Text -- Genesis 2:9-25 (NET)

2:9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.) 2:10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 2:11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 2:12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there). 2:13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 2:14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates. 2:15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 2:16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.” 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 2:19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 2:22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 2:23 Then the man said, “This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family. 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Gen 2:8-15

Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth, and a rational immortal soul, we have in these verses the provision that was made for the happiness of both. That part of man, which is allied to the world of sense, was made happy, for he was put in the paradise of God; that part which is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for, for he was taken into covenant with God. Here we have, A description of the garden of Eden, which was intended for the palace of this prince. The inspired penman in this history writing for the Jews first, and calculating his narratives from the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by farther discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them. Therefore he doth not so much insist upon the happiness of Adam's mind, as upon that of his outward estate. The Mosaic history, as well as the Mosaic law, has rather the patterns of heavenly things, than the heavenly things themselves, Heb 9:23. Observe, (1.) The place appointed for Adam's residence was a garden; not an ivory house. As clothes came in with sin, so did houses. The heaven was the roof of Adam's house, and never was any roof so curiously cieled and painted: the earth was his floor, and never was any floor so richly inlaid: the shadow of the trees was his retirement, and never were any rooms so finely hung: Solomon's in all their glory were not arrayed like them. (2.) The contrivance and furniture of this garden was the immediate work of God's wisdom and power. The Lord God planted this garden, that is, he had planted it, upon the third day when the fruits of the earth were made. We may well suppose it to be the most accomplished place that ever the sun saw, when the All - sufficient God himself designed it to be the present happiness of his beloved creature. (3.) The situation of this garden was extremely sweet; it was in Eden, which signifies delight and pleasure. The place is here particularly pointed out by such marks and bounds as were sufficient when Moses wrote, to specify the place to those who knew that country; but now it seems the curious cannot satisfy themselves concerning it. Let it be our care to make sure a place in the heavenly paradise, and then we need not perplex ourselves with a search after the place of the earthly paradise. (4.) The trees wherewith this garden was planted. [1.] It had all the best and choicest trees in common with the rest of the ground.

Wesley: Gen 2:8-15

It was enriched with every tree that yielded fruit grateful to the taste, and useful to the body. But, [2.] It had two extraordinary trees peculiar to itself, on earth there were not their like. 1.

Wesley: Gen 2:8-15

Which was not so much a natural means to preserve or prolong life; but was chiefly intended to be a sign to Adam, assuring him of the continuance of life and happiness upon condition of his perseverance in innocency and obedience. 2.

Wesley: Gen 2:8-15

So called, not because it had any virtue to beget useful knowledge, but because there was an express revelation of the will of God concerning this tree, so that by it he might know good and evil. What is good? It is good not to eat of this tree: what is evil? To eat of this tree. The distinction between all other moral good and evil was written in the heart of man; but this, which resulted from a positive law, was written upon this tree. And in the event it proved to give Adam an experimental knowledge of good by the loss of it, and of evil by the sense of it. (5.) The rivers wherewith this garden was watered, Gen 2:10-14. These four rivers, (or one river branched into four streams) contributed much both to the pleasantness and the fruitfulness of this garden. Hiddekel and Euphrates are rivers of Babylon. Havilah had gold and spices and precious stones; but Eden had that which was infinitely better, the tree of life, and communion with God. The command which God gave to man in innocency, and the covenant he than took him into. Hither we have seen God; man's powerful Creator, and his bountiful benefactor; now he appears as his ruler and lawgiver.

Wesley: Gen 2:16-17

That is, thou shalt lose all the happiness thou hast either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface and attend it. This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin. In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die - Not only thou shalt become mortal, but spiritual death and the forerunners of temporal death shall immediately seize thee.

Wesley: Gen 2:18-20

This man, should be alone - Though there was an upper world of angels, and a lower world of brutes, yet there being none of the same rank of beings with himself, he might be truly said to be alone. And every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air God brought to Adam - Either by the ministry of angels, or by a special instinct that he might name them, and so might give a proof of his knowledge, the names he gave them being expressive of their inmost natures.

Wesley: Gen 2:21-22

This was done upon the sixth day, as was also the placing of Adam in paradise, though it be here mentioned after an account of the seventh day's rest: but what was said in general, Gen 1:27, that God made man male and female is more distinctly related here, God caused the sleep to fall on Adam, and made it a deep sleep, that so the opening of his side might be no grievance to him: while he knows no sin, God will take care he shall feel no pain.

Wesley: Gen 2:23

Probably it was revealed to Adam in a vision, when he was asleep, that this lovely creature, now presented to him, was a piece of himself and was to be his companion, and the wife of his covenant - In token of his acceptance of her, he gave her a name, not peculiar to her, but common to her sex; she shall be called woman, Isha, a She - man, differing from man in sex only, not in nature; made of man, and joined to man.

Wesley: Gen 2:24

The sabbath and marriage were two ordinances instituted in innocency, the former for the preservation of the church, the latter for the preservation of mankind. It appears by Mat 19:4-5, that it was God himself who said here, a man must leave all his relations to cleave to his wife; but whether he spake it by Moses or by Adam who spake, Gen 2:23 is uncertain: It should seem they are the words of Adam in God's name, laying down this law to all his posterity. The virtue of a divine ordinance, and the bonds of it, are stronger even than those of nature. See how necessary it is that children should take their parents consent with them in their marriage; and how unjust they are to their parents, as well as undutiful, if they marry without it; for they rob them of their right to them, and interest in them, and alienate it to another fraudulently and unnaturally.

Wesley: Gen 2:25

They were both naked, they needed no cloaths for defence against cold or heat, for neither could be injurious to them: they needed none for ornament. Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Nay, they needed none for decency, they were naked, and had no reason to be ashamed. They knew not what shame was, so the Chaldee reads it. Blushing is now the colour of virtue, but it was not the colour of innocency.

JFB: Gen 2:9

So called from its symbolic character as a sign and seal of immortal life. Its prominent position where it must have been an object of daily observation and interest, was admirably fitted to keep man habitually in mind of God and futurity.

JFB: Gen 2:9

So called because it was a test of obedience by which our first parents were to be tried, whether they would be good or bad, obey God or break His commands.

JFB: Gen 2:15

Not only to give him a pleasant employment, but to place him on his probation, and as the title of this garden, the garden of the Lord (Gen 13:10; Eze 28:13), indicates, it was in fact a temple in which he worshipped God, and was daily employed in offering the sacrifices of thanksgiving and praise.

JFB: Gen 2:17

No reason assigned for the prohibition, but death was to be the punishment of disobedience. A positive command like this was not only the simplest and easiest, but the only trial to which their fidelity could be exposed.

JFB: Gen 2:18

In the midst of plenty and delights, he was conscious of feelings he could not gratify. To make him sensible of his wants,

JFB: Gen 2:19

Not all the animals in existence, but those chiefly in his immediate neighborhood to be subservient to his use.

JFB: Gen 2:19

His powers of perception and intelligence were supernaturally enlarged to know the characters, habits, and uses of each species that was brought to him.

JFB: Gen 2:20

The design of this singular scene was to show him that none of the living creatures he saw were on an equal footing with himself, and that while each class came with its mate of the same nature, form, and habits, he alone had no companion. Besides, in giving names to them he was led to exercise his powers of speech and to prepare for social intercourse with his partner, a creature yet to be formed.

JFB: Gen 2:21

Probably an ecstasy or trance like that of the prophets, when they had visions and revelations of the Lord, for the whole scene was probably visible to the mental eye of Adam, and hence his rapturous exclamation.

JFB: Gen 2:21

"She was not made out of his head to surpass him, nor from his feet to be trampled on, but from his side to be equal to him, and near his heart to be dear to him."

JFB: Gen 2:23

In Hebrew, "man-ess."

JFB: Gen 2:24

The human pair differed from all other pairs, that by peculiar formation of Eve, they were one. And this passage is appealed to by our Lord as the divine institution of marriage (Mat 19:4-5; Eph 5:28). Thus Adam appears as a creature formed after the image of God--showing his knowledge by giving names to the animals, his righteousness by his approval of the marriage relation, and his holiness by his principles and feelings, and finding gratification in the service and enjoyment of God.

Clarke: Gen 2:9

Every tree that is pleasant to the sight, etc. - If we take up these expressions literally, they may bear the following interpretation: the tree pleasant to the sight may mean every beautiful tree or plant which for shape, color, or fragrance, delights the senses, such as flowering shrubs, etc

Clarke: Gen 2:9

And good for food - All fruit-bearing trees, whether of the pulpy fruits, as apples, etc., or of the kernel or nut kind, such as dates, and nuts of different sorts, together with all esculent vegetables

Clarke: Gen 2:9

The tree of life - חיים chaiyim ; of lives, or life-giving tree, every medicinal tree, herb, and plant, whose healing virtues are of great consequence to man in his present state, when through sin diseases of various kinds have seized on the human frame, and have commenced that process of dissolution which is to reduce the body to its primitive dust

Clarke: Gen 2:9

Yet by the use of these trees of life - those different vegetable medicines, the health of the body may be preserved for a time, and death kept at a distance. Though the exposition given here may be a general meaning for these general terms, yet it is likely that this tree of life which was placed in the midst of the garden was intended as an emblem of that life which man should ever live, provided he continued in obedience to his Maker. And probably the use of this tree was intended as the means of preserving the body of man in a state of continual vital energy, and an antidote against death. This seems strongly indicated from Gen 3:22

Clarke: Gen 2:9

And the tree of knowledge of good and evil - Considering this also in a merely literal point of view, it may mean any tree or plant which possessed the property of increasing the knowledge of what was in nature, as the esculent vegetables had of increasing bodily vigor; and that there are some ailments which from their physical influence have a tendency to strengthen the understanding and invigorate the rational faculty more than others, has been supposed by the wisest and best of men; yet here much more seems intended, but what is very difficult to be ascertained. Some very eminent men have contended that the passage should be understood allegorically! and that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means simply that prudence, which is a mixture of knowledge, care, caution, and judgment, which was prescribed to regulate the whole of man’ s conduct. And it is certain that to know good and evil, in different parts of Scripture, means such knowledge and discretion as leads a man to understand what is fit and unfit, what is not proper to be done and what should be performed. But how could the acquisition of such a faculty be a sin? Or can we suppose that such a faculty could be wanting when man was in a state of perfection? To this it may be answered: The prohibition was intended to exercise this faculty in man that it should constantly teach him this moral lesson, that there were some things fit and others unfit to be done, and that in reference to this point the tree itself should be both a constant teacher and monitor. The eating of its fruit would not have increased this moral faculty, but the prohibition was intended to exercise the faculty he already possessed. There is certainly nothing unreasonable in this explanation, and viewed in this light the passage loses much of its obscurity. Vitringa, in his dissertation Deuteronomy arbore prudentiae in Paradiso, ejusque mysterio , strongly contends for this interpretation. See more on Gen 3:6 (note).

