen_10:1; Gen_11:10; Gen_11:27; Gen_25:12; Gen_25:19; Gen_36:1; Gen_36:9; Gen_37:2; Num_3:1. “This would never have been disputed,” says Keil, “had not preconceived opinions as to the composition of Genesis obscured the vision of commentators.… Just as the generations of Noah, (Gen_6:9,) for example, do not mention his birth, but contain his history and the birth of his sons; so the generations of the heavens and the land do not describe the origin of the universe, but what happened to the heavens and the land after their creation.” He further observes, that “the word תולדות, generations, which is used only in the plural, and never occurs except in the construct state, or with suffixes, is a Hiphil noun, (from הוליד, Hiphil of ילד) and signifies, literally, the generation or posterity of any one, then the development of these generations or of his descendants; in other words, the history of those who are begotten, or the account of what happened to them and what they performed. In no instance whatever is it the history of the birth or origin of the person named in the genitive, but always the account of his family and life.”
Accordingly, it should be particularly noted that what follows is not the generations of Adam, though Adam and his immediate progeny are the subject of this section. The generations of Adam are given at Gen_5:1, ff., and consist of his outgrowth and development through Seth; but vegetable growths, and the forming of Adam and Eve and paradise, and the narrative of the temptation and fall and expulsion from the garden, and of Cain and Abel and the progeny of Cain, are all treated as generations of the heavens and the land.
Read full note →
When they were created — Hebrews, בהבראם, in their being created. That is, in their condition as having been created; or, upon their being created. To define this more fully we have the following immediately added:
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens — That is, the historical terminus a quo of the following generations is the day in which JEHOVAH-GOD made land and heavens. The word day is not to be taken here as denoting the whole period of the creative week, as most commentators have supposed. Such a construction of the word misses the great controlling idea of this whole section. It grows out of the notion that the word generations refers back to what precedes, and so controls the exegesis of some writers who deny such reference of the word. We understand the word day here to denote the day in which God completed the land and the heavens, planted the garden of Eden, and formed Adam and Eve. The land and the heavens were not fully made until that day — the sixth day of the preceding narrative. Here comes out the great distinction between ברא and עשׁה. This making עשׂות of the land and the heavens by Jehovah-Elohim is a different conception from the creation (ברא) of the heavens and the land by Elohim in Gen_1:1. It points rather to a purpose for which the land and heavens were made. It denotes not so much their origin as their subsequent moulding into definite forms, and putting to definite uses. Compare note on Gen_2:3 above, where both words occur together. Then note that the word land here precedes heavens, and, having the more emphatic position in the sentence, denotes that it now becomes the prominent scene of events. We are now to be told of generations, processes of birth, growth, and development, and the word בראdoes not occur in this whole section. Accordingly, the terminus a quo of this section is the sixth day of the creative week, and so, according to the uniform usage of the Book of Genesis, the narrative here laps back upon the preceding section, and takes its start from the day in which God is conceived of as having made (completed) the land and heavens. We must notice, too, that land and heavens are here mentioned without the article, as being in themselves less definite than the idea of their being made by Jehovah-Elohim. Creation, so to speak, began with the Almighty and Pluripotent God, Elohim; its completion was wrought by Jehovah, the Personal God of revelation, of moral law, and of love. But these are not two different Beings. “In this section the combination Jehovah-Elohim is expressive of the fact that Jehovah is God, or one with Elohim. Hence, Elohim is placed after Jehovah. For the constant use of the double name is not intended to teach that Elohim who created the world was Jehovah, but that Jehovah who visited man in paradise, who punished him for the transgression of his command, but gave him a promise of victory over the tempter, was Elohim, the same God who created the heavens and the earth.” — Keil.
The Generations of the Heavens and the Land, Gen_2:4 to Gen_4:26.
In chapters 1, and Gen_2:1-3, the sacred writer gives us his account of the creation of the heavens and the land; he now proceeds to give us their generations, תולרות. His historical standpoint is the day from which these generations start; the day when man was formed of the dust of the ground, and of the breath of life from the heavens. So the first man is conceived of as the product of the heavens and the land by the word of God. Hence, Adam was the son of God, (Luk_3:38,) and the day of his creation was the point of time when Jehovah-God first revealed himself in history as one with the Creator. In chapter i, which narrates the beginning of the heavens and the land, we find mention of Elohim only, the God in whom (as the plural form of the name intimates) centres all fulness and manifoldness of Divine Powers. At the beginning of this section stands the name יהוה, Jehovah, the personal Revealer and Redeemer, who enters into covenant with his creatures, and places man under moral law.
The information supplied in this chapter is fundamental to the history of redemption. Here we learn of man’s original estate; the conditions of the first covenant of works; the sanctity of the family relation; and the innocency of the first human pair. Without the information here supplied the subsequent history of man and of redemption would be an insoluble enigma.
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 vv4–7 4. These are the generations … created] These words,…
4. These are the generations … created] These words, as they stand here, seem to form a summary of the preceding account of the Creation. Elsewhere, however, the phrase “These are the generations, &c.” is the formula employed in P as a heading, title, or superscription, to introduce the passage that follows. Cf. Gen_5:1, “The generations of Adam,” Gen_6:9 (Noah), Gen_10:1 (The Sons of Noah), Gen_11:10 (Shem), 27 (Terah), Gen_25:12 (Ishmael). The conjecture has been made that the formula “These are the generations, &c.” originally stood at the beginning of ch. 1, and was transferred to its present place, either, in order that the book might begin with the word b’rêshîth (= “In the beginning”), or to obtain a sentence which would serve both as an epitome of the opening section and as a link with the one that follows.
generations] Heb. tô-l’-dôth = “successions by descent,” usually meaning “the chronicles,” or “genealogies,” of persons and families, is here metaphorically applied to “the heaven and the earth” in the sense of the “history” of their origin and their offspring. LXX, therefore, gives an explanatory rendering, αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς.
Read full note →
It is quite a different word from that found, e.g. in Gen_15:16, “in the fourth generation” (Heb. dôr, LXX γενέα).
created] This word closes the first section of the book, and there should be a full stop after it. The next section, giving another narrative, at of the creation of man and of Paradise, opens with the words “In the day that.”
The first section has been derived from the materials of the Priestly Code (P), the second is from the Prophetic Writing (J). The styles which characterize the two sources offer a marked contrast.
4b–7. The Creation of Man
4. in the day that] There is no allusion here to the Days of Creation. It is simply the vivid Hebrew idiom for “at the time when.”
the Lord God] The Hebrew words “Jahveh Elohim” are used in this section for the Almighty. On the Sacred Names, see Introduction. The use of JHVH, the Name of the God of Israel (Exodus 3) which the Jews in reverence forbore to pronounce, and which received, in the 16th century, the wholly erroneous pronunciation of “Jehovah,” is one of the characteristics of the writing of J. In the previous section, Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:4 a, the Sacred Name is “Elohim” = “God”; and the use of “Elohim” is prevalent in the P Narratives of Gen. In the present section, Gen_2:4 b–3:24, the Sacred Name is a combination of Jahveh and Elohim, i.e. Jehovah (= Lord) and “God.” In the next section, the story of Cain and Abel, Jehovah alone is used; throughout the rest of Genesis we find either Jehovah or Elohim alone. The combination of the two Sacred Names is elsewhere of exceedingly rare occurrence. How to account for it in the present passage, is a problem to which no certain answer can be given. The theory that “God” (Elohim) is used for the God of Nature, and Lord (Jehovah) for the God of Revelation, in unsupported by the facts: e.g. “God” (Elohim) is the name used of the Deity in ch. 17 at the establishment of the covenant of circumcision: the Lord (Jahveh) is the name used at the destruction of the cities or the Plain (Gen_19:1-28, see note on Gen_19:29). There seems no reason to assign any doctrinal ground for the exceptional usage.
It should most probably be attributed to the handiwork of the compiler. On the first occasion in which the sacred title of the God or Israel was used, he wished to emphasize the fact that Jehovah and the Elohim of Creation were one and the same.
Another suggestion has been made, that the Paradise Narrative was current in two versions, in one of which the Sacred Name was Jahveh, in the other Elohim, and that the compiler who was acquainted with both versions left a trace of the fact in the combined names. But the compiler has not resorted to any such expedient elsewhere.
earth and heaven] An unusual order of words, found only in Psa_148:13.
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 vv4–7 (4) When they were created.—Heb., in, or upon, their…
(4) When they were created.—Heb., in, or upon, their creation.
In the day.—Viewed in its several stages, and with reference to the weekly rest, there were six days of creation, which are here described as one day, because they were but divisions in one continuous act.
Read full note →
The Lord God.—Jehovah-Elohim. (See Excursus at the end of this book.)
EXCURSUS C: ON THE DURATION OF THE PARADISIACAL STATE OF INNOCENCE.
