Genesis 1-2-3-4

[Resource Manager]

(e.) “The light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4) presents the Lord as the beginning of a New Creation. The ensuing reference to “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (v. 6) encourages the idea that as heavenly glory was seen in the face of the Lord on more than one occasion during his ministry, so also the first Adam’s intimate association with angels and the glory of his Creator would mean that in his face also was a radiant reflected glory, only to be lost through disobedience.

 

(f.) There is another unmistakeable allusion to Genesis 1 when Christ is described in Col. 1:15 as the Beginning of a New Creation: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all (the New) Creation.” The rest of that complex passage is consonant with this allusion, but further exposition of it is too far away from the present topic.

 

(g.) Just as fallen Adam begat sons “in his own likeness, after his image” (5:3), so also Christ, the second Adam: “Ye have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col. 3:10).

 

(h.) Rev. 13:14,15 has a superb dramatic antithesis to the foregoing. Men make an image of the Beast, the false Christ. And those who do not worship this image are slain.

 

(i.) On Mars’ Hill Paul could hardly quote Genesis as the authority for his message, for his intellectual and learned audience knew nothing of the Hebrew Scriptures. But it is easy to trace the revealed truth of Genesis 1 as the backbone of part of that noble oration: “God that made the world and all things therein - giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one (man) all nations of men - that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him - for in him we live, and move, and have our being - we are the offspring of God . ..” (Acts 17:24-29).

 

It is difficult to be sure just what difference of meaning is to be understood between the words “image” (tźélem) and “like- ness” (d’muth), for they seem to be used interchangeably; e.g. 1:26; 5:3. There is, apparently, a difference of emphasis in the prepositions, but although this distinction is not too clear in the Hebrew text, the intention in the New Testament allusions is not to be mistaken (as will be seen by and by). Thus, anticipating the trend of passages to be examined, “in our image” would appear to refer to physical resemblance, and “after our likeness” to imply growth into a spiritual imitation of the divine character.

 

(a.) The mordant difference between 1:26 and 5:3 is caustically summed up in Ecc. 7:29: “God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”

 

(b.) Another biting contrast with 1:26 is in Ps. 58:3,4: “The wicked go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is after the likeness of a serpent.” Here three separate phrases look back to Genesis.

 

(c.) “To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” (Is. 40:18). Then follows a withering exposure of how men prefer to produce an imitation of God - not in their own characters (the intention expressed in Genesis), but by making a debasing graven image. God must be content to be made like fallen man in his perversity and sin! “Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself” (Ps. 50:21). “They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man” (Rom. 1:23). Paul has both words here. Another man’s perverted idea of the imitation of God was to make himself into a brutal despot over all the world that he knew. Said the king of Babylon: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Is. 14:14).

 

(d.) Yet even the angels of heaven fail in their imitation of the Almighty: “Who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?” (Ps. 89:6). “Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight” (Job 15:15 and context).

 

(e) Nevertheless the ideal is set before frail mortal man: “Put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and holiness of truth.” The Genesis background to these words is not to be missed - and also in the context: “Put off ... the old man which is corrupt according the deceitful lusts. ... put away lying ... neither give place to the devil” (Eph. 4:22-27).

 

(f.) James seems to make very inappropriate appropriation of God’s words in Genesis: “With the tongue curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God” (3:9). But when it is realised that the apostle writes concerning strife in the ecclesia amongst men who are supposed to be newborn into the likeness of God in Christ, the words are apt enough.

 

(g.) The reaction of men of Lystra to the message and marvels of Paul and Barnabas is usually referred to a local legend about a visitation of Zeus and Hermes: “The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.” But the context encourages a belief that Paul had been preaching the true story of Creation: “The living God which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein - he gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:11,15,17).

 

(h.) In several impressive passages Paul underlines that the only way in which fallen man can be made after the likeness of God is through the Son of God being “made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7 - at least four other allusions to Genesis in the immediate context!). “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3).

[Resource Manager]

The plural verb: Let us make”, is the Trinitarian’s vain attempt to get to first base. Why should this be read as implying three and not more? John Calvin, himself a rigid Trinitarian, had to admit: “From this place many Christians infer the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, but I fear the argument is not valid.” It might surely be argued more cogently that Man is a trinity, for the next verse uses the word “create” three times regarding him!

 

That plural: “Let us make,” has been explained in various other ways. A great favourite - the royal “we” - is quite without Bible support. Jewish exposition - Philo, Targum, Josephus, Rashi - has always been in favour of reference to angels co-operating with the Almighty in the great work, and there is no lack of evidence in support of this:

 

(a.) “The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (3:22).

 

(b.) “Let us go down, and there confound their language” (11:7).

 

(c.) “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us (the seraphim)?” (Is. 6:8).

 

 The picture of heavenly counsel and co-operation, in 1 Kgs. 22:19ff.

 

It is true that “And God said” uses a singular verb, but this is quite in harmony with items © (d) just mentioned.

 

It is not to be supposed that the divine name Elohim normally means angels, God’s mighty ones, for in most places it is simply an intensive plural for “The Mighty One” (such intensive plurals are common in the Old Testament). But there are some instances worth noting:

 

(a.) “Thou madest him a little lower than (the) Elohim” (Ps. 8:5) is certainly given reference to angels in Heb. 2:8.

 

(b.) “As a prince hast thou had power with Elohim” (Jacob’s wrestling with the angel; Gen. 32:28). “I have seen Elohim face to face” (32:30).

 

(c.) “She (Hagar) called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me” (Gen. 16:13).

 

That angels were involved in the work of Creation is intimated in a number of places. Some in the list now given have already been mentioned incidentally.

 

(a.) “And God said...”, implies communication - with whom? So also: “God called . ..,” not “God named”.

 

(b.) “Let the dry land be seen ...” (v.9). Seen by whom?

 

(c.) “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth - when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God (Dan. 10:6) shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

 

(d.) “Praise ye him, all ye his angels” (Ps. 148:2), coming at the beginning of a long recapitulation of Genesis 1, implies angels both working and praising.

 

(e.) The first half of Ps. 104 has copious references to the Creation. Almost at the beginning there is this: “Who maketh his angels spirits, his ministers a flaming fire: who laid the foundations of the earth ...” (v. 4,5), as though implying angelic participation.

 

Over against these hints are the explicit declarations: “I am the Lord - that stretcheth forth the heavens above; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself” (Is. 44:24). “With whom took he counsel?” (40:14). But these statements are readily explained by their context: The Almighty needed no co-operation from the futile gods of the Gentile nations. It is a deliberate repudiation of the creation myths centring round Assyrian and Babylonian deities.

[Resource Manager]

1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

Here the text does not include “over all the beasts of the earth,” but has “over all the earth.” The Syriac text has the former reading. But it may be that “over all the earth” was intended to be read commonsensically as meaning just that (Ps. 8:7). It is a detail of relatively small importance, except perhaps as reflecting on the possibility of textual corruption (see on v.8).