Clarke: Gen 2:10

A river went out of Eden, etc. - It would astonish an ordinary reader, who should be obliged to consult different commentators and critics on the situation of the terrestrial Paradise, to see the vast variety of opinions by which they are divided. Some place it in the third heaven, others in the fourth; some within the orbit of the moon, others in the moon itself; some in the middle regions of the air, or beyond the earth’ s attraction; some on the earth, others under the earth, and others within the earth; some have fixed it at the north pole, others at the south; some in Tartary, some in China; some on the borders of the Ganges, some in the island of Ceylon; some in Armenia, others in Africa, under the equator; some in Mesopotamia, others in Syria, Persia, Arabia, Babylon, Assyria, and in Palestine; some have condescended to place it in Europe, and others have contended it either exists not, or is invisible, or is merely of a spiritual nature, and that the whole account is to be spiritually understood! That there was such a place once there is no reason to doubt; the description given by Moses is too particular and circumstantial to be capable of being understood in any spiritual or allegorical way. As well might we contend that the persons of Adam and Eve were allegorical, as that the place of their residence was such

The most probable account of its situation is that given by Hadrian Reland. He supposes it to have been in Armenia, near the sources of the great rivers Euphrates, Tigris, Phasis, and Araxes. He thinks Pison was the Phasis, a river of Colchis, emptying itself into the Euxine Sea, where there is a city called Chabala, the pronunciation of which is nearly the same with that of Havilah, or חוילה Chavilah , according to the Hebrew, the vau ו being changed in Greek to beta β . This country was famous for gold, whence the fable of the Golden Fleece, attempted to be carried away from that country by the heroes of Greece. The Gihon he thinks to be the Araxes, which runs into the Caspian Sea, both the words having the same signification, viz., a rapid motion. The land of Cush, washed by the river, he supposes to be the country of the Cussaei of the ancients. The Hiddekel all agree to be the Tigris, and the other river Phrat, or פרת Perath , to be the Euphrates. All these rivers rise in the same tract of mountainous country, though they do not arise from one head.

Clarke: Gen 2:12

There is bdellium ( בדלח bedolach ) and the onyx stone, אבן השהם eben hashshoham - Bochart thinks that the bedolach or bdellium means the pearl-oyster; and shoham is generally understood to mean the onyx, or species of agate, a precious stone which has its name from ονυξ a man’ s nail, to the color of which it nearly approaches. It is impossible to say what is the precise meaning of the original words; and at this distance of time and place it is of little consequence.

Clarke: Gen 2:15

Put him into the garden - to dress it, and to keep it - Horticulture, or gardening, is the first kind of employment on record, and that in which man was engaged while in a state of perfection and innocence. Though the garden may be supposed to produce all things spontaneously, as the whole vegetable surface of the earth certainly did at the creation, yet dressing and tilling were afterwards necessary to maintain the different kinds of plants and vegetables in their perfection, and to repress luxuriance. Even in a state of innocence we cannot conceive it possible that man could have been happy if inactive. God gave him work to do, and his employment contributed to his happiness; for the structure of his body, as well as of his mind, plainly proves that he was never intended for a merely contemplative life.

Clarke: Gen 2:17

Of the tree of the knowledge - thou shalt not eat - This is the first positive precept God gave to man; and it was given as a test of obedience, and a proof of his being in a dependent, probationary state. It was necessary that, while constituted lord of this lower world, he should know that he was only God’ s vicegerent, and must be accountable to him for the use of his mental and corporeal powers, and for the use he made of the different creatures put under his care. The man from whose mind the strong impression of this dependence and responsibility is erased, necessarily loses sight of his origin and end, and is capable of any species of wickedness. As God is sovereign, he has a right to give to his creatures what commands he thinks proper. An intelligent creature, without a law to regulate his conduct, is an absurdity; this would destroy at once the idea of his dependency and accountableness. Man must ever feel God as his sovereign, and act under his authority, which he cannot do unless he have a rule of conduct. This rule God gives: and it is no matter of what kind it is, as long as obedience to it is not beyond the powers of the creature who is to obey. God says: There is a certain fruit-bearing tree; thou shalt not eat of its fruit; but of all the other fruits, and they are all that are necessary, for thee, thou mayest freely, liberally eat. Had he not an absolute right to say so? And was not man bound to obey

Clarke: Gen 2:17

Thou shalt surely die - מות תמות moth tamuth ; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished; every moment of man’ s life may be considered as an act of dying, till soul and body are separated. Other meanings have been given of this passage, but they are in general either fanciful or incorrect.

Clarke: Gen 2:18

It is not good that the man should be alone - לבדו lebaddo ; only himself. I will make him a help meet for him; עזר כנגדו ezer kenegdo , a help, a counterpart of himself, one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person. If the word be rendered scrupulously literally, it signifies one like, or as himself, standing opposite to or before him. And this implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man, possessing neither inferiority nor superiority, but being in all things like and equal to himself. As man was made a social creature, it was not proper that he should be alone; for to be alone, i.e. without a matrimonial companion, was not good. Hence we find that celibacy in general is a thing that is not good, whether it be on the side of the man or of the woman. Men may, in opposition to the declaration of God, call this a state of excellence and a state of perfection; but let them remember that the word of God says the reverse.

Clarke: Gen 2:19

Out of the ground, etc. - Concerning the formation of the different kinds of animals, see the preceding chapter, Genesis 1 (note).

Clarke: Gen 2:20

And Adam gave names to all cattle - Two things God appears to have had in view by causing man to name all the cattle, etc. 1. To show him with what comprehensive powers of mind his Maker had endued him; and 2. To show him that no creature yet formed could make him a suitable companion. And that this twofold purpose was answered we shall shortly see; for

1.    Adam gave names; but how? From an intimate knowledge of the nature and properties of each creature. Here we see the perfection of his knowledge; for it is well known that the names affixed to the different animals in Scripture always express some prominent feature and essential characteristic of the creatures to which they are applied. Had he not possessed an intuitive knowledge of the grand and distinguishing properties of those animals, he never could have given them such names. This one circumstance is a strong proof of the original perfection and excellence of man, while in a state of innocence; nor need we wonder at the account. Adam was the work of an infinitely wise and perfect Being, and the effect must resemble the cause that produced it

2.    Adam was convinced that none of these creatures could be a suitable companion for him, and that therefore he must continue in the state that was not good, or be a farther debtor to the bounty of his Maker; for among all the animals which he had named there was not found a help meet for him. Hence we read,

Clarke: Gen 2:21

The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, etc. - This was neither swoon nor ecstasy, but what our translation very properly terms a deep sleep

Clarke: Gen 2:21

And he took one of his ribs - It is immaterial whether we render צלע tsela a rib, or a part of his side, for it may mean either: some part of man was to be used on the occasion, whether bone or flesh it matters not; though it is likely, from verse Gen 2:23, that a part of both was taken; for Adam, knowing how the woman was formed, said, This is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone. God could have formed the woman out of the dust of the earth, as he had formed the man; but had he done so, she must have appeared in his eyes as a distinct being, to whom he had no natural relation. But as God formed her out of a part of the man himself, he saw she was of the same nature, the same identical flesh and blood, and of the same constitution in all respects, and consequently having equal powers, faculties, and rights. This at once ensured his affection, and excited his esteem.

Clarke: Gen 2:23

Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, etc. - There is a very delicate and expressive meaning in the original which does not appear in our version. When the different genera of creatures were brought to Adam, that he might assign them their proper names, it is probable that they passed in pairs before him, and as they passed received their names. To this circumstance the words in this place seem to refer. Instead of this now is זאת הפאם zoth happaam , we should render more literally this turn, this creature, which now passes or appears before me, is flesh of my flesh, etc. The creatures that had passed already before him were not suitable to him, and therefore it was said, For Adam there was not a help meet found, Gen 2:20; but when the woman came, formed out of himself, he felt all that attraction which consanguinity could produce, and at the same time saw that she was in her person and in her mind every way suitable to be his companion. See Parkhurst, sub voce

Clarke: Gen 2:23

She shall be called Woman - A literal version of the Hebrew would appear strange, and yet a literal version is the only proper one. איש ish signifies man, and the word used to express what we term woman is the same with a feminine termination, אשה ishshah , and literally means she-man. Most of the ancient versions have felt the force of the term, and have endeavored to express it as literally as possible. The intelligent reader will not regret to see some of them here. The Vulgate Latin renders the Hebrew virago , which is a feminine form of vir , a man. Symmachus uses ανδρις, andris , a female form of ανηρ, aner , a man. Our own term is equally proper when understood. Woman has been defined by many as compounded of wo and man, as if called man’ s wo because she tempted him to eat the forbidden fruit; but this is no meaning of the original word, nor could it be intended, as the transgression was not then committed. The truth is, our term is a proper and literal translation of the original, and we may thank the discernment of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors for giving it. The Anglo-Saxon word, of which woman is a contraction, means the man with the womb. A very appropriate version of the Hebrew אשה ishshah , rendered by terms which signify she-man, in the versions already specified. Hence we see the propriety of Adam’ s observation: This creature is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bones; therefore shall she be called Womb-Man, or female man, because she was taken out of man. See Verstegan. Others derive it from the Anglo-Saxon words for man’ s wife or she-man. Either may be proper, the first seems the most likely.