The Bereshit Rabba argues that Adam and Eve remained in their original state of innocence for six hours only. Others have supposed that the events recorded in Gen_2:4 to Gen_3:24 took place in the course of twenty-four hours, and suppose that this is proved by what is said in Gen_2:4, that the earth and heavens, with Adam and the garden, were all made in one day, before the end of which they suppose that he fell. This view, like that which in Genesis 1 interprets each creative day of a similar period, really amounts to this: that the narrative of Holy Scripture is to be forced to bend to an arbitrary meaning put upon a single word, and drawn not from its meaning in Hebrew, but from its ordinary use in English. More correctly, we might venture to say that the use of the word day in Gen_2:4 is a Divine warning against so wilful a method of exposition.
Read intelligently, the progress of time is carefully marked. In Gen_2:6 the earth is watered by a mist: in paradise there are mighty rivers. Now, mist would not produce rivers; and if there were mist in the morning, and rain in the afternoon, a long period of time would still be necessary before the falling rains would form for themselves definite channels. A vast space must have elapsed between the mist period and that in which the Tigris and Euphrates rolled along their mighty floods.
And with this the narrative agrees. All is slow and gradual. God does not summon the Garden of Eden into existence by a sudden command, but He “planted” it, and “out of the ground He “made to grow” such trees as were most remarkable for beauty, and whose fruit was most suitable for human food. In some favoured spot, in soil fertile and fit for their development, God, by a special providence, caused such plants to germinate as would best supply the needs of a creature so feeble as man, until, by the aid of his reason, he has invented those aids and helps which the animals possess in their own bodily organisation. The creation of full-grown trees belongs to the region of magic. A book which gravely recorded such an act would justly be relegated to the Apocrypha; for the God of revelation works by law, and with such long ages of preparation that human eagerness is often tempted to cry, “How long?” and to pray that God would hasten His work.
And next, as regards Adam. Placed in a garden, two of the rivers of which—the Tigris and the Euphrates—seem to show that the earth at his creation had already settled down into nearly its present shape, he is commanded “to dress and keep it.” The inspired narrator would scarcely have spoken in this way if Adam’s continuance in the garden had been but a few hours or days. We find him living there so long that his solitude becomes wearisome to him, and the Creator at length affirms that it is not good for him to be alone. Meanwhile, Adam is himself searching for a partner, and in the hope of finding one, he studies all the animals around him, observes their ways, gives them names, discovers many valuable qualities in them, makes several of them useful to him, but still finds none among them that answers to his wants. But when we read that “Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowls of the air, and to every beast of the field,” we cannot but see that this careful study of the creatures round him must have continued through a long period before it could have resulted in their being thus generally classified and named in Adam’s mind. At length Eve is brought, and his words express the lively pleasure of one who, after repeated disappointments, had at length found that of which he was in search. “This,” he says, “this time is bone of my bone.”
How long Adam and Eve enjoyed their simple happiness after their marriage is left untold; but this naming of the animals at least suggests that some time elapsed before the fall. Though Adam had observed their habits, yet he would scarcely have given many of them names before he had a rational companion with whom to hold discourse. For some, indeed, he would have found names when trying to call them to him, but only for such as seemed fit for domestication. The rest he would pass by till there was some one to whom to describe them. Thus Eve seems to have known something of the sagacity of the serpent. She, too, as well as Adam, recognised the voice of Jehovah walking in the garden (chap. 3:8); and the girdles spoken of in Gen_2:7 seem also to indicate, by their elaboration, that the guilty pair remained in Paradise some time after the fall. The indications of time are, however, less numerous and definite after the creation of Eve than before; but certainly Adam was for some considerable period a denizen of Paradise, and probably there was a longer time than is generally supposed spent in innocence by him and his wife, and also some delay between the fall and their expulsion from their happy home.
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 vv4–7 THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND OF THE EARTH…
THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND OF THE EARTH (Gen 2:4-4:26)
CHAPTER 2:4-7
Read full note →
THE subject handled in the present section is the primeval history of man in his paradisiacal state of innocence, his temptation and fall, and his subsequent development, in two diverging lines, of faith and unbelief, holiness and sin. On the ground of certain obvious, well-defined, and readily-explained characteristics which distinguish this from the preceding portion of the narrative, it is usual with the higher criticism to allege diversity of authorship; and, indeed, these same characteristics, magnified by misapplied ingenuity into insoluble contradictions, are the chief buttress of the documentary hypothesis of Astrue, Hupfeld, Tuch, Ewald, and others. Now the hypothesis that Moses, in the composition of the Pentateuch, and of this Book of Origins in particular, made use of existing documents that may have descended from a remote antiquity is, a prioir, neither incredible nor impossible; but, on the contrary, is extremely probable, and may be held as admitted; only the alleged peculiarities of the different portions of the narrative do not justify the reckless confidence with which it has been resolved by Stahelin, Bleek, De Wette, Knobel, Ewald, and Davidson into its so-called original.fragments; and, in the case of Ewald, primordial atoms (vid. Introd., p. 2.). The occurrence of the name Jehovah Elohim, instead of simply Elohim, as in the preceding section, is the chief peculiarity of the present portion of the narrative, so far as style and language are concerned; its angered irreconcilable differences in subject-matter are skillfully and succinctly put by Kalisch. "In the first cosmogony vegetation is immediately produced by the will of God; in the second its existence is made dependent on rain and mists and the agricultural labors: in the first the earth emerges from the waters, and is, therefore, saturated with moisture; in the second it appears dry, sterile, and sandy: in the first man and his wife are created together; in the second the wife is formed later, and from a part of man: in the former man bears the image of God, and is made ruler of the whole earth; in the latter his earth-formed body is only animated by the breath of life, and he is placed in Eden to cultivate and to guard it: in the former the birds and beasts are created before man; in the latter man before birds and beasts." For a reply to these "insoluble contradictions," which, though "too obvious to be overlooked or denied," are mostly, if not solely, due to a false exegesis and a misapprehension of the guiding purpose of the writer, see the Exposition following, which attempts no "artificial solution" such as Kalisch deprecates, and proposes no ingenious reconciliation of essentially opposing statements, but simply shows that, when naturally and literally interpreted, the narrative is free from those internal antagonisms which a "microscopic criticism imagines it has detected in it. The internal unity of the present writing, or second document, as it is called, is apparent. The internecine struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, which the fratricidal act of Cain inaugurated, (Ge 4) is the legitimate and necessary outcome of the sin and the grace revealed in Eden, (Ge 3) while the melancholy story of the temptation and the fall presupposes the paradisiacal innocence of the first pair. (Ge 2) Thus homogeneous in itself, it likewise connects with, the preceding section through Genesis 2., which, as a monograph on man, supplies a more detailed account of his creation than is given in the narrative of the six days" work, and, by depicting man"s settlement in Eden as a place of trial, prepares the way for the subsequent recital of his seduction and sin, and of his consequent expulsion from the garden.
These are the generations is the usual heading for the different sections into which the Book of Genesis is divided. (vial Gen_5:1 Gen_6:9 Gen_10:1 Gen_11:10, 27 25:12, 19 36:1 37:2) Misled by the LXX, who render toldoth by hJ biblov genesewv, Ranks, Title, Havernick, Tuch, Ewald, and Stahelin disconnect the entire verse from the second section, which says nothing about the origination of the heavens and the earth, and append it to the preceding, in which their creation is described. Ilgen improves on their suggestion by transferring it to the commencement of Genesis 1., as an appropriate superscription. Dreschler, Vaihingel Bohlen, Oehler, Macdonald, et alii divide the verse into two clauses, and annex the former to what precedes, commencing the ensuing narrative with the latter. All of these proposals are, however, rendered unnecessary by simply observing that toldoth (from yaladh, to bear, to beget; hence begettings, procreations, evolutions, developments) does not describe the antecedents, but the consequents, of either thing or Person (Rosen., Keil, Kalisch). The toldoth of Noah are not the genealogical list of the patriarch"s ancestry, but the tabulated register of his posterity; and so the generations of the heavens and the earth refer not to their original production (Gesenius), but to their onward movements from creation downwards (Keil). Hence with no incongruity, but with singular propriety, the first half of the present verse, ending with the words when they were created, literally, in tier creation, stands at the commencement of the section in which the forward progression of the universe is traced. The point of departure in this subsequent evolution of the material heavens and earth is further specified as being in the day that the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) made the earth and the heavens; not the heavens and the earth, which would have signified the universe, (cf. on Gen_1:1) and carried hack the writer s thought to the initial act of creation; but the earth and the atmospheric firmament, which indicates the period embracing the second and (possibly) the third creative days as the terminus aguo of the generations to be forthwith recorded. Then it was that the heavens and the earth in their development took a clear and decided step forward in the direction of man and the human family (was it in the appearance of vegetation?); and in this thought perhaps will be found the key to the significance of the new name for the Divine Being which is used exclusively throughout the present section Jehovah Elohim. From the frequency of its use, and the circumstance that it never has the article, Jehovah may be regarded as the proper Personal name of God. Either falsely interpreting Exo_20:7 Lev_24:11, or following some ancient superstition (mysterious names of deities were used generally in the East; the Egyptian Hermes had a name which (Cic. "de Natura Deorum," 8, 16) durst not be uttered: Furst), the later Hebrews invested this nomen tetra. grammaton with such sanctity that it might not bepronounced (Philo, Vit. Mosis, 3:519, 529). Accordingly, it was their custom to write it in the sacred text with the vowel points of Adonai, or, if that preceded, Elohim. Hence considerable doubt now exists as to its correct pronunciation. Etymologically viewed it is a future form of havah, an old form of hayah; uncertainty as to what future has occasioned many different suggestions as to what constituted its primitive vocalization. According to the evidence which scholars have collected, the choice lies between
(1) Jahveh (Gesenius, Ewald, Reland, Oehler, Macdonald, the Samaritan),
(2) Yehveh or Yeheveh (Furst, W. L. Alexander, in Kitto"s "Cyclopedia"), and
(3) Jehovah (Michaelis, Meyer, Stier, Hoelmann, Tregelles, Murphy). Perhaps the preponderance of authority inclines to the first; but the common punctuation is not so indefensible as some writers allege. Gesenius admits that it more satisfactorily accounts for the abbreviated syllables wOhyi and wOy than the pronunciation which he himself favors.