 

Man’s dominion over the rest of Creation was not intended to be a reign of terror, but the Almighty foresaw (9:2) that because of man’s fallen nature that is what it would become. Next to man’s wholesale corruption and destruction of his fellows, the devastation of the world of nature has become one of the greatest of man-made evils (Jas. 3:7 is a very mild statement).

 

As a result of the Fall, the true fulfilment of this divine mandate devolves on Christ, the true Son of man: “Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thine hands: thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea” (Ps. 8:5-8). Messianic fulfilment is insisted on in Heb. 2:6-8; 1 Cor. 15:27,28.

 

During the Lord’s ministry there were clear tokens of his qualification to fulfil this Scripture. In his cleansing of the temple he asserted his authority over not only men of wealth (Ps. 49:6,7,12,14) but also over sheep and oxen and birds (Jn. 2:14,15; Mt. 21:7) - and other dumb beasts (Mk. 5:13); in the wilderness, over wild beasts also (Mk. 1:13); in his miracles of plentiful catches (Lk. 5:6; Jn. 21:6), and, in his provision of the atonement shekel (Mt. 17:27), over the fish of the sea; walking on the water (Mt. 14:25,26) he was at ease in the paths of the sea; he was even the master of greater than the greatest whales (Mt. 12:40); serpents and scorpions he could give into the hand of unconfident disciples (Lk. 10:19,21).

 

Payne Smith’s Genesis contribution in the Ellicott Commentary is a poor affair, but the following is worth quoting:

 

“There is in this first book a vast array of figures, types, indications, yearnings, hopes, fears, promises and express predictions, which advance on words like an ever-deepening river, and when they all find a logical fulfilment in one way, the conclusion is that that fulfilment is not only true, but was intended.”

[Resource Manager]

1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

The repetitious phrasing here - “created ... in his image” - seems designed to emphasize something more than physical resemblance to angels. It is intended surely to stress also the spiritual possibilities of this latest creation of God. The same thing is underlined, too, by the contrast between “let the earth bring forth ... cattle etc.” (v.24) and the repeated “God created” (v.26,27). Very evidently, even if it were possible to read the evolution of the lower orders into the record up to this point, the marked change of phrasing here disallows such a possibility regarding man.

 

South has an admirable comment on man as he was first made and as he is now: “We may collect the excellence of the understanding then (that is, of the first man) by the glorious remainders of it now, and guess at the stateliness of the building by the magnificence of its ruins ... And certainly that must needs have been very glorious, the decays of which are so admirable. He that is comely when old and decrepit, surely was very beautiful when he was young! An Aristotle was but the rubbish of an Adam; and Athens but the rudiments of Paradise.”

 

And yet the creation of man is assigned to the same day as the creation of the beasts; and whereas it is said about them “and God saw that it was good,” it is not so said about man! - presumably because of what was, from the first, possible in his experience but not in theirs: the Fall!

 

With the characteristic ability of the moderns for getting things the wrong way round, the Century Bible observes:

 

“In order to enhance the importance of the creative act and the dignity of man, God invites the co-operation of His heavenly ministers in this supreme work.”

 

But of course, as has been seen already, the angels were busy in Creation from the beginning. And here there comes in a possible explanation of the not inconsiderable finds by palaeontologists of remains of earlier man-like beings - Cro-Magnon man, and so on. It seems unlikely, because of physiological differences and indications of a greater age than the human race, that these are genuine ancestors of man.

 

But Scripture teaches that the angels, although immortal, have certain limitations in their physical and mental powers (Gen. 32:26; 22:12; 18:21; 2:2,3; Ex. 31:17; 23:12; Dan. 10:13; 12:6; 8:13; 9:21 RVm; Zech. 1:12; Mt. 24:36; 1 Cor. 4:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:12; Eph. 3:10; Lk. 19:25; Job 4:18; 15:15; 1:9,10; 38:7).

 

It is consistent with this teaching about angels to assume that in Creation they would need to learn their job, and would by degrees work up to higher standards of accomplishment. Hence earlier less suitable man-forms (and indeed of much else in Creation). This seems to be a possibility; but only the foolish would feel justified in dogmatism regarding it.

 

Remarkably, the phrase: “male and female created he them,” is used about the human race, but not about the lower creatures. Can it be that this is said only about man because the propagative union of the animals is not marriage as God sees and designs it regarding man and woman? Yet in the story of the Flood this detail is repeated regarding the creatures (7:3,9,16) - another indication that fallen man has brought himself nearer to the level of the beasts?

 

It is not difficult to see why the Hebrew word for “female” should be cognate with “belly” and possibly the word for “pierce.” But why should “male” be practically identical with the word for “remember”?

 

In his doctrine of marriage Jesus quoted this Genesis passage as the unimpugnable foundation: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female?” - the point of the argument being that the words “male” and “female” are singular; then if at first God made only one man and one woman, did He intend divorce to be part of that social order?

 

Malachi, inveighing against a fast-and-loose attitude to marriage, used the same argument from Genesis: “Yet is she ... the wife of thy covenant. And did not he (the Almighty) make (husband and wife) one? ... And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed” (2:14,15). Alas, in so many instances, the broken family practically guarantees an ungodly seed.

[Resource Manager]

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

In modern English, the word “bless” whilst palpably a good word is very elusive of definition. In the Old Testament there are three main ideas:

 

a. Fruitfulness and increase, emphasized here by “Be fruitful and multiply.” In this sense “bless” comes often in the Promises to the Fathers; e.g. Gen. 12:2; 17:16; 24:1,35; 26:12; and especially 22:17; 28:3; Jer. 23:3 RV. In the natural sense: Dt. 15:4,6,10,14,18. When Jesus blessed the loaves and fishes they were multiplied (Mt. 14:19). Mary, with her baby, was blessed as the one who should herself enjoy a large family and in due time a much larger spiritual family (Lk. 1:42). Is there a similar meaning in Eph. 1:3? And in Mt. 26:26 is the emphasis to go on the forgiveness of sins (as in v.28 and (b) here), or is the Lord’s prayer of blessing an indirect instruction to succeeding generations of the need for constant repetition of this sacrament?

 

b. The forgiveness of sins, and the happiness this brings; Ps. 62:4; 109:28; 118:26. The great promise to Abraham: “In thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed” (22:18) is expounded by both Peter and Paul as meaning the forgiveness of sins: Acts 3:26; Gal. 3:26; Gal. 3:8 (“justify”!). See also this meaning in 1 Cor. 4:12; 10:16; 1 Pet. 3:9.

 

c. Ascribing to God all such benefits, as coming from Him. See concordance for an abundance of examples, especially in the Psalms; e.g. 103:1.