Clarke: Gen 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother - There shall be, by the order of God, a more intimate connection formed between the man and woman, than can subsist even between parents and children

Clarke: Gen 2:24

And they shall be one flesh - These words may be understood in a twofold sense

1.    These two shall be one flesh, shall be considered as one body, having no separate or independent rights, privileges, cares, concerns, etc., each being equally interested in all things that concern the marriage state

2.    These two shall be for the production of one flesh; from their union a posterity shall spring, as exactly resembling themselves as they do each other

Our Lord quotes these words, Mat 19:5, with some variation from this text: They Twain shall be one flesh. So in Mar 10:8. St. Paul quotes in the same way, 1Co 6:16, and in Eph 5:31. The Vulgate Latin, the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Samaritan, all read the word Two. That this is the genuine reading I have no doubt. The word שניהם sheneyhem , they two or both of them, was, I suppose, omitted at first from the Hebrew text, by mistake, because it occurs three words after in the following verse, or more probably it originally occurred in Gen 2:24, and not in Gen 2:25; and a copyist having found that he had written it twice, in correcting his copy, struck out the word in Gen 2:24 instead of Gen 2:25. But of what consequence is it? In the controversy concerning polygamy, it has been made of very great consequence. Without the word, some have contended a man may have as many wives as he chooses, as the terms are indefinite, They shall be, etc., but with the word, marriage is restricted. A man can have in legal wedlock but One wife at the same time

We have here the first institution of marriage, and we see in it several particulars worthy of our most serious regard

1.    God pronounces the state of celibacy to be a bad state, or, if the reader please, not a good one; and the Lord God said, It is not good for man to be alone. This is God’ s judgment. Councils, and fathers, and doctors, and synods, have given a different judgment; but on such a subject they are worthy of no attention. The word of God abideth for ever

2.    God made the woman for the man, and thus he has shown us that every son of Adam should be united to a daughter of Eve to the end of the world. See on 1Co 7:3 (note). God made the woman out of the man, to intimate that the closest union, and the most affectionate attachment, should subsist in the matrimonial connection, so that the man should ever consider and treat the woman as a part of himself: and as no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and supports it, so should a man deal with his wife; and on the other hand the woman should consider that the man was not made for her, but that she was made for the man, and derived, under God, her being from him; therefore the wife should see that she reverence her husband, Eph 5:33

Gen 2:23, Gen 2:24 contain the very words of the marriage ceremony: This is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone, therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. How happy must such a state be where God’ s institution is properly regarded, where the parties are married, as the apostle expresses it, in the Lord; where each, by acts of the tenderest kindness, lives only to prevent the wishes and contribute in every possible way to the comfort and happiness of the other! Marriage might still be what it was in its original institution, pure and suitable; and in its first exercise, affectionate and happy; but how few such marriages are there to be found! Passion, turbulent and irregular, not religion; custom, founded by these irregularities, not reason; worldly prospects, originating and ending in selfishness and earthly affections, not in spiritual ends, are the grand producing causes of the great majority of matrimonial alliances. How then can such turbid and bitter fountains send forth pure and sweet waters? See the ancient allegory of Cupid and Psyche, by which marriage is so happily illustrated, explained in the notes on Mat 19:4-6.

Clarke: Gen 2:25

They were both naked, etc. - The weather was perfectly temperate, and therefore they had no need of clothing, the circumambient air being of the same temperature with their bodies. And as sin had not yet entered into the world, and no part of the human body had been put to any improper use, therefore there was no shame, for shame can only arise from a consciousness of sinful or irregular conduct

Even in a state of innocence, when all was perfection and excellence, when God was clearly discovered in all his works, every place being his temple, every moment a time of worship, and every object an incitement to religious reverence and adoration - even then, God chose to consecrate a seventh part of time to his more especial worship, and to hallow it unto his own service by a perpetual decree. Who then shall dare to reverse this order of God? Had the religious observance of the Sabbath been never proclaimed till the proclamation of the law on Mount Sinai, then it might have been conjectured that this, like several other ordinances, was a shadow which must pass away with that dispensation; neither extending to future ages, nor binding on any other people. But this was not so. God gave the Sabbath, his first ordinance, to man, (see the first precept, Gen 2:17), while all the nations of the world were seminally included in him, and while he stood the father and representative of the whole human race; therefore the Sabbath is not for one nation, for one time, or for one place. It is the fair type of heaven’ s eternal day - of the state of endless blessedness and glory, where human souls, having fully regained the Divine image, and become united to the Centre and Source of all perfection and excellence, shall rest in God, unutterably happy through the immeasurable progress of duration! Of this consummation every returning Sabbath should at once be a type, a remembrancer, and a foretaste, to every pious mind; and these it must be to all who are taught of God

Of this rest, the garden of Eden, that paradise of God formed for man, appears also to have been a type and pledge; and the institution of marriage, the cause, bond, and cement of the social state, was probably designed to prefigure that harmony, order, and blessedness which must reign in the kingdom of God, of which the condition of our first parents in the garden of paradise is justly supposed to have been an expressive emblem. What a pity that this heavenly institution should have ever been perverted! that, instead of becoming a sovereign help to all, it is now, through its prostitution to animal and secular purposes, become the destroyer of millions! Reader, every connection thou formest in life will have a strong and sovereign influence on thy future destiny. Beware! an unholy cause, which from its peculiar nature must be ceaselessly active in every muscle, nerve, and passion, cannot fail to produce incessant effects of sin, misery, death, and perdition. Remember that thy earthly connections, no matter of what kind, are not formed merely for time, whatsoever thou mayest intend, but also for eternity. With what caution there fore shouldst thou take every step in the path of life! On this ground, the observations made in the preceding notes are seriously recommended to thy consideration.

Calvin: Gen 2:9

9.And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow The production here spoken of belongs to the third day of the creation. But Moses expressly declares the place to have been richly replenished with every kind of fruitful trees, that there might be a full and happy abundance of all things. This was purposely done by the Lord, to the end that the cupidity of man might have the less excuse if, instead of being contented with such remarkable affluence, sweetness, and variety, it should (as really happened) precipitate itself against the commandment of God. The Holy Spirit also designedly relates by Moses the greatness of Adam’s happiness, in order that his vile intemperance might the more clearly appear, which such superfluity was unable to restrain from breaking forth upon the forbidden fruit. And certainly it was shameful ingratitude, that he could not rest in a state so happy and desirable: truly, that was more than brutal lust which bounty so great was not able to satisfy. No corner of the earth was then barren, nor was there even any which was not exceedingly rich and fertile: but that benediction of God, which was elsewhere comparatively moderate, had in this place poured itself wonderfully forth. For not only was there an abundant supply of food, but with it was added sweetness for the gratification of the palate, and beauty to feast the eyes. Therefore, from such benignant indulgence, it is more than sufficiently evident, how inexplicable had been the cupidity of man.

The tree of life also It is uncertain whether he means only two individual trees, or two kinds of trees. Either opinion is probable, but the point is by no means worthy of contention; since it is of little or no concern to us, which of the two is maintained. There is more importance in the epithets, which were applied to each tree from its effect, and that not by the will of man but of God. ¹²² He gave the tree of life its name, not because it could confer on man that life with which he had been previously endued, but in order that it might be a symbol and memorial of the life which he had received from God. For we know it to be by no means unusual that God should give to us the attestation of his grace by external symbols. ¹²³ He does not indeed transfer his power into outward signs; but by them he stretches out his hand to us, because, without assistance, we cannot ascend to him. He intended, therefore, that man, as often as he tasted the fruit of that tree, should remember whence he received his life, in order that he might acknowledge that he lives not by his own power, but by the kindness of God alone; and that life is not (as they commonly speak) an intrinsic good, but proceeds from God. Finally, in that tree there was a visible testimony to the declaration, that ‘in God we are, and live, and move.’ But if Adams hitherto innocent, and of an upright nature, had need of monitory signs to lead him to the knowledge of divine grace, how much more necessary are signs now, in this great imbecility of our nature, since we have fallen from the true light? Yet I am not dissatisfied with what has been handed down by some of the fathers, as Augustine and Eucherius, that the tree of life was a figure of Christ, inasmuch as he is the Eternal Word of God: it could not indeed be otherwise a symbol of life, than by representing him in figure. For we must maintain what is declared in the first chapter of John (Joh 1:1,) that the life of all things was included in the Word, but especially the life of men, which is conjoined with reason and intelligence. Wherefore, by this sign, Adam was admonished, that he could claim nothing for himself as if it were his own, in order that he might depend wholly upon the Son of God, and might not seek life anywhere but in him. But if he, at the time when he possessed life in safety, had it only as deposited in the word of God, and could not otherwise retain it, than by acknowledging that it was received from Him, whence may we recover it, after it has been lost? Let us know, therefore, that when we have departed from Christ, nothing remains for us but death.

I know that certain writers restrict the meaning of the expression here used to corporeal life. They suppose such a power of quickening the body to have been in the tree, that it should never languish through age; but I say, they omit what is the chief thing in life, namely, the grace of intelligence; for we must always consider for what end man was formed, and what rule of living was prescribed to him. Certainly, for him to live, was not simply to have a body fresh and lively, but also to excel in the endowments of the soul.

Concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we must hold, that it was prohibited to man, not because God would have him to stray like a sheep, without judgment and without choice; but that he might not seek to be wiser than became him, nor by trusting to his own understanding, cast off the yoke of God, and constitute himself an arbiter and judge of good and evil. His sin proceeded from an evil conscience; whence it follows, that a judgment had been given him, by which he might discriminate between virtues and vices. Nor could what Moses relates be otherwise true, namely, that he was created in the image of God; since the image of God comprises in itself the knowledge of him who is the chief good. Thoroughly insane, therefore, and monsters of men are the libertines, who pretend that we are restored to a state of innocence, when each is carried away by his own lust without judgment. We now understand what is meant by abstaining from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; namely, that Adam might not, in attempting one thing or another, rely upon his own prudence; but that, cleaving to God alone, he might become wise only by his obedience. Knowledge is here, therefore, taken disparagingly, in a bad sense, for that wretched experience which man, when he departed from the only fountain of perfect wisdom, began to acquire for himself. And this is the origin of freewill, that Adam wished to be independent, ¹²⁴ and dared to try what he was able to do.