Murphy thinks that the substitution of Adonai for Jehovah was facilitated by the agreement of their vowel points. The locus classicus for its signification is Exo_3:14, in which God defines himself as "I am that I am," and commands Moses to tell the children of Israel that Ehyeh had sent him. Hengstenberg and Keil conclude that absolute self-existence is the essential idea represented by the name (cf.n,. Exo_3:14; oJ w Rev_1:4, Rev_1:8; oJ wn kai oJ hjn kaimenov, vd. Furst, "Lex. sub nora.") Baumgarten and Delitzsch, laying stress on its future form, regard it as = the Becoming One, with reference to the revelation, rather than the essence, of the Divine nature. Macdonald, from the circumstance that it was not used till after the fall, discovers a pointing forward to Jehovah as oJ eJrcomenov in connection with redemption. Others, deriving from a hiphil future, take it as denoting he who causes to be, the Fulfiller," and find in this an explanation of. Exo_6:3 (Exell) May not all these ideas be more or less involved in the fullness of the Divine name? As distinguished from Elohim, Deus omnipotens, the mighty One, Jehovah is the absolute, self-existent One, who manifests himself to man, and, in particular, enters into distinct covenant engagements for his redemption, which he in due time fulfils. In the present section the names are conjoined partly to identify Jehovah with Elohim, and partly because the subject of which it treats is the history of man.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD Vers. 4-7.
Man the living soul.
1. Life is a Divine bestowment.
2. Dust which is Divinely inspired is no longer mere dust; the true life is neither groveling on the earth, nor so much away from the earth as to be no longer the life of a living soul.
3. The creature who is last formed, and for whom all other things wait and are prepared, is made to be the interpreter of all, and the glory of God in them. R.
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 vv4, 5, 7 These are the generations of the heavens and of…
Gen_2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
Read full note →
The primeval condition of the earth, and of man as a sentient, spiritual, and social being
I.
The economy of the kingdom of Inanimate nature, or of the vegetable world, was fitted at once to maintain the sovereignty of God, and to provide for the welfare of man; viewing mall as a compound being, having both body and soul (Gen_2:5-7). Three things, it is here implied, are ordinarily necessary to the growth of plants and herbs--soil, climate, and culture. The vital energy of the earth itself, in which all various seeds are lodged, is the first element (Gen_2:5). The influence of rain and dew from heaven comes next (Gen_2:6). And lastly, there must be superadded the labour of the hand of man (Gen_2:7 compared with Gen_2:5). This is the law of nature, or rather of natures God.
II. The moral world also--the spiritual kingdom was rightly adjusted.
1. Man, as a sentient being, was placed in an earthly paradise (Gen_2:8-15).
2. As a rational and religions being, he was subjected to a Divine law (Gen_2:16-17).
3. As a social or companionable being, he was furnished with human fellowship (Gen_2:18-25). (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)
Observations
I. HE THAT GIVES THINGS THEIR BEING MAY DISPOSE AND ORDER THEM AS HE WILL
II. WHENSOEVER WE MENTION AND REMEMBER THE BEING OF THE CREATURES, WE OUGHT WITHAL TO SET BEFORE US AND REMEMBER HIM THAT MADE THEM. (J. White, M. A.)
A new section of creation history
A new section of creation history now begins, and the fourth verse is the title or heading: The following are the details of what took place when God created heaven and earth. The fifth is intended to state that all that was done was entirely Gods doing, without the help of second causes, without the refreshment of rain, without the aid of man, There had been no power in action hitherto but Gods alone. His hand, directly and alone, had done all that was done, in making plants and herbs to grow. The soil was not of itself productive; no previous seed existed; there was no former growth to spring up again. All was the finger of God. He is the sole Creator. Second causes, as they are called, are His creations: they owe their being, their influence to Him. The operations of nature, as men speak, are but the actings of the invisible God. God is in everything. Not as the Pantheist would have it, a part of everything, so that nature is God; but a personal Being, in everything, yet distinct from everything; filling, quickening, guiding creation in all its parts, yet no more the same with it than the pilot is with the vessel he steers, or the painter with the canvas on which he flings all the hues of earth and heaven. Let us beware of this subtle delusion of the evil one, the confounding of the creature with the Creator; of God, the King eternal, immortal, and invisible, with the hills, and plains, and forests, and flowers which He has made. To deify nature seems one of the special errors of the last days. And no wonder; for if nature be deified, then man is deified too. Man becomes God, and nature is the throne on which he sits. Let us not lose sight of God in nature. Let not that which is the manifestation of His glory be turned by us into an obscuration of Himself. Let us look straight to the living God. Not nature, but God; not providence, but God; not the law, but the Lawgiver; not the voice, but the Speaker; not the instrument and its wide melodies, but the Master who formed the lyre, and whose hands are drawing the music out of its wondrous chords! (H. Bonar, D. D.)
In Eden and out
The heading of this passage might not be inappropriate as the title of all the rest of the Bible. We have had the origin in the first chapter, and all the rest of the Bible gives the development--the development of the heavens and the earth, until at last, after all the changes of time are over, we shall witness the inauguration of the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. In the meantime we shall limit our view to the little book of Generations, with its sad record of fall and failure, gilded, however, with a gleam of hope at the close.
I. First, then, there is a different name for God introduced here. All through the Genesis it has been, God said, God made, God created. Now it is invariably, Jehovah God (Lord God in our version). And this is the only continuous passage in the Bible where the combination is used. How is this explained? Very easily. In the apocalypse of the Genesis, God makes Himself known simply as Creator. Sin has not yet entered, and so the idea of salvation has no place. In this passage sin is coming in, and along with it the promise of salvation. Now the name Jehovah is always connected with the idea of salvation. It is the covenant name. It is the name which indicates Gods special relation to His people, as their Saviour and Redeemer. But lest anyone should suppose from the change of name that there is any change in the person; lest anyone suppose that He who is to redeem us from sin and death, is a different being from Him who created the heavens and the earth, the two names are now combined--Jehovah God. The combination is retained throughout the entire narrative of the Fall to make the identification sure. Thereafter either name is used by itself without danger of error.
II. Look next at the way in which Nature is spoken of here. When you look at it aright, you find there is no repetition. Nature in the Genesis is universal nature. God created all things. But here, nature comes in, as it has to do immediately with Adam. Now see the effect of this. It at once removes difficulties, which many speak of as of great magnitude. In the first place it is not the whole earth that is now spoken of, but a very limited district. Our attention is narrowed down to Eden, and the environs of Eden, a limited district in a particular part of the earth. Hence the difficulty about there not being rain in the district (earth) disappears. Again, it is not the vegetable kingdom as a whole that is referred to in the fifth verse, but only the agricultural and horticultural products. The words plant, field, and grew (verse 5) are new words, not found in the creation record. In Gen_1:1-31. the vegetable kingdom as a whole was spoken of. Now, it is simply the cereals and garden herbs, and things of that sort; and here, instead of coming into collision with the previous narrative, we have something that corresponds with what botanists tell us, that field and garden products are sharply distinguished in the history of nature, from the old flora of the geological epochs. In the same way it is not the whole animal kingdom that is referred to in verse nineteen, but only the domestic animals, those with which man was to be especially associated, and to which he was very much more intimately related than to the wild beasts of the field. It may be easy to make this narrative look ridiculous, by bringing the wild beasts in array before Adam, as if any companionship with them were conceivable. But when we bear in mind that reference is made here to the domestic animals, there is nothing at all inappropriate in noticing, that while there is a certain degree of companionship possible between man and some of those animals, as the horse and dog, yet none of these was the companion he needed.