 

“Be fruitful and multiply” was repeated in Gen. 9:1,7 when creation and the human race started again after the Flood. But the real force of these words belongs to the New Creation: Acts 6:1,7; Is. 51:2,3. But all through history men have perverted this natural fertility. Itself a created thing, they have made it a god, the deity of many a foul religion - and not least in the 20th century.

 

Man’s dominion over the lower creation has been signified not only by his power to slay but also by his power to tame. But, James adds (3:7,8), in the New Creation there is one animal that no one can tame, until Messiah comes; the wayward undisciplined teacher in the ecclesia (note 3:1 RV, 13-18). But this does not mean that in the New Creation no effort should be made to restrain this untamable force.

[Resource Manager]

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

 

There are two noteworthy omissions here. Grasses, the third category of growing things mentioned in v. 11, and all kinds of flesh. It has been argued from the emphasis on man’s dominion (v.28) that animal flesh may be inferred as part of human food, but this seems doubtful. Remarkably, the next verse fails to mention seeds and fruit as being food for birds and animals. If these can be taken for granted, then why not flesh for man? On the other hand it may be that after the Fall there was a general change in the eating habits of all living things, men turning to flesh, birds to seeds and fruit, and all nature becoming red in tooth and claw, predatory on other species. Not enough is told about these things to build up a clear picture.

 

The words “I have given you” plainly imply instruction of the first pair by the angels.

 

And Paul’s allusion to this place becomes the ground for an exhortation that, since God gave last year’s seed for this year’s sowing and its ensuing abundant harvest, the man of faith, confidently depending on God’s generosity for the future, will emulate his Maker’s kindness by his generosity to others: “Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness” (2 Cor. 9:10).

 

One writer has observed that the foods assigned for man mostly need preparation, and thus by divine sign there has come into being the family meal and the family spirit inseparable from it.

 

It makes an interesting question whether “every tree” specified here was intended at first to include the two special trees (2:9), or was the prohibition in 2:17 an exception brought in later and only made necessary because of the special planting of a special garden in Eden?

 

The word “meat” in this passage is, of course, old English for “food.” The LXX word here is that used by Jesus in John 6:27: “Labour not for the food which perisheth, but for that food which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you” - fruit of the Tree on which he was crucified.

[Resource Manager]

1:30 “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

 

There is no mention here of cattle or fishes. The former are doubtless intended to be included with “every beast of the earth,” although v.24 makes a distinction. Are fishes not mentioned because their food was unknown to man or of little concern to him?

 

All living things are spoken of as “soul of life.” This word nephesh, one of the commonest in the Old Testament, means “a principle or faculty common to animals and man, the animal life” (Century Bible). Its different shades of meaning all share this main idea. It might be the life of a man (1:24,30; 2:7,19), by contrast with a soul of death (i.e. a corpse; Num. 6:6); the appetites and thinking of the natural man (Is. 29:8; Num. 11:6; Pr. 25:25; Job 24:12; 6:11); self (Ps. 3:3; 9:4); any kind of animal or living thing (Gen. 2:19; 9:10).

 

“I have given” (AV italics) needs to be supplied to carry on the meaning from v.29.

 

Whereas seeds and fruits were assigned for the food of man, to wild and domestic animals grasses were appointed. Thus man and creatures were all vegetarian - until the Fall or the Flood? “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth” (Ps. 104:14 - a psalm full of allusions to Creation). But “wheresoever the carcase is, thither will the vultures be gathered together” (Lk. 17:37).

 

In the present dispensation “every creature of God is good (for food), and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving” (1 Tim. 4:3,4).

 

In the age to come “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid ... the lion shall eat straw like the ox ... They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain” (Is. 11:6-9) - or is this language merely symbolic?

 

Either way, certain details in the feeding of the five thousand suggest an anticipation of the Messianic age: “He commanded them to make all sit down by companies upon the green grass (s.w. Gen. 1:30) ... and they did all eat, and were filled (grassed, foddered; same root as ‘grass’)” (Mk. 6:39,42).

[Resource Manager]

1:31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

Days 1 to 5 have: “God saw that it was good.” Now, because Creation has come to its climax with the making of man, “very good.” In the Hebrew text there is also a further emphasis, for unlike Days 1 to 5 here there is a definite article in the phrase: “the sixth day.”

 

Yet how could God see this creation of man as a thing in which to rejoice (Ps. 104:31), since He knew of all the wreck and ruin that human sin was to bring into the world? The place where those words come in Ps. 104 explains. Most of the psalm describes the Creation of Genesis 1. Then: “Thou hidest thy face; they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust” (v.29). This is the Fall of Genesis

 

Then: “Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are (re-) created: and thou makest new the face of the earth (adamah; cp. Adam - fallen man).” Then: “The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works.”

 

It seems possible that Mk. 7:37 makes reference to Gen. 1:31, but again with the idea of a New Creation. After Jesus had made “the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak” (and the blind to see; 8:25), that is, as life was given to the deaf, dumb, blind Adam made from dust of the ground, so now Jesus symbolically demonstrated his powers to bring fallen men to a New Creation; and the discerning, seeing the force of this, said: “He hath done all things well.” They, as well as God, saw that it was good.

[Resource Manager]

Commentary on Genesis, Ch. 2

 

2:1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

This new chapter begins in the wrong place. The proper new beginning is at verse 4.

 

The word for “finished” has the intensive idea of all done (Heb: kalah., Pu., linking with the common word for “all”). Normally “the host of heaven” means the stars; but here, with reference to the earth as well, the host of living things is included.

 

There is, however, a completely different way of reading this verse. Out of 250 occurrences (approximately) of “finished,” there is only one other example (and that doubtful) of this Pual pointing. The Masoretes may have been wrong here. The alternative presents itself: “And they, even the host of them (i.e. the angels; as in 1 Kgs. 22:19). finished the heavens and the earth.”

 

On the cross, on the sixth day, the Lord Jesus exulted with head uplifted that “It is finished” (Jn. 19:30). And, in the sixth vial, in the time of his second coming, “a great voice from the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, it is done” (Rev. 16:17).

[Resource Manager]

2:2a. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made.

 

The implication behind the first phrase here is that some work was done on the seventh day. (Would a man who is fired on Friday say that he finished that employment on Saturday?). Then, what work on this seventh day? The only possible answer seems to be: The making of Eve during Adam’s sleep in the hours of darkness inaugurating the seventh day. Very differently, the great rabbi Rashi (11th C.) explained that after six days’ work the only thing lacking was Rest, so God made this on the seventh day. This is hardly Rashi at his best.

 

However, Septuagint and Samaritan and Syriac versions all read here, “the sixth day.” This sounds right; note v.1. and that this also eliminates the seeming repetition of v.2a in v.2b.

 

This phraseology about the finish of God’s work is echoed in the accounts of the completion of the Tabernacle (Ex. 39:43; 40:33) and the Temple (1 Chr. 28:20; 2 Chr. 5:1). Indeed nearly every Old Testament occurrence of this word “work” is associated with the building of Tabernacle or Temple or City - or with the community of God’s redeemed. This last is worth further investigation:

 

a. Psalm 104 has a long recapitulation of God’s work of Creation: v.1-28. The psalm goes on: “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.” This is the Fall: Gen. 3. But then a New Creation: “Thou sendeth forth thy Spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works.”