Calvin: Gen 2:10

10.And a river went out Moses says that one river flowed to water the garden, which afterwards would divide itself into four heads. It is sufficiently agreed among all, that two of these heads are the Euphrates and the Tigris; for no one disputes that הידקל ( Hiddekel) is the Tigris. But there is a great controversy respecting the other two. Many think, that Pison and Gihon are the Ganges and the Nile; the error, however, of these men is abundantly refuted by the distance of the positions of these rivers. Persons are not wanting who fly across even to the Danube; as if indeed the habitation of one man stretched itself from the most remote part of Asia to the extremity of Europe. But since many other celebrated rivers flow by the region of which we are speaking, there is greater probability in the opinion of those who believe that two of these rivers are pointed out, although their names are now obsolete. Be this as it may, the difficulty is not yet solved. For Moses divides the one river which flowed by the garden into four heads. Yet it appears, that the fountains of the Euphrates and the Tigris were far distant from each other. From this difficulty, some would free themselves by saying, that the surface of the globe may have been changed by the deluge; and, therefore, they imagine it might have happened that the courses of the rivers were disturbed and changed, and their springs transferred elsewhere; a solution which appears to me by no means to be accepted. For although I acknowledge that the earth, from the time that it was accursed, became reduced from its native beauty to a state of wretched defilement, and to a garb of mourning, and afterwards was further laid waste in many places by the deluge; still, I assert, it was the same earth which had been created in the beginning. Add to this, that Moses (in my judgment) accommodated his topography to the capacity of his age. Yet nothing is accomplished, unless we find that place where the Tigris and Euphrates proceed from one river. Observe, first, that no mention is made of a spring or fountain, but only that it is said, there was one river. But the four heads I understand to mean, both the beginnings from which the rivers are produced, and the mouths ¹²⁵ by which they discharge themselves into the sea. Now the Euphrates was formerly so joined by confluence with the Tigris, that it might justly be said, one river was divided into four heads; especially if what is manifest to all be conceded, that Moses does not speak acutely, nor in a philosophical manner, but popularly, so that every one least informed may understand him. Thus, in the first chapter, he called the sun and moon two great luminaries; not because the moon exceeded other planets in magnitude, but because, to common observation, it seemed greater. Add further, that he seems to remove all doubt when he says, that the river had four heads, because it was divided from that place. What does this mean, except that the channels were divided, out of one confluent stream, either above or below Paradise? I will now submit a plan to view, that the readers may understand where I think Paradise was placed by Moses. ¹²⁶

Pliny indeed relates, in his Sixth Book, that the Euphrates was so stopped in its course by the Orcheni, that it could not flow into the sea, except through the Tigris. ¹²⁷ And Pomponius Mela, in his Third Book, denies that it flowed by any given outlet, as other rivers, but says that it failed in its course. Nearchus, however, (whom Alexander had made commander of his fleet, and who, under his sanction, had navigated all these regions,) reckons the distance from the mouth of the Euphrates to Babylon, three thousand three hundred stadia. ¹²⁸ But he places the mouths of the Tigris at the entrance of Susiana; in which region, returning from that long and memorable voyage, he met the king with his fleet, as Adrian relates in his Eighth Book of the Exploits of Alexander. This statement Strabo also confirms by his testimony in his Fifteenth Book. Nevertheless, wherever the Euphrates either submerges or mingles its stream, it is certain, that it and the Tigris, below the point of their confluence, are again divided. Adrian, however, in his Seventh Book, writes that not one channel only of the Euphrates runs into the Tigris, but also many rivers and ditches, because waters naturally descend from higher to lower ground. With respect to the confluence, which I have noted in the plate, the opinion of some was, that it had been effected be the labor of the Praefect Cobaris, lest the Euphrates, by its precipitate course, should injure Babylon. But he speaks of it as of a doubtful matter. It is more credible, that men, by art and industry, followed the guidance of Nature in forming ditches, when they saw the Euphrates any where flowing of its own accord from the higher ground into the Tigris. Moreover, if confidence is placed in Pomponius Mela, Semiramis conducted the Tigris and Euphrates into Mesopotamia, which was previously dry; a thing by no means credible. There is more truth in the statement of Strabo, — a diligent and attentive writer, — in his Eleventh Book, that at Babylon these two rivers unite: and then, that each is carried separately, in its own bed, into the Red Sea. ¹²⁹ He understands that junction to have taken place above Babylon, not far from the town Massica, as we read in the Fifth Book of Pliny. Thence one river flows through Babylon, the other glides by Seleucia, two of the most celebrated and opulent cities. If we admit this confluence, by which the Euphrates was mixed with the Tigris, to have been natural, and to have existed from the beginning, all absurdity is removed. If there is anywhere under heaven a region preeminent in beauty, in the abundance of all kinds of fruit, in fertility, in delicacies, and in other gifts, that is the region which writers most celebrate. Wherefore, the eulogies with which Moses commends Paradise are such as properly belong to a tract of this description. And that the region of Eden was situated in those parts is probable from Isa 37:12 Eze 27:23. Moreover, when Moses declares that a river went forth, I understand him as speaking of the flowing of the stream; as if he had said, that Adam dwelt on the bank of the river, or in that land which was watered on both sides if you choose to take Paradise for both banks of the river. However, it makes no great difference whether Adam dwelt below the confluent stream towards Babylon and Seleucia, or in the higher part; it is enough that he occupied a well-watered country. How the river was divided into four heads is not difficult to understand. For there are two rivers which flow together into one, and then separate in different directions; thus, it is one at the point of confluence, but there are two heads ¹³⁰ in its upper channels, and two towards the sea; afterwards, they again begin to be more widely separated.

The question remains concerning the names Pison and Gihon. For it does not seem consonant with reason, to assign a double name to each of the rivers. But it is nothing new for rivers to change their names in their course, especially where there is any special mark of distinction. The Tigris itself (by the authority of Pliny) is called Diglito near its source; but after it has formed many channels, and again coalesces, it takes the name of Pasitigris. There is, therefore, no absurdity in saying, that after its confluence it had different names. Further there is some such affinity between Pasin and Pison, as to render it not improbable, that the name Pasitigris is a vestige of the ancient appellation. In the Fifth Book of Quintus Curtius, concerning the Exploits of Alexander, where mention is made of Pasitigris, some copies read, that it was called by the inhabitants Pasin. Nor do the other circumstances, by which Moses describes three of these rivers, in accord with this supposition. Pison surrounds ¹³¹ the land of Havila, where gold is produced. Surrounding is rightly attributed to the Tigris, on account of its winding course below Mesopotamia. The land of Havila, in my judgment, is here taken for a region adjoining Persia. For subsequently, in the twenty-fifth chapter (Gen 25:1,) Moses relates, that the Ishmaelites dwelt from Havila unto Shur, which is contiguous to Egypt, and through which the road lies into Assyria. Havila, as one boundary, is opposed to Shur as another, and this boundary Moses places near Egypt, on the side which lies towards Assyria. Whence it follows, that Havila (the other boundary) extends towards Susia and Persia. For it is necessary that it should lie below Assyria towards the Persian Sea; besides, it is placed at a great distance from Egypt; because Moses enumerates many nations which dwelt between these boundaries. ¹³² Then it appears that the Nabathaeans, ¹³³ of whom mention is there made, were neighbors to the Persian. Every thing which Moses asserts respecting gold and precious stones is most applicable to this district. ¹³⁴

The river Gihon still remains to be noticed, which, as Moses declares, waters the land of Chus. All interpreters translate this word Ethiopia; but the country of the Midianites, and the conterminous country of Arabia, are included under the same name by Moses; for which reason, his wife is elsewhere called an Ethiopian woman. Moreover, since the lower course of the Euphrates tends toward that region, I do not see why it should be deemed absurd, that it there receives the name of Gihon. And thus the simple meaning of Moses is, that the garden of which Adam was the possessor was well watered, the channel of a river passing that way, which was afterwards divided into four heads. ¹³⁵

Calvin: Gen 2:15

15.And the Lord God took the man Moses now adds, that the earth was given to man, with this condition, that he should occupy himself in its cultivation. Whence it follows that men were created to employ themselves in some work, and not to lie down in inactivity and idleness. This labor, truly, was pleasant, and full of delight, entirely exempt from all trouble and weariness; since however God ordained that man should be exercised in the culture of the ground, he condemned in his person, all indolent repose. Wherefore, nothing is more contrary to the order of nature, than to consume life in eating, drinking, and sleeping, while in the meantime we propose nothing to ourselves to do. Moses adds, that the custody of the garden was given in charge to Adam, to show that we possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on the condition, that being content with a frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. Let him who possesses a field, so partake of its yearly fruits, that he may not suffer the ground to be injured by his negligence; but let him endeavor to hand it down to posterity as he received it, or even better cultivated. Let him so feed on its fruits that he neither dissipates it by luxury, nor permits to be marred or ruined by neglect. Moreover, that this economy, and this diligence, with respect to those good things which God has given us to enjoy, may flourish among us; let every one regard himself as the steward of God in all things which he possesses. Then he will neither conduct himself dissolutely, nor corrupt by abuse those things which God requires to be preserved.