III. Passing now from nature to man, we find again a marked difference. In Gen_1:1-31 we are told, God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him. And here: The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground (Gen_2:7). Some people tell us there is a contradiction here. Is there any contradiction? Are not both of them true? Is there not something that tells you that there is more than dust in your composition? When you hear the statement that God made man in His own image, is there not a response awakened in you--something in you that rises up and says, It is true? On the other hand, we know that mans body is formed of the dust of the earth. We find it to be true in a more literal sense than was formerly supposed, now that chemistry discloses the fact that the same elements enter into the composition of mans body, as are found by analysis in the dust of the ground. And not only are both these statements true, but each is appropriate in its place. In the first account, when mans place in universal nature was to be set forth--man as he issued from his Makers hand--was it not appropriate that his higher nature should occupy the foreground? His lower relations are not entirely out of sight even there, for he is introduced along with a whole group of animals created on the sixth day. But while his connection with them is suggested, that to which emphasis is given in the Genesis is his relation to his Maker. But now that we are going to hear about his fall, about his shame and degradation, is it not appropriate that the lower rather than the higher part of his nature should be brought into the foreground, inasmuch as it is there that the danger lies? It was to that part of his nature that the temptation was addressed; and so we read here, God formed man of the dust of the ground. Yet here too there is a hint of his higher nature, for it is added, He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, or as we have it in another passage, The inspiration of the Almighty gave him understanding. In this connection it is worth while to notice the use of the words created and formed. God created man in His own image. So far as mans spiritual and immortal nature was concerned it was a new creation. On the other hand, God formed man out of the dust of die ground. We are not told He created mans body out of nothing. We are told, and the sciences of today confirm it, that it was formed out of existing materials. Then, in relation to woman, there is the same appropriateness in the two narratives. In the former her relations to God are prominent: God created man in His own image. In the image of God created He him; male and female created He them--man in His image; woman in His image. In the latter, it is not the relation of woman to her Maker that is brought forward, but the relation of woman to her husband. Hence the specific reference to her organic connection with her husband. And now, is there anything irrational in the idea that woman should be formed out of man? Is there anything more mysterious or inconceivable in the formation of woman out of man, than in the original formation of man out of dust? Let us conceive of our origin in any way we choose, it is full of mystery, Though there may be mystery connected with what is said in the Bible, there will be just as much mystery connected with any other account you try to give of it. (J. M. Gibson, D. D.)
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 v4 Gen_2:4. Generations] Heb. “births” = “birth-facts,” “birth-stages” = “genesis:”…
CRITICAL NOTES.—
Gen_2:4. Generations] Heb. “births” = “birth-facts,” “birth-stages” = “genesis:” Sept., “This is the book of the genesis,” &c. Lord God] Heb. Jehovah Elohim. The correct pronunciation of J. is prob. Yahweh; formed of the 3 sing. mas. imperf. Hiphil, of hawah, “to be,” or rather “to become,” “to come to pass;” and therefore meaning, “He causes to become,” “He brings to pass;” “The Fulfiller.” This explanation
Read full note →
(1.) altogether removes the difficulty from Exodus 6, since God was known to Ab., Is., and Ja. rather as PROMISER than as FULFILLER;
(2.) puts a most pertinent force into the name as Israel’s encouragement to leave Eg. for Canaan, Exodus 3;
(3.) invests innumerable passages with a most striking beauty, e.g., Psa_23:1, “J.—the Fulfiller—is my Shepherd: I shall not want;”
(4.) provides for the occasional application of the name to the Messiah, as in Is. 40:10-11, cf. John 10, Is. 6 cf. Joh_12:41; and
(5.) by bringing out the gracious covenant power of this name, furnishes some clue to the reason (or feeling) leading to its omission in some cases (as in ch. Gen_3:1-5; Job_31:37; Psa_19:1-6; Psa_119:15) and its insertion in others (Genesis 2 and fol., Job 1-2, 38-42; Psa_19:7-14). To dwell for a moment on the opening of Gen., how natural that in the first sec. (Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:3) the name Elohim should suffice, but that when man is to stand out in his moral relation to his Creator, in sec. second (Gen_2:4, etc.), Jehovah Elohim should be employed. And surely it speaks a volume that neither the serpent, nor the woman under the shadow of entertained temptation, should care to utter a name so replete with grace and love. The name J. occurs about 7,500 times in O. T.
Gen_2:7. Breath] Heb. neshamah, nearly = ruach, spirit (cf. Ecc_12:7), occurs only in ch. Gen_7:22; Deu_20:16; Jos_10:40; Jos_11:11; Jos_11:14; 2Sa_22:16; 1Ki_15:29; 1Ki_17:17; Job_4:9; Job_26:4; Job_27:3; Job_32:8; Job_33:4; Job_34:14; Job_37:10; Psa_18:15; Psa_150:6; Is. 2:22; Is_30:33; Is_42:5; Is 57:16; Dan_10:17. The study of these will richly repay. Life] Heb. chayyim, prop. “lives,” or still better, “living ones,” hence, by abstraction “the condition peculiar to living ones” = “LIFE.” Cf. on Elohim ch. Gen_1:1. The use of the Heb. pl. as an abstract has received too little notice. (Ges. Gr. § 108,
2. a.; Ewald, Gr. § 179). Living Soul] That is, soul became the characteristic of his being. Hence he is denominated from that why is prominent in him; as the glorified Christ is called “a life-giving spirit” (1Co_15:45), without making him all spirit or destroying the distinction between body and spirit. Soul lives, spirit makes alive: this is the teaching of Scripture. Our present body is a psychical body, our future b. will be a pneumatical b. Little by little we may hope to build up a “biblical psychology;” i.e., if we are willing both to learn and to unlearn just as truth may demand. Cf. C. N. on ch. Gen_1:20.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Gen_2:4-7
THE WORLD WITHOUT A MAN
The text suggests three thoughts:—
I. The world’s independency of man. The terraqueous globe, embosomed in those wonderful heavens, and filled with every species of vegetable and animal life, existed before man appeared.
1. The world can do without him. The heavens would be as bright, the earth as beautiful, the waves of the ocean as sublime, the song of the birds as sweet; were man no more.
2. He cannot do without the world. He needs its bright skies, and flowing rivers, and productive soil, &c. He is the most dependent of all creatures. The text suggests:—
II. The world’s incompleteness without man. Without man the world would be a school without a pupil, a theatre without a spectator, a mansion without a resident, a temple without a worshipper. Learn from this subject:—
1. The lesson of adoring gratitude to the Creator. Adore Him for the fact, the capabilities, and the sphere of your existence.
2. The lesson of profound humility. The world can do without thee, my brother; has done without thee; and will do without thee. The text suggests:—
III. The world’s claims upon man. “The earth He hath given to the children of men.” The nature of this gift proclaims the obligation of the receiver.
1. The world is filled with material treasures; develop and use them.
2. The world is fertile with moral lessons; interpret and apply them.
3. The world is filled with the presence of God; walk reverently [Homilist].
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen_2:4-6. Not only the mercies of God in general, but each particular gift must be recognized as from Him. There can be no rain on the earth unless God send it. It is by rain from Heaven that all the herbs and plants grow and are nourished.
Though God be pleased to make use of man’s labour in producing the fruits of the earth; yet He can increase and preserve them without it. This should make man:—
1. Thankful, as it gives him employment.
2. Humble, as it gives him to feel his dependence.
3. Hopeful, as fruit will reward his diligence.
The labour of man:—
1. Should be obedient to God’s command.
2. Dependent upon God’s blessing.
3. Productive of general good.
God has a variety of means to accomplish His will:—
1. The rain.
2. The mist.
3. He is rich in resources.
The world without a man:—
1. To admire its beauty.
2. To praise its Creator.
3. To cultivate its produce.
4. To complete its design.
God can preserve His creatures without ordinary means.
Gen_2:7. THE HUMILITY AND DIGNITY OF MAN
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.”
I. Then man ought not to indulge a spirit of pride. Man’s body was formed out of the dust of the earth. A remembrance of this fact ought to inspire a feeling of genuine humility within the heart of the race. It should keep men from pride in reference to their renowned ancestry, their apparel, or their wealth.
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.”
II. Then man ought not to indulge a spirit of hostility to God.
1. Because they are the workmanship of His hands. God has made us; we are His workmanship. Shall we then contend with our Maker, the finite with the Infinite? Rather it will be our wisdom to cultivate a loving, prayerful spirit, than to provoke Him by impenitence and sin. We are of the dust of the earth, and are therefore unequal to contend with that Being who has all the armies of heaven at His command.
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.”