 

b. Psalm 145: “I will speak of the glorious honour of thy majesty, and of thy wondrous works” (v.5). What wondrous works? “Thy great goodness ... thy righteousness ... his tender mercies are over all his works” (v.7-9) - which last phrase shows clearly that the “works” specially under consideration are God’s New Creation of redeemed men and women. Hence: “All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord; and thy saints shall bless thee (note the parallelism). They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power” (v.10,11). In all this psalm the emphasis is on God’s works, His saints. They are the Creation that really matters.

 

c. Compare also Ps. 77:11-20 (the making of Israel); 111:2-9.

 

d. In John’s gospel Jesus repeatedly speaks of his work as being that of the Father. Just as the first creation is spoken of as the work of God and His angels (His “sons;” Job 38:7), so now the Father and the Son together fashion a New Creation. “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (4:34). “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ... the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me” (5:17,36). “I must work the works of him that sent me while it is day” (9:4). “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (17:4ff).

 

e. Luke’s introduction to Acts refers to his gospel as “all that Jesus began to do ...”, using the very phrase of Gen. 2:3 LXX, but with a significant change from aorist to continuous infinitive.

 

f. There is also the unexpected commentary on v.3 in Heb. 4:4,9,10 (see below on this).

 

Once again it becomes evident that in Genesis the New Creation is more important than the old material creation.

[Resource Manager]

2:2b. And he rested on the seventh day from all his work

 

In what sense is the phrase: “God rested,” to be understood, for “he fainteth not, neither is weary” (Is. 40:28)? To explain it, some have coined a grandiloquent polysyllable: anthropopatheticism, which means ‘speaking of God as though He has all the feelings of a man.’ Certainly there are other examples of this; e.g. “my fury shall come up in my face” (Ez. 38:18); “I will look upon it (the bow in the cloud) that I may remember the everlasting covenant ...” (Gen. 9:16).

 

The only alternative to this thoroughly Biblical explanation is to read these words with reference to the creative work of angels, bearing in mind what has already been shown (see on 1:27) regarding the limited powers of the angels.

 

This view finds support from various sabbath references:

 

“In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed” (Ex. 31:17).

 

“Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox (etc.) ... may be refreshed” (Ex. 23:12; cp. 20:11).

 

It might be of some significance that the Hebrew words for “work” and “angel” are almost identical. And the rather unusual shape of sentence in v.3 here, with the word elohim inserted where it appears to be unnecessary, might also suggest a distinction between the Almighty and His angels.

 

This rest of God not only has reference to what is long past; it also looks forward. After a superb picture of the Messianic age (65:17-25), Isaiah represents the Lord as seeking His own rest after the perfecting of this New Creation: “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool, where is the house (sanctuary) that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?” (66:1). What can then be given to God which is not His already? - “for all those things hath mine hand made.”

 

There is only one exception, specified in the next verse: “the man that is poor, and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my Word.” God’s best resting-place in the age to come is in the free will of a man who has learned to submit himself wholly to the will of his Maker.

[Resource Manager]

2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

What was the nature of this blessing on the seventh day? In 1:22,28 the blessing is defined by the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Can the same sense apply here? Yes, if the words be read with reference to knowledge and instruction in the ways of God: “that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you” (Ex. 31:13). God sanctified the day, and He sanctified the people who kept it - provided they observed it in the right spirit and not with the soulless formality and punctilious attention to a hundred man-made (rabbinic) scrupulosities, “the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mk. 2:27); when Jesus said that, was he arguing from the fact that man was made on the sixth day and the sabbath on the seventh?

 

The common explanation of “sanctify” as meaning “to make separate” (and of “holy” - same root in Hebrew - as meaning “separate”) can be quite misleading if the emphasis is on “separate from (the world and its way)”. Essentially the idea is that of “separated to,” i.e. devoted to God and His service. Hence the word “sign” (Heb: mo’ed) in Ex. 31:13: “the sabbath a sign between me and you throughout your generations” - it is a word which always signifies a holy day, a time of special religious observance.

 

The spirit of the sabbath is well defined by Isaiah: “If thou ... call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words ...” (58:13), the promised reward is: “then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord ...” In other words, the blessing for finding pleasure in a special sabbath service of God will be an increasing pleasure in the holiness God asks for! Thus, “Be fruitful and multiply” applies in a very real spiritual sense.

 

Sabbath observance is first found as an explicit requirement in the Ten Commandments, but there are clear signs before Exodus 20 that it was part of the patriarchal law:

 

a. “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8) seems to imply an existing familiarity with the sabbath before Israel came to Sinai.

 

b. The strong emphasis on the sabbath in the account of the first giving of manna (Ex. 16:23,26,29,30) - again, before Israel came to Sinai - requires familiarity with this institution.

 

c. “Ye make the people rest (lit: sabbath) from their labours,” Pharaoh roughly complained (Ex. 5:5).

 

d. In a remarkable analysis, based on the one assumption that months alternated between 29 and 30 days, John William Burgon established that all the nine significant events in connection with the Flood fell on the same day of the week, which - he surmised plausibly - was a sabbath:

 

1. Noah and his family entered the ark.

2. The Flood began.

3. The ark rested on Ararat.

4. The waters ceased to prevail.

5. The raven and dove were sent out.

6. The dove was sent out again and returned.

7. The dove was sent out yet again.

8. Dry ground. The covering of the ark removed.

9. Noah and his family came out of the ark.

[Resource Manager]

After mention of the seventh day there is no sign of the “evening and morning” rubric which comes in all the other six. So far as the primary creation is concerned this seems not at all appropriate, but regarding further reference to the New Creation this omission is fitting enough, for “there shall be no night there” (Rev. 21:25), only an endless day.

 

In harmony with this is the fact that our Lord finished his work on the sixth day (Good Friday) and rested in the tomb on the seventh (Easter Saturday).

 

The last phrase: “which God created to make” also seems to imply a further purpose, further activity, a new and better work. (But there is a problem here in the different LXX reading which derives confirmation from Lk. 1:1. This problem of varying LXX readings used in the New Testament seems never to have been squarely tackled).

 

It is not inappropriate here to consider the symbolic significance of the seven creative periods of Genesis 1. The idea that each day is to be seen as representing one thousand years (Ps. 90:4) is very popular, even to the point of dogmatism. But there are difficulties:

 

a. By the most conservative estimates archaeological evidence points to more than four thousand years B.C.

 

b. On this thesis the end of each thousand years should provide a well-defined turning point. But the end of the first and the fifth provide nothing of the sort; and in this respect the second also is doubtful.