Calvin: Gen 2:16

16.And the Lord God commanded Moses now teaches, that man was the governor of the world, with this exception, that he should, nevertheless, be subject to God. A law is imposed upon him in token of his subjection; for it would have made no difference to God, if he had eaten indiscriminately of any fruit he pleased. Therefore the prohibition of one tree was a test of obedience. And in this mode, God designed that the whole human race should be accustomed from the beginning to reverence his Deity; as, doubtless, it was necessary that man, adorned and enriched with so many excellent gifts, should be held under restraint, lest he should break forth into licentiousness. There was, indeed, another special reason, to which we have before alluded, lest Adam should desire to be wise above measure; but this is to be kept in mind as God’s general design, that he would have men subject to his authority. Therefore, abstinence from the fruit of one tree was a kind of first lesson in obedience, that man might know he had a Director and Lord of his life, on whose will he ought to depend, and in whose commands he ought to acquiesce. And this, truly, is the only rule of living well and rationally, that men should exercise themselves in obeying God. It seems, however, to some as if this did not accord with the judgment of Paul, when he teaches, that the law was not made for the righteous, (1Ti 1:9.) For if it be so, then, when Adam was yet innocent and upright, he had no need of a law. But the solution is ready. For Paul is not there writing controversially; but from the common practice of life, he declares, that they who freely run, do not require to be compelled by the necessity of law; as it is said, in the common proverb, that ‘Good laws spring from bad manners.’ In the meantime, he does not deny that God, from the beginning, imposed a law upon man, for the purpose of maintaining the right due to himself. Should any one bring, as an objection, another statement of Paul, where he asserts that the “law is the minister of death,” (2Co 3:7,) I answer, it is so accidentally, and from the corruption of our nature. But at the time of which we speak, a precept was given to man, whence he might know that God ruled over him. These minute things, however I lightly pass over. What I have before said, since it is of far greater moment, is to be frequently recalled to memory, namely, that our life will then be rightly ordered, if we obey God, and if his will be the regulator of all our affections.

Of every tree To the end that Adam might the more willingly comply, God commends his own liberality. ‘Behold,’ he says, ‘I deliver into thy hand whatever fruits the earth may produce, whatever fruits every kind of tree may yield: from this immense profusion and variety I except only one tree.’ Then, by denouncing punishment, he strikes terror, for the purpose of confirming the authority of the law. So much the greater, then, is the wickedness of man, whom neither that kind commemoration of the gifts of God, nor the dread of punishment, was able to retain in his duty.

But it is asked, what kind of death God means in this place? It appears to me, that the definition of this death is to be sought from its opposite; we must, I say, remember from what kind of life man fell. He was, in every respect, happy; his life, therefore, had alike respect to his body and his soul, since in his soul a right judgment and a proper government of the affections prevailed, there also life reigned; in his body there was no defect, wherefore he was wholly free from death. His earthly life truly would have been temporal; yet he would have passed into heaven without death, and without injury. Death, therefore, is now a terror to us; first, because there is a kind of annihilation, as it respects the body; then, because the soul feels the curse of God. We must also see what is the cause of death, namely alienation from God. Thence it follows, that under the name of death is comprehended all those miseries in which Adam involved himself by his defection; for as soon as he revolted from God, the fountain of life, he was cast down from his former state, in order that he might perceive the life of man without God to be wretched and lost, and therefore differing nothing from death. Hence the condition of man after his sin is not improperly called both the privation of life, and death. The miseries and evils both of soul and body, with which man is beset so long as he is on earth, are a kind of entrance into death, till death itself entirely absorbs him; for the Scripture everywhere calls those dead who, being oppressed by the tyranny of sin and Satan, breath nothing but their own destruction. Wherefore the question is superfluous, how it was that God threatened death to Adam on the day in which he should touch the fruit, when he long deferred the punishment? For then was Adam consigned to death, and death began its reign in him, until supervening grace should bring a remedy.

Calvin: Gen 2:18

18.It is not good that the man should be alone ¹³⁶ Moses now explains the design of God in creating the woman; namely, that there should be human beings on the earth who might cultivate mutual society between themselves. Yet a doubt may arise whether this design ought to be extended to progeny, for the words simply mean that since it was not expedient for man to be alone, a wife must be created, who might be his helper. I, however, take the meaning to be this, that God begins, indeed, at the first step of human society, yet designs to include others, each in its proper place. The commencement, therefore, involves a general principle, that man was formed to be a social animal. ¹³⁷ Now, the human race could not exist without the woman; and, therefore, in the conjunction of human beings, that sacred bond is especially conspicuous, by which the husband and the wife are combined in one body, and one soul; as nature itself taught Plato, and others of the sounder class of philosophers, to speak. But although God pronounced, concerning Adam, that it would not be profitable for him to be alone, yet I do not restrict the declaration to his person alone, but rather regard it as a common law of man’s vocation, so that every one ought to receive it as said to himself, that solitude is not good, excepting only him whom God exempts as by a special privilege. Many think that celibacy conduces to their advantage, ¹³⁸ and therefore, abstain from marriage, lest they should be miserable. Not only have heathen writers defined that to be a happy life which is passed without a wife, but the first book of Jerome, against Jovinian, is stuffed with petulant reproaches, by which he attempts to render hallowed wedlock both hateful and infamous. To these wicked suggestions of Satan let the faithful learn to oppose this declaration of God, by which he ordains the conjugal life for man, not to his destruction, but to his salvation.

I will make him an help It may be inquired, why this is not said in the plural number, Let us make, as before in the creation of man. Some suppose that a distinction between the two sexes is in this manner marked, and that it is thus shown how much the man excels the woman. But I am better satisfied with an interpretation which, though not altogether contrary, is yet different; namely, since in the person of the man the human race had been created, the common dignity of our whole nature was without distinction, honored with one eulogy, when it was said, Let us make man; nor was it necessary to be repeated in creating the woman, who was nothing else than an accession to the man. Certainly, it cannot be denied, that the woman also, though in the second degree, was created in the image of God; whence it follows, that what was said in the creation of the man belongs to the female sex. Now, since God assigns the woman as a help to the man, he not only prescribes to wives the rule of their vocation to instruct them in their duty, but he also pronounces that marriage will really prove to men the best support of life. We may therefore conclude, that the order of nature implies that the woman should be the helper of the man. The vulgar proverb, indeed, is, that she is a necessary evil; but the voice of God is rather to be heard, which declares that woman is given as a companion and an associate to the man, to assist him to live well. I confess, indeed, that in this corrupt state of mankind, the blessing of God, which is here described, is neither perceived nor flourishes; but the cause of the evil must be considered, namely, that the order of nature, which God had appointed, has been inverted by us. For if the integrity of man had remained to this day such as it was from the beginning, that divine institution would be clearly discerned, and the sweetest harmony would reign in marriage; because the husband would look up with reverence to God; the woman in this would be a faithful assistant to him; and both, with one consent, would cultivate a holy, as well as friendly and peaceful intercourse. Now, it has happened by our fault, and by the corruption of nature, that this happiness of marriage has, in a great measure, perished, or, at least, is mixed and infected with many inconveniences. Hence arise strifes, troubles, sorrows, dissensions, and a boundless sea of evils; and hence it follows, that men are often disturbed by their wives, and suffer through them many discouragements. Still, marriage was not capable of being so far vitiated by the depravity of men, that the blessing which God has once sanctioned by his word should be utterly abolished and extinguished. Therefore, amidst many inconveniences of marriage, which are the fruits of degenerate nature, some residue of divine good remains; as in the fire apparently smothered, some sparks still glitter. On this main point hangs another, that women, being instructed in their duty of helping their husbands, should study to keep this divinely appointed order. It is also the part of men to consider what they owe in return to the other half of their kind, for the obligation of both sexes is mutual, and on this condition is the woman assigned as a help to the man, that he may fill the place of her head and leader. One thing more is to be noted, that, when the woman is here called the help of the man, no allusion is made to that necessity to which we are reduced since the fall of Adam; for the woman was ordained to be the man’s helper, even although he had stood in his integrity. But now, since the depravity of appetite also requires a remedy, we have from God a double benefit: but the latter is accidental.

Meet for him ¹³⁹ In the Hebrew it is כנגדו ( kenegedo,) “as if opposite to,” or “over against him.” כ ( Caph) in that language is a note of similitude. But although some of the Rabbies think it is here put as an affirmative, yet I take it in its general sense, as though it were said that she is a kind of counterpart, (ἀντίστοικον, or ἀντίστροφον; ¹⁴⁰) for the woman is said to be opposite to or over against the man, because she responds to him. But the particle of similitude seems to me to be added because it is a form of speech taken from common usage. ¹⁴¹ The Greek translators have faithfully rendered the sense, Κατ᾿’ αὐτόν; ¹⁴² and Jerome, “Which may be like him,” ¹⁴³ for Moses intended to note some equality. And hence is refitted the error of some, who think that the woman was formed only for the sake of propagation, and who restrict the word “good,” which had been lately mentioned, to the production of offspring. They do not think that a wife was personally necessary for Adam, because he was hitherto free from lust; as if she had been given to him only for the companion of his chamber, and not rather that she might be the inseparable associate of his life. Wherefore the particle כ ( caph) is of importance, as intimating that marriage extends to all parts and usages of life. The explanation given by others, as if it were said, Let her be ready to obedience, is cold; for Moses intended to express more, as is manifest from what follows.

Calvin: Gen 2:19

19.And out of the ground the Lord God formed, etc ¹⁴⁴ This is a more ample exposition of the preceding sentence, for he says that, of all the animals, when they had been placed in order, not one was found which might be conferred upon and adapted to Adam; nor was there such affinity of nature, that Adam could choose for himself a companion for life out of any one species. Nor did this occur through ignorance, for each species had passed in review before Adam, and he had imposed names upon them, not rashly but from certain knowledge; yet there was no just proportion between him and them. Therefore, unless a wife had been given him of the same kind with himself, he would have remained destitute of a suitable and proper help. Moreover, what is here said of God’s bringing the animals to Adam ¹⁴⁵ signifies nothing else than that he endued them with the disposition to obedience, so that they would voluntarily offer themselves to the man, in order that he, having closely inspected them, might distinguish them by appropriate names, agreeing with the nature of each. This gentleness towards man would have remained also in wild beasts, if Adam, by his defection from God, had not lost the authority he had before received. But now, from the time in which he began to be rebellious against God, he experienced the ferocity of brute animals against himself; for some are tamed with difficulty, others always remain unsubdued, and some, even of their own accord, inspire us with terror by their fierceness. Yet some remains of their former subjection continue to the present time, as we shall see in the second verse of the ninth chapter (Gen 9:2.) Besides, it is to be remarked that Moses speaks only of those animals which approach the nearest to man, for the fishes live as in another world. As to the names which Adam imposed, I do not doubt that each of them was founded on the best reason; but their use, with many other good things, has become obsolete.