III. Then man should remember His mortality. As man was taken from the dust, so certainly will he return to it before long. Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, will be spoken at the grave of the world. Our bodies are daily sinking into their original elements. Teach me the measure of my days, that I may know how frail I am. This should be our constant prayer. Here, then, we have presented one aspect of the being of man; take another:—
“And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
I. Then man is something more than physical organization. Man is not merely dust, not merely body; he is also a living soul. His bodily organization is not the seat of thought, emotion, volition, and immortality; these are evoked by the inspiration of the Almighty. From this text we learn that the soul of man was not generated with, but that it was subsequently inbreathed by God into, his body. We cannot admit the teaching of some, that the soul of man is a part of God; this is little better than blasphemy. It is only a Divine gift. The gift is priceless. It is responsible.
“And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
II. Then man should cultivate a moral character, pursue employments, and anticipate a destiny commensurate with this Divine inspiration. Men gifted with immortal souls should endeavour to bring them into harmony with their Author and Giver, to make them pure as He is pure, and benevolent as He is benevolent; they should never be degraded by sin. Our souls ought to live in communion with God. They ought to be employed in the grandest pursuits of the universe. They ought to anticipate a heavenly destiny, where their powers will be unfettered, their happiness complete, and their devotion eternal.
However base the matter of man’s body, God hath formed it into an excellent piece of work:—
1. Let us praise God for our bodies.
2. Let us use them to His glory.
3. Let us not defile them by sin.
4. Let us await their transformation.
The soul of man, by which he lives, comes immediately from God.
1. A gift Divine.
2. Valuable.
3. Responsible.
The life of man consisting in the union of the soul with the body hath but a weak foundation.
Life:—
1. Rich in its source.
2. Weak in its channel.
3. Eminent in its degree.
4. Noble in its capabilities.
5. Immortal in its continuance.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Vapour! Gen_2:4. It interposes as a friendly shield between the sun and the earth, to check excessive evaporation from the one, and to ward off the rays of the other. This mist was drawn from the earth by the sun, and hovered over it. Probably for man’s creation, a change took place. Clouds rose higher; and from them descended the fertilizing rains. The life of many is like the foul vapour which hangs all day over the mouth of a pit, or over the ceaseless wheels of some dingy manufactory. It is a low earthborn thing—ever brooding over worldly business. Whereas nowhere is the cloud so beautiful as when—suspended by unseen forces—it hangs high in the serene sky. Never is man’s life so beautiful as when—spiritually-minded, heavenly-minded—it is lifted up above the selfishness and sordidness of a world lying in wickedness of the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. It becomes brighter and grander as it nears the gate of the west. It makes the world fairer by its presence while it lasts. It makes the twilight horizon of death ablaze with its splendour when it vanishes into the eternal world:—
“For when he comes nearer to finish his race,
Like a fine setting sun he looks richer in grace,
And gives a sure hope, at the end of his days,
Of rising in brighter array.”—Watts.
Human Origin! Gen_2:5. M. Boudon, says Percy, was one day sent for by Cardinal de Bois—the Prime Minister of France—to perform a very serious surgical operation upon him. The cardinal on seeing him enter the room, said: “Remember that you are not to treat me in the same rough manner you would treat the poor miserable wretches at your hospital.” To this the eminent surgeon responded with great dignity that every one of those miserable wretches was a prime minister in his eyes. What a rebuke to pride! We are all the same flesh and blood; for
“Man is one;
And he hath one great heart. It is thus we feel,
With a gigantic throb athwart the sea,
Each other’s rights and wrongs; thus are we men.”—Bailey.
Immortality! Gen_2:6. Professors Tyndal and Huxley say that man is nothing more than a combination of molecular atoms held together by certain forces which they call “organisms.” If so, what becomes of personal identity? And when they dissolved, did they get rid at once and for all by death of their identity, responsibilities, hopes and fears? These men will not answer such inquiries. Till they do, the Bible view of the future life is infinitely preferable to Tyndal’s vague and hazy “infinite azure of the past”—even on the low ground that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, or, as the Arabic, a thousand cranes in the air are not worth one sparrow in the hand. These men had no right to lead us to the edge of an abyss, and, bidding us look down in the deep dark chasm, tell us never to mind, but do our duty. Do our duty, indeed! How could a combination of molecular atoms do its duty—any more than a magnet? According to their view, man had no duty to discharge; at least, he had no responsibility by the non-discharge of it. But we view man otherwise than that.
“Trust me, ’tis a clay above your scorning,
With God’s image stamped upon it, and God’s kindling breath within.”—Browning.
Living Soul! Gen_2:7. About forty-five years ago a funeral was passing through the streets of Carlisle, Pennsylvania. It was the burial procession of John Hall Mason, the son of the eminent Dr. Mason, President of Dickinson College, one of the most powerful and eloquent preachers in America. The son was distinguished for his piety and talents, and his death had cast a gloom over many hearts. Many gathered to the funeral, from far and near, and especially young men. After the services at the house had been performed, and the pall-bearers had taken up the bier, a great concourse obstructed the entrance, and great confusion and noise ensued. The bereaved Doctor, observing the difficulty, and following closely the pall-bearers, exclaimed in solemn sepulchral tones: “Tread lightly, young men! tread lightly! You bear the temple of the Holy Ghost.” These sentiments, as though indited by the Holy Spirit, acted like an electric shock; the crowd fell back and made the passage way clear. Through the influence of these words a most powerful revival of religion sprung up, and swept through the college, and extended over the town.
“Since then, my God, thou hast
So brave a temple built; O dwell in it,
That it may dwell with Thee at last.”—Herbert.
Human Mind! Gen_2:7. Adam’s understanding was like a golden lamp kindled at the great fountain of light. It was subject to no dimness or eclipse. Over it there never passed the shadow of darkness; and all around, over the whole region of duty, it shed a cloudless light; so that man was in no danger of losing his path, or of mistaking the limits which His Maker had set. Thus his understanding was perfect. A child may be perfect although it has not reached the stature of a man; and so Adam’s mind was perfect—with a blissful tendency to enlarge, and daily to open up new sources of wonder and delight to itself.
On! said God unto his soul,
As to the earth, for ever. And on it went,
A rejoicing native of the infinite—
As a bird of air—an orb of heaven.”—Anon.
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.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v4 Subdivision 2. (Gen 2:4-25.)
Subdivision 2. (Gen 2:4-25.)
Relationships of the Man.
Read full note →
1.
The second subdivision is not a new account of the divine work, written by another hand. Its purpose is quite different, namely, to show us the relationships of the man to the whole scene into which he is introduced, and to his Maker. This is why it is not simply "God" in this chapter, but "the Lord God." "The Lord" is here, in the original, "Jehovah." It is the title by which God entered into covenant with Israel afterward, and is expanded for us in the book of Revelation as "He who is and who was and who is to come," -the best translation of which in one word would be, as in the French, "The Eternal." But I retain for it the word "Lord," as in the Septuagint and our common version, this being in some sense sanctioned by the New Testament use, and giving more the thought of relationship, which it is evidently intended to convey. Where it stands by itself, however, I have simply transferred the Hebrew word, "Jehovah."
In the first section, we have necessarily man’s first relationship, the foundation of every other -that to God; and here, God’s breathing into him is characteristic of this. No beast has it; and although there is no direct statement, -the language is, as we say, phenomenal, -yet there is implied in this certainly some communication from God Himself, by which (and not by the bodily form,) is conveyed the idea of kinship. Yet the language is more phenomenal even than in the common version, which we have followed. It is literally, "God breathed into his nostrils the breathing of life," where indeed the fact that it is in the nostrils shows what is meant. Compare the full expression in Gen 7:22 as we have given it. Neshamah is always the activity of the ruach, whether this stands for "breath" or "spirit." The effect, and the effect as seen, is alone depicted. This is in reality favorable to the deeper thought. It is not mere "breath of life" which is imparted, but the whole living activity, as expressed in this, is the result of the divine impartation. And if man thus becomes a living soul, good reason it is why his soul should not die, as the beast does. (Mat 10:28.) In the fact of being a living soul, he does not differ from the beast, but he does in the way he becomes one.
The inbreathing is thus essential to relationship, and given for this reason in this place. But the junction of something thus in relationship to God with the dust-formed creature makes Adam in this way a proper foreshadowing of the "last Adam" (Rom 5:14), -Deity incarnate. He, however, in contrast with the first Adam, in resurrection, breathes upon His own. He uses this action, so significant in the creation of man, to symbolize the introduction of His people into a new creation, of which He is the Head: taking Himself the divine place as "quickening Spirit." (Joh 20:22; 1Co 15:45.)
2.
We have next the lesson of dependence taught man, upon One whose goodness makes the very need of His creatures the occasion of ministering care. Every thing is provided that can gratify as well as satisfy. But the tree of life shows him that he has not life in himself, and the prohibited tree of knowledge teaches him practically to recognize this dependence upon Another.
The ministry of the whole triune Godhead to man is typically indicated here. For the tree of knowledge indicates paternal government, where indeed "rule" is service (Rom 12:8); the tree of life speaks of Christ, in whom our life is; while the gushing fullness of these bounteous rivers is a plain type of the renewing power of the Holy Ghost. All this we shall find again in the paradise of God, of which this is a true picture. Would we could more enter into it!