 

c. The starting-point of this theory is the one thousand years of Rev. 20. But it is not at all certain that that period is to be read literally.

 

An alternative approach which is free from all these difficulties looks for seven creative periods in the purpose of God working towards the new Creation. Thus:

 

1. Adam to Noah.

2. Noah to Abraham.

3. Abraham to Moses.

4. Moses to David.

5. David to Jesus.

6. Jesus to Christ (the Second Coming).

7. Christ to God (the Kingdom;     1 Cor. 15:28).

[Resource Manager]

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.

 

Here LXX has “the book of Genesis of ...,” and hence the name of this first part of the Pentateuch; it comes in 5:1 also.

 

This is also the first occurrence of the rubric which meets the reader of Genesis - no less than eleven times: “These are the generations of ....”

 

The suggestion has been advanced by Wiseman that in accordance with Babylonian practice this expression marks the conclusion of a section of the history. He observes that each section could have been compiled by the one whose name is mentioned; thus, for example, there is nothing in “the generations of Jacob” (37:2) which would not be known to Jacob. There follows the easy idea that a collection of these records could have been inherited by Moses and put together to make Genesis, with a minimum of editing.

 

The idea is attractive, and has indeed been too readily and uncritically received by many. It needs to be recognized that there are difficulties still unexplained. For instance, “the generations of Ishmael” (25:12) are all about Isaac, and “the generations of Isaac” are all about Ishmael. “The generations of Esau” comes twice (36:1,9), the first time as subscript to a section all about Jacob, and the second time in the middle of a section about Esau; and “the generations of Jacob” is also all about Esau. Mysteriously there is no “generations of Abraham.” When this formula occurs at the end of the Book of Ruth (4:18), it clearly does not refer back but forward. And so also, but not necessarily, in Mk. 1:1.

 

It is clear that a new account of creation begins at verse 4, not at variance with what has already been told, although this is often glibly asserted, but certainly with a different emphasis. Now, in what amounts to an expansion of the Day 6 revelation in chapter 1, man, in his relation to his Maker, is the centre of the picture. It is not impossible that here Moses was guided to make use of some other source of information for his record. There are so many signs in the Old Testament of historical compilation and editing that it would be futile to assert dogmatically that nothing of the kind happened but that all was, so to speak, given by direct divine dictation. Always it needs to be recognized that not enough is known about this aspect of Holy Scripture for confidence in any theory.

[Resource Manager]

2:4 In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

 

Appropriately the divine name changes at this point from God to Lord God, the name which emphasizes the Almighty as a God of Purpose and Promise and Covenant.

 

This Name YHWH is confidently asserted to be Yahweh, meaning “He who will be.” But indeed there is more of confidence than of strong Biblical evidence for such dogmatism. The meaning of the Name is undoubtedly “He who is and was and will be” (Rev. 1:8). There is no lack of evidence in support of this reading. And Biblical names such as Jehoshaphat and Elihu (there are many more) support the conclusion that the Name should be read as Y’-ho-wah, with plainly implied meaning to any Israelite: “Shall-is-was,” a simple equivalent of “which is, and was, and is to come.”

 

There are a number of places in the Old Testament where the text swings from Elohim to Y’howah with special significance, as in Genesis 22:1,8,11ff and in Psalm 19 which first extols the glory of God (Elohim) in creation and then the grace of God (Y’howah) in His Word and His redeeming Purpose.

 

If verse 4a belongs to the preceding narrative (and this seems to be required), then re-punctuation of the AV is called for, so as to read: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, also every plant ...,” this being the beginning of the new and fuller account.

 

It is difficult to see why the usual phrase is here reversed to “the earth and the heavens” (and also in Ps. 148:13). Is it perhaps another “New Creation” hint that the Purpose of God is to culminate in redeemed men and women of earth who in Christ achieve a higher status than that of angels in heaven?

[Resource Manager]

2:5a. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:

 

From this point on there is a marked difference of emphasis between this renewed account of creation and what has gone before. Now the emphasis is on man and his relationship to all that God has made.

 

The assertion is constantly made (by those who reject the divine authority of Genesis) that there is a sustained disharmony between the details of chapter 1 and those in chapter 2. The following five items are the main grounds for this over-confident pronouncement. It makes a useful exercise in careful Bible reading to seek out the answers provided by the text to these confident assertions.

 

1. Plants were created spontaneously (1:11). No, they grew out of the ground (2:5,9).

 

2. Man and woman were created together (1:27). No - in chapter 2 first the man and then the woman.

 

3. Man was appointed to “have dominion” (1:28). No, he was to till (Heb: serve) the ground (2:5).

 

4. Birds and beasts came before man (1:20,24). No, after man (2:19).

 

5. Birds emerged from the water (1:20). No, they were formed out of the ground (2:19).

 

In verse 5, an ambiguity regarding one Hebrew word presents the possibility of two translations quite different in meaning. AV follows LXX in reading “before” (as in 27:4; Ex. 1:19; Jer. 1:5). In that case verse 5a is a continuation of verse 4: “in the day that the Lord God created the earth and the heavens and every plant of the field before it was in the earth …..”

 

The other meaning is “not yet” (as in 1 Sam. 3:7; Ex. 10:7). In that case RV is correct: “And no plant was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up:,”

[Resource Manager]

2:5b. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

 

Since there was no man to till the ground, at first the angels did it - and there was a remarkable crop: first, man, and then the garden (v.7,8); in the New Creation “Christ the firstfruits.” The idea is extended to those in Christ: “We (the apostles) are labourers together with God: ye (the believers) are God’s husbandry (i.e. tillage)” (1 Cor. 3:9). “He (Timothy) worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do” (16:10). “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought” (2 Jn. 8). These passages use the same LXX Greek word as in the verse under review. It is important for those in the New Creation to note that it was primarily for this purpose that the Man was made - to make things grow well, to the glory of God for his own sustenance and satisfaction.

 

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Eph. 2:10).

[Resource Manager]

2:6. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

Precise explanation of this apparently simple verse is difficult because of a double problem: (a) the meaning of the word “mist;” (b) the question whether or not there should be a carry over of the negative from verse 5.

 

The Hebrew word ‘ed comes in only one other place, where certainly it means ‘mist’ or ‘cloud’. But over against this not very considerable support is the fact that the identical word in Assyrian means a flood or inundation (see RSV margin); it is the technical term for the overflow of the waters of Euphrates (because of the melting of the Armenian snows).

 

The idea of a mist fits the physical geography of the Holy Land, where that has always been a summer phenomenon. But the idea of a river overflowing its banks fits Mesopotamia, where (as will be seen on v. 10-14) the Garden of Eden was most probably sited.

 

On the other hand, LXX has a word which means a well or a fountain, as in 2 Pet. 2:17; Jn 4:14; Rev. 21:6. This last passage - “the fountain of the water of life” - coming near the end of Revelation where there are copious allusions to Genesis 1-3, may well be intended as an allusion back to this place, thus interpreting it.