Calvin: Gen 2:21

21.And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall, etc Although to profane persons this method of forming woman may seem ridiculous, and some of these may say that Moses is dealing in fables, yet to us the wonderful providence of God here shines forth; for, to the end that the conjunction of the human race might be the more sacred he purposed that both males and females should spring from one and the same origin. Therefore he created human nature in the person of Adam, and thence formed Eve, that the woman should be only a portion of the whole human race. This is the import of the words of Moses which we have had before, (Gen 1:28,) “God created man... he made them male and female.” In this manner Adam was taught to recognize himself in his wife, as in a mirror; and Eve, in her turn, to submit herself willingly to her husband, as being taken out of him. But if the two sexes had proceeded from different sources, there would have been occasion either of mutual contempt, or envy, or contentions. And against what do perverse men here object? ‘The narration does not seem credible, since it is at variance with custom.’ As if, indeed, such an objection would have more color than one raised against the usual mode of the production of mankind, if the latter were not known by use and experience. ¹⁴⁶ But they object that either the rib which was taken from Adam had been superfluous, or that his body had been mutilated by the absence of the rib. To either of these it may be answered, that they find out a great absurdity. If, however, we should say that the rib out of which he would form another body had been prepared previously by the Creator of the world, I find nothing in this answer which is not in accordance with Divine Providence. Yet I am more in favor of a different conjecture, namely, that something was taken from Adam, in order that he might embrace, with greater benevolence, a part of himself. He lost, therefore, one of his ribs; but, instead of it, a far richer reward was granted him, since he obtained a faithful associate of life; for he now saw himself, who had before been imperfect, rendered complete in his wife. ¹⁴⁷ And in this we see a true resemblance of our union with the Son of God; for he became weak that he might have members of his body endued with strength. In the meantime, it is to be noted, that Adam had been plunged in a sleep so profound, that he felt no pain; and further, that neither had the rupture been violent, nor was any want perceived of the lost rib, because God so filled up the vacuity with flesh, that his strength remained unimpaired; only the hardness of bone was removed. Moses also designedly used the word built, ¹⁴⁸ to teach us that in the person of the woman the human race was at length complete, which had before been like a building just begun. Others refer the expression to the domestic economy, as if Moses would say that legitimate family order was then instituted, which does not differ widely from the former exposition.

Calvin: Gen 2:22

22.And brought her, etc Moses now relates that marriage was divinely instituted, which is especially useful to be known; for since Adam did not take a wife to himself at his own will, but received her as offered and appropriated to him by God, the sanctity of marriage hence more clearly appears, because we recognize God as its Author. The more Satan has endeavored to dishonor marriage, the more should we vindicate it from all reproach and abuse, that it may receive its due reverence. Thence it will follow that the children of God may embrace a conjugal life with a good and tranquil conscience, and husbands and wives may live together in chastity and honor. The artifice of Satan in attempting the defamation of marriage was twofold: first, that by means of the odium attached to it he might introduce the pestilential law of celibacy; and, secondly, that married persons might indulge themselves in whatever license they pleased. Therefore, by showing the dignity of marriage, we must remove superstition, lest it should in the slightest degree hinder the faithful from chastely using the lawful and pure ordinance of God; and further, we must oppose the lasciviousness of the flesh, in order that men may live modestly with their wives. But if no other reason influenced us, yet this alone ought to be abundantly sufficient, that unless we think and speak honorably of marriage, reproach is attached to its Author and Patron, for such God is here described as being by Moses.

Calvin: Gen 2:23

23.And Adam said, etc It is demanded whence Adam derived this knowledge since he was at that time buried in deep sleep. If we say that his quickness of perception was then such as to enable him by conjecture to form a judgment, the solution would be weak. But we ought not to doubt that God would make the whole course of the affair manifest to him, either by secret revelation or by his word; for it was not from any necessity on God’s part that He borrowed from man the rib out of which he might form the woman; but he designed that they should be more closely joined together by this bonds which could not have been effected unless he had informed them of the fact. Moses does not indeed explain by what means God gave them this information; yet unless we would make the work of God superfluous, we must conclude that its Author revealed both the fact itself and the method and design of its accomplishment. The deep sleep was sent upon Adam, not to hide from him the origin of his wife, but to exempt him from pain and trouble, until he should receive a compensation so excellent for the loss of his rib.

This is now bone of, etc ¹⁴⁹ In using the expression הפעם ( hac vice,) Adam indicates that something had been wanting to him; as if he had said, Now at length I have obtained a suitable companion, who is part of the substance of my flesh, and in whom I behold, as it were, another self. And he gives to his wife a name taken from that of man, ¹⁵⁰ that by this testimony and this mark he might transmit a perpetual memorial of the wisdom of God. A deficiency in the Latin language has compelled the ancient interpreter to render אשה ( ishah,) by the word virago. It is, however, to be remarked, that the Hebrew term means nothing else than the female of the man.

Calvin: Gen 2:24

24.Therefore shall a man leave It is doubted whether Moses here introduces God as speaking, or continues the discourse of Adam, or, indeed, has added this, in virtue of his office as teacher, in his own person. ¹⁵¹ The last of these is that which I most approve. Therefore, after he has related historically what God had done, he also demonstrates the end of the divine institution. The sum of the whole is, that among the offices pertaining to human society, this is the principal, and as it were the most sacred, that a man should cleave unto his wife. And he amplifies this by a superadded comparison, that the husband ought to prefer his wife to his father. But the father is said to be left not because marriage severs sons from their fathers, or dispenses with other ties of nature, for in this way God would be acting contrary to himself. While, however, the piety of the son towards his father is to be most assiduously cultivated and ought in itself to be deemed inviolable and sacred, yet Moses so speaks of marriage as to show that it is less lawful to desert a wife than parents. Therefore, they who, for slight causes, rashly allow of divorces, violate, in one single particular, all the laws of nature, and reduce them to nothing. If we should make it a point of conscience not to separate a father from his son, it is a still greater wickedness to dissolve the bond which God has preferred to all others.

They shall be one flesh ¹⁵² Although the ancient Latin interpreter has translated the passage ‘in one flesh,’ yet the Greek interpreters have expressed it more forcibly: ‘They two shall be into one flesh,’ and thus Christ cites the place in Mat 19:5. But though here no mention is made of two, yet there is no ambiguity in the sense; for Moses had not said that God has assigned many wives, but only one to one man; and in the general direction given, he had put the wife in the singular number. It remains, therefore, that the conjugal bond subsists between two persons only, whence it easily appears, that nothing is less accordant with the divine institution than polygamy. Now, when Christ, in censuring the voluntary divorces of the Jews, adduces as his reason for doing it, that ‘it was not so in the beginning,’ (Mat 19:5,) he certainly commands this institution to be observed as a perpetual rule of conduct. To the same point also Malachi recalls the Jews of his own time:

‘Did he not make them one from the beginning? and yet the Spirit was abounding in him.’ ¹⁵³ (Mal 2:15.)

Wherefore, there is no doubt that polygamy is a corruption of legitimate marriage.

Calvin: Gen 2:25

25.They were both naked That the nakedness of men should be deemed indecorous and unsightly, while that of cattle has nothing disgraceful, seems little to agree with the dignity of human nature. We cannot behold a naked man without a sense of shame; yet at the sight of an ass, a dog, or an ox, no such feeling will be produced. Moreover, every one is ashamed of his own nakedness, even though other witnesses may not be present. Where then is that dignity in which we excel? The cause of this sense of shame, to which we are now alluding, Moses will show in the next chapter. He now esteems it enough to say, that in our uncorrupted nature, there was nothing but what was honorable; whence it follows, that whatsoever is opprobrious in us, must be imputed to our own fault, since our parents had nothing in themselves which was unbecoming until they were defiled with sin.

Defender: Gen 2:9

The "tree of life" was an actual tree, with real fruit (Gen 3:22; Rev 22:2) whose properties would have enabled even mortal men to live indefinitely. Though modern scientists may have difficulty in determining the nature of such a remarkable food, they also have been unable so far even to determine the basic physiological cause of aging and death. Thus it is impossible to say scientifically that no chemical substance could exist which might stabilize all metabolic processes and thereby prevent aging.

Defender: Gen 2:9

The same cautions apply to any discussions of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which likewise was genuinely physical. It is conceivable that the fruit contained substances capable of catalyzing physiological decay processes in the body, perhaps affecting even the genetic system. Whether or not this was the case, a "knowledge" of evil would necessarily follow its eating, since evil is fundamentally rejection of God's Word. Man had abundant knowledge of good already since everything God had made was "very good" (Gen 1:31), but disobedience would itself constitute an experimental knowledge of evil."

Defender: Gen 2:10

The geography described in these verses obviously corresponds to nothing in the present world, although some of the names sound familiar. The Noahic Flood was so cataclysmic in its effects (2Pe 3:6) that the primeval geography was obliterated, with the post-Flood continents and oceans being completely different.

The similarity of certain names (Ethiopia, Euphrates) is best explained in terms of the ascription by Noah or his sons of these names to postdiluvian features which reminded them of antediluvian geographic features, just as the explorers of America often gave European names to American sites."

Defender: Gen 2:11

The rivers described in this section could not have derived their waters from rainfall (Gen 2:5), and so must have been fed by artesian springs, or controlled fountains from the great deep. This implies a network of subterranean pressurized reservoirs and channels fed from the primeval seas and energized by the earth's internal heat (see note on Gen 1:9, Gen 1:10)."