3.
The third section shows us Adam’s relationship to his wife; and for this, he is first taken to look at the beasts, and to see that no union can be here. Man is man by that spirit by which he differs from the beast. What a prophetic rebuke to the infidel science of the day!
The application of what we have here to Christ and the Church is shown us by the apostle. Adam, to find his wife, passes through the image of death, and she is "builded" out of him, to whom she is afterward united. So are we chosen in Christ, the fruit of His death, raised up with Christ, and by the Spirit united to Christ. Here, once more, however, the last Adam shows His essential difference from the first: He will present the Church to Himself. (Eph 5:27.)
{Critical Notes
Man as a Living Soul.
The error of holding man to be soul and body only is the parent of many modern heresies. It omits just what makes him man. But why, then, is it said here, "Man became a living soul"? -why not a spirit? The question is a fair one, and should be fairly answered.
Let us note first, then, that angels are spirits and that the angels had already fallen; also that the condemnation of the devil is for pride. (1Ti 3:6.) Now all through this account there seems the constant endeavor (which, to speak humanly, is God’s, we know,) to "hide pride from man." (Job 33:17.) Thus he is called "Adam," from adamah, the ground, as if to remind him of his origin -"Dust thou art." Yet he was assuredly something more than "dust." Here, in the same way, his being a living soul reminds him of his kinship with the beasts; yet it does not show that he is not more. Among spiritual beings, this is, indeed, his real distinction, -that he is a "living soul."
The "soul" is in Scripture the seat of the passions, emotions, sensibility, as the spirit is of the mental and moral judgment. These latter, in any real sense, the beast has not. The spirit it is which is in man, which knows the things of a man. (1Co 11:1-34.) But he learns them, gathering the materials of judgment through the soul -the senses; and as the body begins to develop before even the soul, so does the soul before the spirit. Spirit in man depends, thus, really upon the soul; and it is striking that just when absent from the body his real distinction begins to manifest itself. The soul survives, indeed, the stroke of death; but man is now called, what he never was before, a "spirit." (Luk 24:37; Luk 24:39; Act 23:8-9; Heb 12:23; 1Pe 3:19.)
The Penalty on Adam.
The penalty of eating of the tree of knowledge was, for Adam, death -physical death; but this necessarily the sign of the judgment of God, of separation between himself and God, of which the other is the image. For if death is the separation between soul and body, the separation of God from the soul is death also.
But "dying, thou shalt die," which is literally the penalty here, does not convey the thought of two deaths; it is simply a very common Hebrew idiom, as, "eating, thou mayest eat," in the verse preceding, and meant to express, as all translations probably give it, the certainty of it.
Nor does "in the day" involve more than that in the day that he sinned the penalty would be certain: it does not mean necessarily that it would be inflicted then. (Comp. Eze 33:12.)
The second death, let us remember, is always for a man’s own sins, and is in contrast with the first, which it brings to an end.}
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v4 Paradise and the Fall
Paradise and the Fall
In this famous passage we possess a wealth of moral and spiritual teaching regarding God and man. The intention of the writer is evidently to give an answer to the question: How did sin and misery find their way into the world? As is natural among Orientals he put his reply into narrative form; and though it is generally accepted that the details are to be interpreted symbolically rather than literally, yet they are in marvellous agreement with the real facts of human nature and experience. Adam is the representative of the human race. The story of his temptation, fall, and consequent forfeiture of Paradise shadows forth some of the greatest mysteries of the human lot—the strangely mingled glory and shame of man, his freedom of action, the war between the law in his members and the law of his mind. It thus comes to have a universal significance and shows each man, as in a mirror, his own experience. When he reads this narrative, his conscience says to him, like a prophet of God: 'Thou art the man; the story is told of thee 1' In Genesis 2 the nature of man is unfolded. It has two sides, a higher and a lower; on the one hand, he is connected with the material world, as made of dust of the earth: on the other hand, he is related to God, who breathes into his nostrils the breath of life. He stands above the animal creation by his endowments of reason, discrimination, and language; he gives names to the beasts. The ideal relationship of the sexes appears in the creation of woman from the side of man, and his delight in finding in her an adequate companion and helper. Special emphasis is laid upon the moral and spiritual aspects of human nature. Man is created with the faculty of holding free and trustful communion with God, and with the power of exercising freedom of choice. It is chiefly in virtue of these high prerogatives that he can be said to be created in the image of God. Liberty of choice, however, or free will, is a perilous gift. It may be used either rightly or wrongly, and so there arises the possibility of temptation, of sin, of a 'fall': see on Gen_2:14. Genesis 3 shows how man misuses his freedom. He is tempted by a mysterious power of evil, and falls before the temptation. Immediately the direst results ensue, both for his inward and outward condition. 'The fruit of man's first disobedience' is seen at once in his consciousness of guilt, his interrupted communion with God, his miserable state, and even the altered condition of the world in which he dwells. Yet God does not abandon him. He continues His care over him, and comforts him with the promise of final victory over the power of evil. See on Gen_3:15 for the significance of this passage in the light of Christianity.
Read full note →
It is to be expected that, in externals at least, the Bible narrative should resemble the traditions of other Oriental peoples. Accordingly we find, as in the case of the Creation and Flood narratives, that certain parallels to the Paradise story existed among the ancient Babylonians. This, and the further fact that Eden is placed in the vicinity of the Euphrates, have been taken to suggest that the Hebrews brought the original tradition with them from their home in the plains of Babylonia. The Bible narrative, however, differs from all others in its worthy conception of the divine nature, its freedom from polytheistic and heathen associations, and its embodiment of such profound religious truths as stamp it with the mark of inspiration.
The passage (Gen_2:4 to Gen_3:24) now under consideration begins with a second account of the Creation forming an introduction to the story of man's temptation and fall. Some scholars regard this account as simply complementary to that given in Genesis 1. They maintain that it is not a separate story of the Creation, but a continuation of the former, with special reference to man's position in the universe. There are strong reasons, however, for regarding Gen_2:4-25 as a narrative independent of 1- Gen_2:4. (a) The primeval chaos, the creation of man and woman, vegetation and animals, are described, but there are striking differences in the two accounts, (b) The Creator is no longer called 'God' (Elohim) but 'The Lord Gord' (Jehovah Elohim), a fact which first suggested that the Pentateuch was compiled from different sources, and gave its name 'Jehovistic' to the continuous Primitive document of which this passage forms the commencement. (c) The writer speaks of the universe and its Author in different terms to those of Genesis 1. God is regarded as intimately concerning Himself with men rather than in His transcendental power; and this concern of His is expressed in terms which are properly applicable to the only living persons we directly know, viz. men. This anthropomorphism runs through the whole of the Paradise story (cp. Gen_2:7-8, Gen_2:19, Gen_2:21,; Gen_3:8). (d) The lordship of man over creation is expressed, not by setting him up as the goal to which all tended (cp. Gen_1:26.), but by representing him as the first created, before plants or herbs (Gen_2:4-8), the being for whom the animals were afterwards made, and finally woman as a fitting mate, (e) The formal, orderly style of Genesis 1, which characterises the Priestly document, is exchanged here for the imaginative, poetical style which marks the Primitive (cp. Gen_2:8-9, Gen_2:15, Gen_2:19, Gen_3:1-6, Gen_3:7-8). (f) Finally, if the two accounts of Creation had been originally the work of one writer, he would surely have explained that he was describing the same event from different standpoints, giving reasons for so doing. But he does not, and it is reasonable to conclude from all the variations which have been pointed out, that we possess two accounts of the Creation and of the origin of man upon earth, drawn from different sources.
4b;–7. Render, 'In the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth; and no herb of the field had yet sprung up.. the Lord God formed man,' etc. Gen_2:5-6, from 'For the Lord God,' thus form a parenthesis.
4. The Lord God] Where Lord is thus printed in capitals in the English Bible it stands for the Heb. JHVH, the sacred divine name which was probably pronounced 'Yahweh.' In later times the word was considered to be too sacred to be uttered; the title Adonai (i.e. My Lord) was substituted in reading, and thus the true pronunciation was lost. Hebrew was originally written without vowel-signs; when these were added to the MS text, the vowels of the name as read (Adonai) were attached to the consonants JHVH, and thus the artificial form 'Jehovah' was produced, which has come into common Christian use. See on Exo_3:13 for the significance of the word, which means perhaps 'The Self-existent' (or 'Self-unfolding'). Yahweh (Jehovah) is the proper name of the God of Israel rather than a title, and as such was used by other nations who regarded Jehovah as the tribal God of the Jews (cp. Isa_36:20); the name also occurs on the Moabite stone set up by Mesha (2Ki_3:4). The American revisers have substituted 'Jehovah' for 'the Lord' throughout the OT. In Genesis 2, 3 Jehovah is joined with Elohim ('the Lord God'). The latter name was probably added by the editor who combined the narratives in order to show that the Jehovah of this section (the God of Israel) is the same as the Elohim (the Creator of the world) of the previous one. The earth and the heavens] RV 'earth and heaven.' Note the difference in the order from that in Gen_1:1. The centre of interest in this chapter is man on the earth.