 

Next, the question of the possibility of an implied negative: “there went (not) up ...” This grammatical phenomenon of the word “not” carried over from the preceding sentence, crops up often enough in the Old Testament; e.g. Ps. 9:18 (note the italics); 75:5; Is. 38:18; Pr. 24:12; 25:27; 1 Sam. 2:3; and in the Heb. text: Ps. 26:9; Ex. 20:17; Dt. 7:25. So it is quite possible for the negative of Gen. 1:5 to carry over to v.6.

 

The most likely resolution of these ambiguities is, disallowing this negative: “there went up an inundation from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” If “mist” were to be insisted on, could it be said that it goes up from the earth? In a country like England, yes; but not from the dry soil of a Middle Eastern country. The negative probably has to be rejected, for otherwise there would be no means of subsistence for the creatures already made.

[Resource Manager]

2:7. 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.

 

In place of “created,” this record has “formed.” The Hebrew word described the action of a potter shaping clay. In what can only be regarded as a sustained allusion to Gen. 1:27; 2:7, Isaiah 45 repeats these key words: “I form the light, and create darkness ... I the Lord have created it. Woe to him that striveth with his Maker ... Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? ... I have made the earth, and created man upon it ...” (45:7-12); cp. also 64:8; 29:16. This figure of speech of the Almighty as “the former, the shaper, the potter” appealed to Isaiah. He passed it on to later prophets (Jer. 18:6; Zech. 12:1) and to Paul (Rom. 9:20-23). Zech. 12:1 makes direct allusion back to Genesis: “... the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.”

 

Man was not formed out of rock nor even out of the black fertile alluvial soil but from fine dry unstable useless red dust. Thus his feebleness was emphasized: Adam out of adamah. In fact, the emphasis is yet more strong, for the AV margin is correct here: “formed man, dust of the ground” - even when fashioned he was still basically dust, as was grimly emphasized yet again in the curse after the Fall (3:19). The other living creatures were made of the same material (2:19), but in their case there was no point in stressing the fact. But with Man, yes: “He knoweth our frame (our fashioning; s.w. Gen. 2:7); he remembereth that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14; cp. 119:25). So also Isaiah: “Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, for wherein is he to be accounted of” (2:22).

 

This expression is used only with reference to Man. Even Genesis 7:21,22 is no exception: “All flesh died ... fowl, cattle, beast, creeping thing, and every man (all in whose nostrils was the breath of life), of all that was in the dry land, died.”

 

There can be no manner of doubt that the encounter of the Lord Jesus with his disciples after the resurrection was designed to recall and repeat the creation of Adam, for “he breathed on them, and said, Ye are receiving the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 20:22). The divine kiss of life which made Adam into a living man was now imparted to the New Man in Christ. In him the Twelve were the beginning of God’s New Creation (cp. also Acts 2:2).

 

Is there also the same idea in the Lord’s making clay and anointing the eyes of the blind man with it? (Jn. 9:6,7). Was he intimating by acted parable that in his blindness the man was as one dead, and needing Christ to bring him the Light of Life?

 

N’shamah, breath of life, is very commonly associated with the power of God in action (Job 4:9; 33:4; 37:10; Ps. 18:15; Is. 30:33; 57:16). It is doubtful if any distinction is to be made between “breath” and “spirit,” for in a clear allusion to this place Ecclesiastes 12:7 uses the second term in place of the first: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit (ruach) shall return to God who gave it.” The key to an understanding of this last phrase lies in the word “return,” which clearly means going back to the original place. But no man has any memory of an earlier existence in heaven before his birth. Then the spirit, the life-power in man, can and does return to God without any continuation of conscious existence in heaven.

 

Kidner (Tyndale Commentary) bids his reader “note that man neither has a soul, nor has a body.” He is both. But it needs always to be remembered that “living soul” describes both man and animal (1:30 margin). The expression simply means “a living creature,” nothing more.

 

In the New Testament the broad distinction between “soul” and “spirit” is that “soul” has reference to the natural man and his natural inclinations, whereas “spirit” describes the new man in Christ and the outlook which characterizes his new life (e.g. Heb. 4:12; 1 Th. 5:23; Lk. 12:19,20; Jn. 12:27; Gal. 3:2,3,5; 5:16-22).

 

The question is often raised: Was Adam created mortal or immortal? Important theological conclusions have rather foolishly been made to depend on the answer supplied. (As though an incorrect answer to such a question could invalidate a man’s Christian baptism!).

 

Clearly Adam was not immortal, or he would still be alive. The glib answer not infrequently heard: “Neither mortal nor immortal, but very good” is meaningless, for (a) “very good” is far too vague to be useful, without further definition; (b) every living being in the universe is either mortal or immortal, for the two states are mutually exclusive. “Mortal” means “subject to death” (OED), and Paul’s handling of this passage in 1 Corinthians 15 declares emphatically that Adam was created mortal (but of course with an opportunity of being sustained in being indefinitely until his Maker either made him immortal or condemned him to the grave. More on this on 2:16).

 

Paul’s sustained antithesis (in 1 Cor. 15:42-49) between the natural man and the resurrection life is very striking:

 

Sown in corruption.		Raised in glory.
Sown in weakness.		Raised in power.
Sown a natural body.		Raised a spiritual body.
The first man Adam was made a living soul.		The last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
The first man is of the earth, earthy (lit. of dust; 2:6).		The second man is the Lord from heaven.
As we have borne the image of the earthy.		We shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

 

Here every phrase in the first column describes the weakness of mortality, and one of its expressions is the statement of Genesis 2:7 about Adam when he was created. Then what did Paul understand about Adam’s primeval condition?

 

The conclusion just reached is strongly supported by the simple fact that both animals and Adam are described as “living souls” - and there is no possibility of doubt that the animals were created mortal, dying creatures. (But by all means see the further comment on 2:16,17).

[Resource Manager]

2:8. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden: and there he put the man whom he had formed.

 

The words are often read as though the name of the garden was Eden, but in fact the language requires that Eden be a larger area, part of which was made into a garden of the Lord (see v.10). The actual site of the garden will be discussed later (v.10-14).

 

“Eastward in Eden” might mean “in the eastern part of Eden,” but more probably it means “to the east, from the point of view of the compiler of this record.” If Moses was busy on this when he was in Midian or Sinai, then there is support here for the common identification with the plain of south Mesopotamia, and difficulty for the also popular suggestion that Eden was in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

 

Eden is a Hebrew word meaning delight, and for this reason it crops up as a Biblical name related to more than one area; e.g. near Damascus (Amos 1:5), Lebanon (Ez. 31:16,18), and somewhere unidentified in Mesopotamia (2 Kgs. 19:12).

 

In support of an identification of Eden with part of southern Mesopotamia, Eden is equated with a Sumerian word which describes that plain (HBD).