Defender: Gen 2:12

The present tense in which this description is written indicates it to be an eye-witness account, and thus most likely a record originally from Adam himself. However, the past tense in Gen 2:10 "went" may suggest that at the time when Adam actually wrote it, the garden of Eden was no longer there.

Defender: Gen 2:12

The "bdellium" was evidently a precious gum, likened to the bread from heaven sent to the Israelites in the wilderness (Num 11:7)."

Defender: Gen 2:15

The ideal world, both before the entrance of sin and after the removal of sin (Rev 22:3) is not one of idleness and frolic, but one of serious activity and service. Adam was placed in an ideal environment and circumstances, so he had no excuse for rejecting God's love and authority."

Defender: Gen 2:17

For true fellowship with God (having been created in His image), man must be free to reject that fellowship. The restriction imposed here by God is the simplest, most straightforward test that could be devised for determining man's volitional response to God's love. There was only one minor restraint placed on Adam's freedom and, with an abundance of delicious fruit of all types available, there was no justification for his desiring the one forbidden fruit. Nevertheless, he did have a choice, and so was a free moral agent, capable of accepting or rejecting God's will.

Defender: Gen 2:17

"Thou shalt surely die" could be rendered, "Dying, thou shalt die!" In the very day that he would experimentally come to "know evil" through disobeying God's Word, he would die spiritually, being separated from God's direct fellowship. Adam would also begin to die physically, with the initiation of decay processes in his body ultimately causing his physical death."

Defender: Gen 2:18

The events described here all took place on the sixth day of the creation week after which God pronounced all things very good. All the animals had been created "male and female" (Gen 6:19) and instructed to "multiply on the earth" (Gen 1:24), but man still needed a "helper like him" (literal meaning)."

Defender: Gen 2:19

A better, and quite legitimate, translation is "had formed." Thus there is no contradiction with the order of creation in Genesis 1 (animals before man). The first chapter of Genesis gives a summary of the events on all six days of creation; the second chapter provides more details of certain events of the sixth day.

Defender: Gen 2:19

The animals named by Adam included only birds, domesticable animals, and the smaller wild animals that would live near him. It would be possible for him to name about 3,000 of the basic kinds of these animals in about five hours (one every six seconds), and this would be adequate both to acquaint Adam with those animals and also to show clearly that there were none who were sufficiently like him to provide companionship for him. This is still further proof that man did not evolve from any of the animals, even those that were most directly associated with him."

Defender: Gen 2:20

As far as fossil evidence is concerned, many fossils of true men have been found (Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, etc.) as well as fossils of true apes. The so-called hominids (Australopithecus, Homo erectus, etc.) are fragmentary and controversial even among evolutionists and can all be interpreted either as extinct apes or degenerated men."

Defender: Gen 2:21

The "deep sleep" was not simply an anesthetized state to prevent pain, since there was as yet no pain in the world. It was most likely ordained as a primeval picture of the future death of the second Adam, whose sacrificial death would result in the formation of His bride (2Co 11:2; Eph 5:30).

Defender: Gen 2:21

The "rib" was actually the "side" of Adam (the Hebrew tsela occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament and is nowhere else translated "rib"). The side contained both "bone" and "flesh" (Gen 2:23), but it may be that both are implied in the blood that would necessarily flow from the opened side. The "life of the flesh is in the blood" (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11) and a primeval blood "transfusion" would more perfectly fit the event as a type of the opened side of Christ on the cross (Joh 19:34-36). Even if the operation did actually extract a rib from Adam, this would not suggest that men should have one less rib than women, since "acquired characteristics" are not hereditable."

Defender: Gen 2:22

This remarkable record of the formation of the first woman could hardly have been invented by human imagination. Neither can it be interpreted in the context of theistic evolution, even if one could interpret the formation of Adam's body from the dust in evolutionary terms. Its historicity is confirmed in the New Testament (1Ti 2:13; 1Co 11:8). All other men have been born of woman, but the first woman was made from man."

Defender: Gen 2:24

The literal historicity of this event and its primary importance in human life are confirmed by both the Apostle Paul (Eph 5:30-31) and the Lord Jesus Christ (Mat 19:3-9; Mar 10:2-12). Although men and women through the ages have corrupted this divine institution in many ways (adultery, divorce, polygamy, homosexuality, etc.), "from the beginning it was not so" (Mat 19:8). The institution of the home is the first and most basic human institution and was intended to be monogamous and permanent until death. It is significant that cultures of all times and sorts have acknowledged the superiority of monogamy, even though they have not always practiced it. Such an awareness could not be a product of evolution since it does not characterize most animals, and thus can only be explained in terms of this primeval creation and revelation. Furthermore, the fact that it took place at the very beginning of creation, rather than billions of years after the beginning, was confirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (Mar 10:6)."

Defender: Gen 2:25

The lack of shame at nakedness was not because of a hardened conscience, as is true today, but because the physiological differences of Adam and Eve had been divinely created in accordance with God's purpose. They had been brought together by God with the express commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). At this time they were still without sin and thus without consciousness of moral guilt. Later, however, their sin brought an awareness that the springs of human life had been poisoned, both in themselves and in their progeny. This discovery made them painfully aware of their reproductive organs, and they were then "ashamed.""

TSK: Gen 2:9

every : Eze 31:8, Eze 31:9, Eze 31:16, Eze 31:18

tree of life : Gen 3:22; Pro 3:18, Pro 11:30; Eze 47:12; Joh 6:48; Rev 2:7, Rev 22:2, Rev 22:14

tree of knowledge : Gen 2:17, Gen 3:3, Gen 3:22; Deu 6:25; Isa 44:25, Isa 47:10; 1Co 8:1

TSK: Gen 2:10

a river : Psa 46:4; Rev 22:1

Eden : Eden denotes pleasure or delight; but was certainly the name of a place, and was, most probably, situated in Armenia, near the sources of the great rivers Euphrates, Tigris, Phasis, and Araxes.

TSK: Gen 2:11

Havilah : Gen 10:7, Gen 10:29, Gen 25:18; 1Sa 15:7

TSK: Gen 2:12

Bdellium is a transparent aromatic gum. The onyx is a precious stone, so called from a Greek word signifying a man’ s nail, to the colour of which it nearly approaches.

Num 11:7

onyx : Exo 28:20, Exo 39:13; Job 28:16; Eze 28:13

TSK: Gen 2:13

Gihon : The Araxes, which runs into the Caspian sea.

Ethiopia : Heb. Cush, The country of the ancient Cussaei. Gen 10:6; Isa 11:11

TSK: Gen 2:14

Hiddekel : Dan 10:4, The Tigris

toward the east of : or, eastward to, Gen 10:11, Gen 10:22, Gen 25:18

Euphrates : Gen 15:18; Deu 1:7, Deu 11:24; Rev 9:14

TSK: Gen 2:15

the man : or, Adam, Gen 2:2; Job 31:33

put : Gen 2:8; Psa 128:2; Eph 4:28

TSK: Gen 2:16

God : 1Sa 15:22

thou mayest freely eat : Heb. eating thou shalt eat, Gen 2:9, Gen 3:1, Gen 3:2; 1Ti 4:4, 1Ti 6:17

TSK: Gen 2:17

of the tree : Gen 2:9, Gen 3:1-3, Gen 3:11, Gen 3:17, Gen 3:19

surely : Gen 3:3, Gen 3:4, Gen 3:19, Gen 20:7; Num 26:65; Deu 27:26; 1Sa 14:39, 1Sa 14:44, 1Sa 20:31, 1Sa 22:16; 1Ki 2:37, 1Ki 2:42; Jer 26:8; Eze 3:18-20, Eze 18:4, Eze 18:13, Eze 18:32, Eze 33:8, Eze 33:14; Rom 1:32; Rom 5:12-21, Rom 6:16, Rom 6:23, Rom 7:10-13, Rom 8:2; 1Co 15:22, 1Co 15:56; Gal 3:10; Eph 2:1-6; Eph 5:14; Col 2:13; 1Ti 5:6; Jam 1:15; 1Jo 5:16; Rev 2:11, Rev 20:6, Rev 20:14; Rev 21:8

thou shalt surely die : Heb. dying thou shalt die

TSK: Gen 2:18

good : Gen 1:31, Gen 3:12; Rth 3:1; Pro 18:22; Ecc 4:9-12; 1Co 7:36

I will : Gen 3:12; 1Co 11:7-12; 1Ti 2:11-13; 1Pe 3:7

meet for him : Heb. as before him

TSK: Gen 2:19

And out : Gen 1:20-25

brought : Gen 2:22, Gen 2:23, Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Gen 6:20, Gen 9:2; Psa 8:4-8

Adam : or, the man, Gen 2:15

TSK: Gen 2:20

gave names to : Heb. called

but : Gen 2:18

TSK: Gen 2:21

Gen 15:12; 1Sa 26:12; Job 4:13, Job 33:15; Pro 19:15; Dan 8:18

TSK: Gen 2:22

made : Heb. builded, Psa 127:1; 1Ti 2:13

brought : Gen 2:19; Pro 18:22, Pro 19:14; Heb 13:4

TSK: Gen 2:23

bone : Gen 29:14; Jdg 9:2; 2Sa 5:1, 2Sa 19:13; Eph 5:30

flesh : Gen 2:24

Woman : Heb. Isha , 1Co 11:8, 1Co 11:9

taken : 1Co 11:8

Man : Heb. Ish

TSK: Gen 2:24

leave : Gen 24:58, Gen 24:59, Gen 31:14, Gen 31:15; Psa 45:10

cleave : Lev 22:12, Lev 22:13; Deu 4:4, Deu 10:20; Jos 23:8; Psa 45:10; Pro 12:4, Pro 31:10; Act 11:23

and they shall be one flesh : The LXX, Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Samaritan read, ""they two;""as is also read in several of the Parallel Passages. Mal 2:14-16; Mat 19:3-9; Mar 10:6-12; Rom 7:2; 1Co 6:16, 1Co 6:17, 1Co 7:2-4, 1Co 7:10; 1Co 7:11; Eph 5:28-31; 1Ti 5:14; 1Pe 3:1-7

TSK: Gen 2:25

naked : Gen 3:7, Gen 3:10, Gen 3:11

ashamed : Exo 32:25; Psa 25:3, Psa 31:17; Isa 44:9, Isa 47:3, Isa 54:4; Jer 6:15, Jer 17:13; Eze 16:61; Joe 2:26; Mar 8:38; Luk 9:26; Rom 10:11

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Gen 2:8-14

- XI. The Garden

8. גן gan "garden, park," παράδεισος paradeisos , "an enclosed piece of ground." עדן ‛ēden "Eden, delight." קדם qedem "fore-place, east; foretime."