6. Mist] The kindred word in the Assyrian language denotes the annual inundation of the Euphrates; see on Gen_2:8 and on Gen_3:7.
7. Man] Heb. adam as in Genesis 1. AV renders the word as a proper name frequently in Genesis 2-4; RV gives 'man' throughout except Gen_3:17; Gen_4:25. Ground] Heb. adamah. A connexion is thus suggested between the two words, but the derivation of Adam is uncertain. Formed man of the dust of the ground] The lowly origin of man, and his derivation on the physical side from the lower elements of creation, are here implied. To 'become a living soul' means no more than to possess the principle of life possessed by the animals; cp. Gen_2:19, where the Heb. for 'living creature' is the same as for 'living soul' here. But it is not said of the animals that God breathed into their nostrils the breath of life, only of man: this implies that man stands in a special relation to God, and may be taken as referring to the gift of those spiritual faculties by which he holds communion with God, and possesses a 'likeness' to Him; see on Gen_1:26.
8. A garden] LXX renders by 'Paradeisos' (a Persian word meaning 'a park'), hence the English 'Paradise.' Eastward] i.e. of Palestine, such as Babylonia would be. Eden] The Heb. word eden means 'delight,' but there is a Babylonian word edinu, meaning 'plain,' and there may be a reference to the great plain in Babylonia between the Tigris and the Euphrates. In the southern portion of this plain an ancient hymn placed a garden of the gods wherein 'a dark vine grew.. its appearance as lapis lazuli.'
9. Every tree] The garden was planted with trees, like a king's pleasure park. The trees are specially mentioned, partly because they were to provide man's food, and partly because attention is directed to two of them for a particular reason. As life was to be sustained by them, so immortality was to be received through the fruit of the tree of life, and knowledge of good and evil with death in the end were the possible consequences of eating of the forbidden tree. The garden was divinely planted, and the trees bad miraculous powers of good and evil. The tree of life] The Egyptians believed that in the blissful fields of Alu in the other world grew the tree of life, which the stars gave to the departed that they might live for ever; cp. also Rev_22:2.
10-14. There are many theories regarding these rivers. Perhaps the most likely is that the ancients, with their very limited notions of geography, regarded the four great rivers known to them, Euphrates, Tigris, Indus (Pishon) and Nile (Gihon), as having a common source in some large lake in Eden. Cush will then be Ethiopia. It is possible, however, that the main river stands for the Persian Gulf, which was anciently called 'The Salt River,' and the four heads were four streams connected with it, viz. (1) the Euphrates; (2) the Hiddekel, which the Persians called the Tigra, and Greeks the Tigris; (3) the Gihon, which is said to 'compass' the land of Cush, the country of the Kashshu in W. Elam, and which may therefore be the Kerkha, which once ran with the Euphrates and Tigris into the Persian Gulf; and (4) the Pishon, which has not been identified. Havilah] the sandy region of N. Arabia, and thus not far from the other localities. Bdellium] an odoriferous transparent gum. Onyx] RM 'beryl.' Gen_2:10-14 are regarded by many as a later addition to the narrative.
15. Dress] i.e. cultivate. Keep] i.e. protect (from the beasts).
17. Knowledge of good and evil] i.e. moral consciousness issuing in moral judgment; the power to distinguish between good and evil, not in act only but in consequence as well. This faculty is necessary, in order that man may reach moral maturity. The narrative implies that it would have come gradually to man, through the teaching of God, and without the loss of his own uprightness. It is a faculty which is developed from within, not conferred from without. By discipline and self-control man gains character and moral strength, or the knowledge of good and evil, and the power to discriminate between them. Hence 'the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' is forbidden to man, not given to him like that of the others. It can impart the knowledge of good and evil at once, without a prolonged process of discipline or education; but the attainment of it in this summary way is made an act of disobedience, perhaps to assist man's moral development by affording a test of his self-control. Man's freedom of choice, however, makes it possible for him to disobey, and so come to the required knowledge by a wrong way; for the knowledge of good and evil is bought dearly by doing ill.
Shalt surely die] Man, it is implied, was created mortal, but had the privilege of attaining immortality by means of the tree of life. But by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man forfeited his liberty to eat of the tree of life (see Gen_3:22-24). This implies that the physical is the consequence of the moral death. 'Some of the older expositors observe that the troubles and sufferings to which man became liable through sin, are nothing else than disturbances of life, the beginning of death' (D.).*
18-25. Now the other animals and woman are formed. The order of Creation is not the same as in Gen_1:24-27.
18. Help meet] This is not one word but two, the former being the noun and the latter the qualifying adjective on which the main emphasis lies. Man might have many helps; the vegetable and animal creation might minister to his welfare and comfort. But though these are 'helps,' they are not 'meet,' i.e. suitable for him. Only a creature like himself can be an adequate companion; and so woman is formed: see Gen_2:20.
19. The giving of a name implies a power of discrimination and reflection not possessed by the lower animals. Even proper names in the Scriptures are usually significant and descriptive of some quality supposed to be possessed by the person who bears it. Cp. e.g. the importance attached to the 'name' by which God is known: see on Exo_3:13.
21. The symbolical account of the creation of woman teaches the close relationship of the sexes, and the dependence of woman on man.
23. This is now] Render, 'This time it is bone of my bones,' etc. It is Adam's cry of delight at finding a congenial, sympathising companion, after failing to find one among the animals (Gen_2:20). She shall be called Woman] The similarity of the English words 'man,' 'woman' (wife-man) is also found in the Hebrew Ish, Ishshah.
24. The creation of one man and one woman in the ideally perfect state of Eden implies that monogamy is the ideal of the married life. Polygamy and divorce were later accommodations to man's 'hardness of heart.' But 'from the beginning' (i.e. in the original purpose of the Creator) 'it was not so' (Mat_19:4, Mat_19:8).
25. See on Exo_3:7.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v4 Lord God
Lord
Lord God
Read full note →
Lord
LORD (Heb. Jehovah)
(1) The primary meaning of the name LORD (Jehovah) is the "self-existent One." Literally (as in Exo 3:14), "He that is who He is, therefore the eternal I AM:"
But Havah, from which Jehovah, or Yahwe, is formed, signifies also "to become," that is, to become known, thus pointing to a continuous and increasing self-revelation. Combining these meanings of Havah, we arrive at the meaning of the name Jehovah. He is "the self-existent One who reveals Himself." The name is, in itself, an advance upon the name "God" (El, Elah, Elohim), which suggests certain attributes of Deity, as strength, etc., rather than His essential being.
(2) It is significant that the first appearance of the name Jehovah in Scripture follows the creation of man. It was God (Elohim) who said, "Let us make man in our image" (Gen 1:26); but when man, as in the second chapter of Genesis, is to fill the scene and become dominant over creation, it is the Lord God (Jehovah Elohim) who acts. This clearly indicates a special relation of Deity, in His Jehovah character, to man, and all Scripture emphasizes this.
(3) Jehovah is distinctly the redemption name of Deity. When sin entered and redemption became necessary, it was Jehovah Elohim who sought the sinning ones Gen 3:9-13 and clothed them with "coats of skins" Gen 3:21 a beautiful type of righteousness provided by the Lord God through sacrifice Rom 3:21; Rom 3:22. The first distinct revelation of Himself by His name Jehovah was in connection with the redemption of the covenant people out of Egypt Exo 3:13-17. As Redeemer, emphasis is laid upon those attributes of Jehovah which the sin and salvation of man bring into exercise. These are:
(a) His holiness Lev 11:44; Lev 11:45; Lev 19:1; Lev 22:26; Hab 1:12; Hab 1:13 (b) His hatred and judgment of sin; Deu 32:35-42; Gen 6:5-7; Psa 11:4-6; Psa 66:18; Exo 34:6; Exo 34:7 (c) His love for and redemption of sinners, but always righteously; Gen 3:21; Gen 8:20; Gen 8:21; Exo 12:12; Exo 12:13; Lev 16:2; Lev 16:3; Isa 53:5; Isa 53:6; Isa 53:10 Salvation by Jehovah apart from sacrifice is unknown to Scripture.