 

The garden was later called Paradise, a name which has been confidently derived from a Persian word for a park (Neh. 2:8; Ecc. 2:5; S:S.4:13), but it could with equal probability be seen as a combination of two Hebrew words meaning fruitful of herbs.

 

The New Testament occurrences of the word are interesting. Rev. 2:7 is straightforward: ‘the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” But why, when the dying malefactor asked to be remembered in Christ’s kingdom, was he promised paradise? The two are obviously intended as equivalents. But why the change?

 

If, as seems almost certain, the malefactor was a renegade disciple, one of those who had wanted to make Jesus king after the feeding of the five thousand, mention of paradise would remind him of how, like Adam, he had lost his paradise (Jesus, the tree of life), but would yet know its joy much more fully. It is perhaps relevant also to mention that at the feeding of the multitude the people are described as “garden plots” (companies; Mk. 6:39).

 

Paul’s mysterious reminiscence of how he was “caught up (away) to the third heaven ... to paradise” (2 Cor. 12:2,4) is more difficult. A hint comes from his allusion to the sanctuary of the Lord: “that the power of Christ may tabernacle upon me” (v.9), for in several places the temple appears to be referred to as heaven (1 Kgs. 8:30; 2 Chr. 30:27; Ps. 20:6,2; 11:4; Heb. 7:26), with the Holy of Holies, the third and innermost part of the Sanctuary, as “the third heaven.”

 

The clear implication of the text of verse 8 is that Adam was made from the red unfertile soil, and was then installed in the supra-fertile garden (of black soil). What symbolism is intended by this?

 

“The man whom he had formed” is in sharp contrast with the next verse: “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree ...,” and also: “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind ...” (1:24). Thus in advance Genesis anticipates and disallows evolution.

[Resource Manager]

2:9 “And 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.

 

The trees mentioned here were probably a fresh creation, special for the garden. Certainly the two specified trees were; and it is easier to read this verse as additional to 1:12, not merely a repetition of it.

 

Both trees were “in the midst of the garden,” and therefore, probably, within a short distance of each other - one of them forbidden, and the other (as will be argued from v.16) permitted along with the rest. Their proximity would make the test of obedience all the more explicit: This tree, but not that one! “The tree of life was designed to sustain and refresh the life infused into man at his creation” (Wordsworth).

 

Peter refers to our Lord as being “hanged on a tree” (Acts 10:39; 1 Pet. 2:24). But it wasn’t a tree, it was dead wood - but dead wood now become a tree of life, with flowers and fruit, like Aaron’s rod. And whereas Adam was forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge, those in Christ are commanded to eat of the tree of life. “Do this in remembrance of me” - “Take, eat; this is my body” (Mt. 26:26).

 

Scripture encourages its reader to think of the tree of life as an almond tree, for the candlestick in the sanctuary of the Lord (Ex. 25:31ff) was clearly intended to be seen as a tree - the tree of life. It had a trunk, branches, buds, flowers, calyxes, and fruit - and its fruits were almonds. Also, Aaron’s rod that budded, a dead stick come to life again (and thus obviously a branch of the Tree of Life), “bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds” (Num. 17:8). Is it for natural reasons or because of Aaron’s rod that the almond is called “the awakener” (shōqēd)? - no true life without resurrection.

 

But if the tree of life in Eden was an almond, it was a very special almond, for in the creation of fruit trees (1:12) almonds were certainly included.

 

In the rest of Genesis a surprising prominence is given to trees (12:6RV; 13:18; 18:1; 21:33; 35:4,8). Was an effort being made by the patriarchs to keep alive the ancient tradition about the tree of life, and the hope of renewed access to it? 35:8 is specially significant from this angle.

 

The rabbis indentified the tree of knowledge as a vine, which more than any other tree has certainly been fruitful of a vast amount of both good and evil. And there seem to be Biblical reasons to support this conclusion.

 

But the phrase: “knowledge of good and evil” requires more far-reaching reference than this. All kinds of guesses have been made; e.g.

 

a. A figure of speech (called oxymoron) for ‘the seeming good which is really evil.’ But even allowing this, there is still a lack of definition.

 

b. An idiom for “the tree of all knowledge”; cp. 2 Sam. 14:17,20. This helps to explain reference of the same phrase to the angels (3:22). There are similar comprehensive expressions in Dt. 29:15; 32:36.

 

c. Or is there here a ‘genitive of relation,’ meaning: a tree about which there was a law of obedience and disobedience. But in that case, use of the same expression regarding the angels (3:22) would strongly imply that they too had been earlier subjects of a similar probation to that of Adam. If that possibility can be accepted, this could be the simplest and most satisfactory of the suggestions listed here.

 

d. Dr. Thomas had the definite opinion (Elpis. 68,93) that sexual knowledge is referred to. Certainly, both good and evil. In that case, eating of the tree of knowledge offered a different kind of immortality from that of the tree of life - living on in succeeding generations. This became the belief of the Sadducees (Mt. 22:24 uses the word for ‘resurrection’). The difficulty about this view is that the place of sex in human life was blessed by God when man and woman were made (1:28). And repeatedly the New Testament sanctifies Christian marriage as a holy thing, a sacrament. Yet, would not sex as the fruit of the first sin imply the opposite?

 

e. Knowledge from Nature and experiment rather than from God - good knowledge which is evil because of its mode of acquisition and its effects on the human mind. The pursuit of science has been precisely this. Eve followed this method - “after observation and reasoning, try it and see” (3:5,6).

[Resource Manager]

2:10-14 “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

 

There is, then, a river of life as well as a tree of life. But it is not so called here because it is more specifically a river of life for the garden rather than for the people in it. This theme of a river in Paradise Restored is much emphasized in the prophecies: Rev. 22:1; Zech. 14:8; Ez. 47:1ff; Ps. 36:8; 46:4.

 

This river (the place of its rising is not specified) flows through the Eden territory surrounding the garden, and so through the garden itself. The phrasing seems to require that after leaving the garden it sub-divides into four branches (“heads”). This suggests the idea of a delta.

 

Since two of the four streams are given the names of specific well-known rivers - Euphrates and Tigris (Hddekel) - location of the garden must be in lower Mesopotamia.

 

There have been determined, but ill-judged, attempts to site Eden and the garden in the vicinity of Jerusalem. When it is pointed out that Tigris and Euphrates are hundreds of miles from the Holy Land, the rejoinder is made: “But the Flood would later bring all kinds of alterations in geographical configuration.” Maybe! But such an argument, with its vast importation of unknown quantities, is not argument or evidence but pure supposition. Would not Moses write of the rivers as he knew them to be in his own time? It is suggested, then, that the most likely - though not certain - identification of Eden is as in the sub-joined diagram:
 

 

[Resource Manager]

It is true that Babylonian legend concurs in this location of the garden. But in this instance it is to be expected. So no special weight is to be attached to such a fact, pro or con.