(4) In his redemptive relation to man, Jehovah has seven compound names which reveal Him as meeting every need of man from his lost state to the end. These compound names are:
(a) Jehovah-jireh, "the Lord will provide" Gen 22:13; Gen 22:14 i.e., will provide a sacrifice; (b) Jehovah-rapha, "the Lord that healeth" Exo 15:26. That this refers to physical healing the context shows, but the deeper healing of soul malady is implied. (c) Jehovah-nissi, "the Lord our banner" Exo 17:8-15. The name is interpreted by the context. The enemy was Amalek, a type of the flesh, and the conflict that day stands for the conflict of Gal 5:17 the war of the Spirit against the flesh. Victory was wholly due to divine help. (d) Jehovah-Shalom, "the Lord our peace," or "the Lord send peace" Jdg 6:24. Almost the whole ministry of Jehovah finds expression and illustration in that chapter. Jehovah hates and judges sin Gen 2:1-5. Jehovah loves and saves sinners Gen 2:7-18 but only through sacrifice Gen 2:19-21 see also; Rom 5:1; Eph 2:14; Col 1:20. (e) Jehovah-ra-ah, "the Lord my shepherd" (Psalms 23.). In Psalms 22 Jehovah makes peace by the blood of the cross; in Psalms 23. Jehovah is shepherding His own who are in the world. (See Scofield "Joh 10:7") (f) Jehovah-tsidkenu, "the Lord our righteousness" Jer 23:6. This name of Jehovah occurs in a prophecy concerning the future restoration and conversion of Israel. Then Israel will hail him as Jehovah-tsidkenu--"the Lord our righteousness." (g) Jehovah-shammah, "the Lord is present" Eze 48:35. This name signifies Jehovah’s abiding presence with His people; Exo 33:14; Exo 33:15; 1Ch 16:27; 1Ch 16:33; Psa 16:11; Psa 97:5; Mat 28:20; Heb 13:5
(5) Lord (Jehovah) is also the distinctive name of Deity as in covenant with Israel Exo 19:3; Exo 20:1; Exo 20:2; Jer 31:31-34.
(6) Lord God (Heb. Jehovah Elohim) is the first of the compound names of Deity. Lord God is used distinctly:
(1) of the relation of Deity to man (a) as Creator Gen 2:7-15 (b) as morally in authority over man Gen 2:16; Gen 2:17 (c) as creating and governing the earthly relationships of man; Gen 2:18-24; Gen 3:16-19; Gen 3:22-24 and (d) as redeeming man Gen 3:8-15; Gen 3:21
(2) of the relation of Deity to Israel Gen 24:7; Gen 28:13; Exo 3:15; Exo 3:18; Exo 4:5; Exo 5:1; Exo 7:6; Deu 1:11; Deu 1:21; Deu 4:1; Deu 6:3; Deu 12:1; Jos 7:13; Jos 7:19; Jos 7:20; Jos 10:40; Jos 10:42; Jdg 2:12; 1Sa 2:30; 1Ki 1:48; 2Ki 9:6; 2Ki 10:31; 1Ch 22:19; 2Ch 1:9; Ezr 1:3; Isa 21:17 See other names of Deity,
(See Scofield "Gen 1:1") See Scofield "Gen 14:18" See Scofield "Gen 15:2" See Scofield "Gen 17:1" See Scofield "Gen 21:33" See Scofield "1Sa 1:3"
Lord God Deity (names of God) (See Scofield "Mal 3:18")
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v4 Man in Innocency before the Fall
II. THE GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
Man in Innocency before the Fall
Read full note →
Genesis 2:4-45
1. The earth his abode (Gen 2:4-6)
2. The creation of man (Gen 2:7)
3. The garden of Eden (Gen 2:8-14)
4. Man in the garden. His commission (Gen 2:15-17)
a. To keep the garden
b. The commandment
5. No helpmeet for Adam found (Gen 2:18-20)
6. The formation of the woman (Gen 2:21-22)
7. The union (Gen 2:23-25)
This is not a new version of the creation or a repetition of the account in the preceding chapter. The relationships of the created man to nature and to His Creator are now more specifically introduced. The name of God appears now no longer as “Elohim” but another name precedes the word Elohim; it is the name “Jehovah.” This name is used because it is the name of God in relationship with man. Jehovah is the Son of God.
In Gen 2:7 we have the creation of man revealed. Jehovah God formed him out of the dust of the earth; He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Here is that which distinguishes man from the beast. The animals also are living souls, but not immortal. Man alone became a living soul by the inbreathing of Jehovah Elohim and that constitutes man immortal.
The garden of Eden was situated in a fertile, pleasant plain, somewhere near the two streams still known by their names, the Euphrates and the Tigris (Hiddekel). The tree of life represents Christ, while the rivers of water are clearly the types of the Holy Spirit. What the tree of knowledge of good and evil was no one knows. The command was given to test man in his innocency. Adam unfallen had not the knowledge of good and evil. That knowledge was acquired by the fall. The test, therefore, involved not some great moral evil but simply the authority and right of God to prohibit something. The tree of knowledge then represented responsibility.
“Thou shalt surely die” means literally “dying thou shalt die.” This does not mean “eternal death,” but “physical death.”
The formation of the woman is highly typical. Adam is the figure of Him who was to come (Rom 5:14), the last Adam. Here Christ and the Church are foreshadowed. The deep sleep into which Adam was put by Jehovah Elohim is typical of the death of the cross, The woman, built out of his side, is the type of the Church. As the helpmeet of Adam was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh and also the bride of Adam, so is the church the body and the bride of Christ. The woman was brought to Adam and presented to him. But Christ will present the Church to Himself (Eph 5:27). Marriage is indicated in Gen 2:24 and quoted in Mat 19:5, 1Co 6:16, and Eph 5:31. Both were naked, the suitable condition for innocence.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v4 The creation of Adam
The creation of Adam
v. 4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. The author, having given a short account of the creation, now proceeds to narrate some facts pertaining to it in greater detail. His heading is: This is the further history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, at the time when Jehovah God made earth and heavens. The earth is mentioned first in this case, as the scene of the events about to be related.
Read full note →
v. 5. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. This is a description of the earth before Paradise was made. At that time the plants of the field had not yet started to grow, to sprout and to bud; they had not yet matured. There had, till then, been no rain on earth, and the tilling of the soil had not yet begun.
v. 6. But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. This is the manner in which God provided moisture for the vegetation of the earth at that time, not by means of rain, but by a heavy fog, which arose from the earth and soaked the entire surface of the soil. Having described the earth as the home of man and as the place of his later labors, the author relates the creation of man itself.
v. 7. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. This is one distinction of man: Instead of merely being called into being by a word of God’s almighty power, he was formed, as it were, by the finger of God, the material being an earth-clod, dust of the soil. This being done, God blew the breath of life into the figure which He had formed. As the dust, by virtue of the creative omnipotence, formed the figure of a man, it was charged with the living breath and thus became a living soul, named after the more important part of which he consists. The Spirit of God has made us, and the breath of the Almighty has given us life, Job 33:4. This shows the superiority of man over irrational brutes, his being endowed with an immortal soul as well as his being formed in the image of God.
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 vv4, 7 General Information:
General Information:
The rest of Genesis 2 tells about how God created people on the sixth day.
Read full note →
These were the events concerning the heavens and the earth
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth" or "This is the story about the heavens and the earth." Possible meanings are 1) it is a summary of the events described in Genesis 1:1-2:3 or 2) it introduces the events described in Genesis 2. If possible, translate this so that people can understood it either way.
they were created
"Yahweh God created them." In chapter 1 the writer always speaks of God as "God," but in chapter 2 he always speaks of God as "Yahweh God."
on the day that Yahweh God made
"when Yahweh God created." The word "day" refers to the whole time span of the creation, not to just one particular day.
Yahweh
This is the name of God that he revealed to his people in the Old Testament. See the translationWord page about Yahweh concerning how to translate this.
No bush of the field
no shrubs growing in the wild that animals might eat
no plant of the field
no leafy plants like vegetables or greens that both animals and humans can eat
to cultivate
to do everything he needed to do so that the plants would grow well
mist
Possible meanings are 1) something like dew or morning fog o 2) springs from underground streams.
the whole surface of the ground
the entire earth
translationWords
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 vv4–7 2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of…
2:4-25 This account (see study note on 2:4) of the heavens and the earth is not a second creation account; rather, it is a theological and historical expansion on 1:1–2:3. The focus is now on what the cosmos produced rather than on its creation. Special attention is given to the first man and woman. As the story progresses, it is colored by contrasts of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, life and death, harmony and discord.
2:4 This is the account (literally These are the generations; Hebrew toledoth): This or a similar phrase is repeated throughout Genesis, creating an internal outline for the book. In other occurrences, it introduces the genealogy or story of a key personality (5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). • Some have argued that the first half of 2:4 belongs with 1:1–2:3, but it is more likely the introduction to the account that follows. • Lord God (Hebrew Yahweh Elohim) is the second name used for God in the early chapters of Genesis. Elohim (1:1–2:3) describes the all-powerful creator God. Yahweh Elohim speaks of the eternal God who formed a lasting covenant with Israel (Exod 3:6, 13-15). Accordingly, Gen 2:4-25 focuses on God as provider more than as creator. The three themes of sexuality, dominion, and food in ch 1 are now addressed in reverse order (food, 2:8-17; dominion, 2:18-20; sexuality, 2:21-25).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.