 

The four branches of the delta would naturally enough take their names from the four rivers. It is known that through silting up the delta has moved some 70 or 80 miles further to the south-east from where it once was. (Ur of the Chaldees, now a long way inland, was once a seaport).

 

The early church was fond of comparing the four rivers of Eden to the four gospels, four sources of fertility, making the garden nurtured by Christ marvellously fruitful. In view of the many examples already encountered (and with more to come) of New Testament insistence on deeper meanings in the details of the creation story, who shall say that this instance is far-fetched?

 

The details given about the rivers are full of interest but by no means without uncertainty. However, none of them seems to conflict with the identification suggested.

 

The purpose of “watering the garden” is not easy to harmonize with earlier mention (v.6) of a mist watering the ground. If that passage is intended to have a negative carried over from the previous verse, as suggested earlier, then the implication would be: In Eden there was no night mist as in Israel, but there was a river and its branches.

 

Pison and Gihon are unidentifiable with any degree of certainty. The former, “compassing the whole land of the Havilah” was probably a river flowing (in the rainy seasons) out of N. Arabia, being a recognized boundary of “the sandy land.” Pison may mean “spreading out,” possibly in the sense of getting lost at times in the sand. Havilah occurs more than once as a geographical term (Gen. 10:7; 25:18; 1 Sam. 15:7) appropriate to several “sandy lands.” There is Bible evidence of some sources of gold in N. Arabia (Num. 31:52; Jud. 8:26; Josh. 7:21) in ancient days. Evidently it was found in nuggets: “the gold of that land is good.”

 

“Authorities” differ markedly about the identification of bdellium. Josephus (Ant. 3.1.6) says it was an aromatic gum from N. Arabia; and it is argued that the Hebrew text, carefully attaching the word “stone” to “onyx,” by that very fact implies that bdellium was not a precious stone. Even so, LXX took it to be a black or crystalline precious stone. The alternative “beryl” (RVm) could well be correct, for it needs only the (very frequent) confusion between D and R in Hebrew to give the word for beryl. Another suggestion is that “pearls” are intended.

 

The fact that Gihon “borders the whole land of Ethiopia” has led to dogmatic equation with the Nile. This is an absurd conclusion, for how could the Nile have any confluence with Euphrates and Tigris? Also, there is the oversight that the original name Cush (=black) applies in Scripture not only to Ethiopia, the land of black people, but also to Midian, the land of black tents (Hab. 3:7), and to Elam, the land of black mountains (Is. 11:11), where the Kassites lived. AV has been influenced by LXX which, made in Egypt, naturally took Cush to be Ethiopia. Almost certainly, a river flowing from Elam is intended. Gihon means “bursting forth,” so probably one should look for a river which emerges from a gorge between the mountains.

 

Hiddekel, “the great river” (Dan. 10:4) is certainly the Tigris, as the mention of Asshur shows. Hid is said to be a Babylonian word for “river”, but an attempt at Hebrew significance would make the name mean “the great thorn river” (with reference to some of the territory it flows through?).

 

“Towards the east of Assyria” (AV) is an impossible reading. But “that which goeth east, or in front of, Asshur (the ancient capital of Assyria)” is quite likely.

 

It is noteworthy that no details at all are given about Euphrates - for the very simple reason that in the time of Moses there was familiar knowledge of that great river, even in Egypt.

[Resource Manager]

2:15 “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”

 

There is further indication here that Adam was made of sterile red clay outside the garden (v.8; 3:23). It is implied that the angel of the Lord (or, angels) led Adam (whom he had formed; LXX) into the garden to introduce him to a life of unalloyed pleasure there. The garden was already in superb condition - Adam inherited it from angelic gardeners!

 

Although this verse is practically a repetition of verse 8, the Hebrew word for “put” is different. There it means just that: “put”. But here the meaning is: “comforted, cause to rest” (cp. 5:29).

 

So, although words meaning “serve, work” (3:23) and also “guard” are used, there is no suggestion of servitude or hard drudgery. LXX neatly turns the first word to imply: “work for his own benefit or pleasure.” And since “garden” implies cultivation, it would be necessary to protect the garden plots from invasion by birds or animals intent (naturally enough) on using the garden as their paradise.

 

Even so, although the garden was Adam’s, it was not his simply for indolence or self-indulgence. So also in Christ: those who “labour to enter into his rest” (as a present experience) do so by recognizing that there is useful work to be done, and due vigilance necessary, and all of it satisfying: 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14 (4:15).

[Resource Manager]

2:16,17 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

Adam was the first creature God had made endowed with a will of his own, with the power of choice to do this or that. A test of obedience was necessary, to show that Adam purposed fully to submit himself to the will of his Maker: “To this man will I look, even to him ... that trembleth at my word” (Is. 66:2).

 

Of course, God could have made a remarkably clever robot, more clever than the electronic chess-players man has himself devised. But what glory would there have been to God in that, compared with the honour given Him through devout and humble obedience rendered by a being with a mind and will of his own?

 

The law imposed on Adam was a very simple trial by abstinence - from which it may surely be inferred that it is a good thing for a man to learn to say “no” to his natural inclinations, including also those about which there is no law.

 

“Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,” except the tree of knowledge, fairly plainly implies that eating of the tree of life was not forbidden. This consideration leads to an interesting sequence of ideas:

 

a. Adam was made mortal:

 

(i) for he was certainly not made immortal;

(ii) like the animal she was made “a living soul”(1:30; 2:7);

(iii) the sequence of antitheses in 1 Cor. 15:42-50 (see p.33) makes Gen. 2:7 (v45) equivalent to “natural body”

 

b. Since, in Rev. 22:2, “the leaves of the tree (of life) are for the healing of the (mortal) nations,” it is reasonable to suppose that during his probation Adam’s mortality was kept in abeyance by his eating of the leaves of that tree.

 

c. But if there had been fruit, since he had license to eat of that tree he would have eaten it also.

 

d. But this would have endowed him with immortality (Rev. 2:7).

 

e. Therefore it may be inferred that during his probation there was no fruit on the tree.

 

f. But, according to the picture of paradise restored (in Rev. 22:2), there was a monthly fruit-bearing.

 

g. Therefore Eve and Adam broke the commandment within the first month of their probation. (For reasons not known, the rabbis somehow deduced within six hours).

 

Since God said: “Of every tree thou mayest freely eat,” it may perhaps be inferred that in this state of primeval innocence there was no need for the growing and processing of crops. That was to come later (3:18,19).

 

It is interesting to note that apparently the law imposed on Adam came before he was provided with “a help meet for him.” So it would seem that from the beginning the man was intended to be the teacher and guide of his wife. And this he evidently did very faithfully (3:2,3).

 

Indeed, it ought to be inferred from Eve’s first response to the serpent that the prohibition here in verse 17 was accompanied also by an angelic word of warning: “neither shall ye touch it, lest you die.” The assumption often made, that Eve set herself on the slippery slope by distorting the original divine command, is really not warranted.