11. פישׁון pı̂yshôn Pishon; related: "flow over, spread, leap." חוילה chăvı̂ylâh Chavilah. חול chôl "sand." חבל chebel "region."

12. בדלם b^e dolam , ἄνθραξ anthrax , "carbuncle,"(Septuagint) Βδέλλιον bdellion , a gum of eastern countries, Arabia, India, Media (Josephus, etc.). The pearl (Kimchi). שׁהם sohām πράσινος prasinos , "leeklike,"perhaps the beryl (Septuagint), ὄνυξ onux , "onyx, sardonyx,"a precious stone of the color of the nail (Jerome).

13. גיחון gı̂ychôn Gichon; related: "break forth." כוּשׁ kûsh Kush; r. "heap, gather?"

14. חדקל דגלא dı̂glā' chı̂ddeqel Dijlah, "Tigris." חדק chād , "be sharp. rapidus," פרת p^e rat Frat, Euphrates. The "sweet or broad stream."Old Persian, "frata,"Sanskrit, "prathu," πλατύς platus .

This paragraph describes the planting of the garden of Eden, and determines its situation. It goes back, therefore, as we conceive, to the third day, and runs parallel with the preceding passage.

Gen 2:8

And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden to the east. - It is evident that the order of thought is here observed. For the formation of man with special allusion to his animal nature immediately suggests the means by which his physical needs are to be supplied. The order of time is an open question so far as the mere conjunction of the sentences is concerned. It can only be determined by other considerations.

Here, then, the writer either relates a new creation of trees for the occasion, or reverts to the occurrences of the third day. But though in the previous verses he declares the field to be without timber, yet in the account of the third day the creation of trees is recorded. Now, it is unnecessary, and therefore unreasonable, to assume two creations of trees at so short an interval of time. In the former paragraph the author advanced to the sixth day, in order to lay before his readers without any interruption the means by which the two conditions of vegetative progress were satisfied. This brings man into view, and his appearance gives occasion to speak of the means by which his needs were supplied.

For this purpose, the author drops the thread of events following the creation of man, and reverts to the third day. He describes more particularly what was then done. A center of vegetation was chosen for the trees, from which they were to be propagated by seed over the land. This central spot is called a garden or park. It is situated in a region which is distinguished by its name as a land of delight. It is said, as we understand, to be in the eastern quarter of Eden. For the word מקדם mı̂qedem "on the east"is most simply explained by referring to some point indicated in the text. There are two points to which it may here refer - the place where the man was created, and the country in which the garden was placed. But the man was not created at this time, and, moreover, the place of his creation is not indicated; and hence, we must refer to the country in which the garden was placed.

And put there the man whom he had formed. - The writer has still the formation of man in thought, and therefore proceeds to state that he was thereupon placed in the garden which had been prepared for his reception, before going on to give a description of the garden. This verse, therefore, forms a transition from the field and its cultivator to the garden and its inhabitants.

Without the previous document concerning the creation, however, it could not have been certainly known that a new line of narrative was taken up in this verse. Neither could we have discovered what was the precise time of the creation of the trees. Hence, this verse furnishes a new proof that the present document was composed, not as an independent production, but as a continuation of the former.

Gen 2:9

Having located the newly-formed man of whom he had spoken in the preceding paragraph, the author now returns to detail the planting and the watering of the garden. "And the Lord God made to grow out of the soil every tree likely for sight and good for food."We look on while the ornamental trees rise to gratify the sight, and the fruit trees present their mellow fare to the craving appetite. But pre-eminent among all we contemplate with curious wonder the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. These will come under consideration at a future stage of our narrative.

Gen 2:10

Here is a river the source of which is in Eden. It passes into the garden and waters it. "And thence it was parted and became four heads."This statement means either that the single stream was divided into four branches, or that there was a division of the river system of the district into four principal streams, whose sources were all to be found in it, though one only passed through the garden. In the latter case the word נהר nâhār may be understood in its primary sense of a flowing of water in general. This flowing in all the parts of Eden resulted in four particular flowings or streams, which do not require to have been ever united. The subsequent land changes in this district during an interval of five or six thousand years prevent us from determining more precisely the meaning of the text.

Gen 2:11, Gen 2:12

The Pishon waters in its subsequent course the land of Havilah. This country is noted for the best gold, and for two other products, concerning which interpreters differ. Bedolach is, according to the Septuagint, the carbuncle or crystal; according to others, the pearl, or a particular kind of gum. The last is the more probable, if we regard the various Greek and Latin forms of the word: Βδέλλα bdella , Βδέλλιον bdellion , Josephus Ant. iii. 1, 6; οἱ δὲ μάδελκον hoi de madelkon , οἱ δὲ Βολχὸν καλοῦσι hoi de bolchon kalousi , Dioscor. i. 71; alii brochon appellant , alii malacham , alii maldacon , Pliny H. N. 12, 9. Pliny describes it as black, while the manna, which is compared with it Num 11:7, is white; but עין ‛ayı̂n the point of resemblance may refer not to color, but to transparence or some other visible quality. This transparent, aromatic gum is found in Arabia, Babylonia, Bactriana, Media, and India. Shoham is variously conjectured to be the beryl, onyx, sardonyx, or emerald. The first, according to Pliny, is found in India and about Pontus. As the name Pishon means the gushing or spouting current, it may have been applied to many a stream by the migratory tribes. The Halys perhaps contains the same root with Havilah; namely, הול hvl (Rawlinson’ s Her. i., p. 126); and it rises in Armenia (Herod. i. 72). The Chalybes in Pontus, perhaps, contain the same root. The Pishon may have been the Halys or some other stream flowing into the Black Sea.

Gen 2:13, Gen 2:14

Gihon, the second river, flows by the land of Kush. It is possible that the name Kush remains in Caucasus and in the Caspian. The Gihon is the stream that breaks or bursts forth; a quality common to many rivers. The name is preserved in the Jyhoon, flowing into the sea of Aral. Here it probably designates the leading stream flowing out of Armenia into the Caspian, or in that direction. Hiddekel, the third, goes in front, or on the east of Asshur. The original Asshur embraced northern Mesopotamia, as well as the slopes of the mountain range on the other side of the Tigris. Perath, the fourth, is the well-known Frat or Euphrates.

In endeavoring to determine the situation of Eden, it is evident we can only proceed on probable grounds. The deluge, and even the distance of time, warrant us in presuming great land changes to have taken place since this geographical description applied to the country. Let us see, however, to what result the simple reading of the text will lead us. A river is said to flow out of Eden into the garden. This river is not named, and may, in a primary sense of the term, denote the running water of the district in general. This is then said to be parted into four heads - the upper courses of four great rivers. One of these rivers is known to this day as the Frat or Euphrates. A second is with almost equal unanimity allowed to be the Dijlah or Tigris. The sources of these lie not far asunder, in the mountains of Armenia, and in the neighborhood of the lakes Van and Urumiah. Somewhere in this region must have been the celebrated but unnamed stream. The Hiddekel flowed east of Asshur; the primitive portion of which seems therefore to have been in Mesopotamia. The Gihon may have flowed into the Caspian, on the banks of which was the original Kush. The Pishon may have turned towards the Euxine, and compassed the primitive Havilah, lying to the south and east of that sea.

It may be said that the Kush and Havilah of later times belong to different localities. This, however, is no solid objection, on two grounds:

First. Geography affords numerous examples of the transferrence of names from one place to another along the line of migration. Thus, Galatia in Asia Minor would be inexplicable or misleading, did not history inform us that tribes from Gallia had settled there and given their name to the province. We may therefore expect names to travel with the tribes that bear them or love them, until they come to their final settlements. Hence, Kush may have been among the Caucasian glens and on the Caspian shores. In the progress of his development, whether northward or southward, he may have left his mark in Kossaea and Kissia, while he sent his colonies into southern Arabia Aethiopia and probably India.

Second. Countries agreeing in name may be totally unconnected either in time or place. Thus, in the table of nations we meet with two persons called Havilah Gen 10:7, Gen 10:29; the one a Kushite, who settled probably in the south of Arabia, the other a Joctanite, who occupied a more northerly locality in the same peninsula. A primitive Havilah, different from both, may have given his name to the region southeast of the Euxine.

The rivers Pishon and Gihon may have been greatly altered or even effaced by the deluge and other causes. Names similar to these may be found in various places. They cannot prove much more than resemblance in language, and that may be sometimes very remote. There is one other Gihon mentioned in Scripture 1Ki 1:33, and several like names occur in profane history. At first sight it seems to be stated that the one stream branched into four. If so, this community of origin has disappeared among the other changes of the country. But in the original text the words "and thence"come before the verb "parted."This verb has no subject expressed, and may have its subject implied in itself. The meaning of the sentence will then be, "and thence,"after the garden had been watered by the river, "it,"the river, or the water system of the country, "was parted into four heads."We cannot tell, and it is not material, which of these interpretations correctly represents the original fact.

According to the above view, the land and garden of Eden lay in Armenia, around the lakes Van and Urumiah, or the district where these lakes now are. The country here is to this day a land of delight, and very well suited in many respects to be the cradle of the human race. There is only one other locality that has any claim to probability from an examination of Scripture. It is the alluvial ground where the Euphrates and Tigris unite their currents, and then again separate into two branches, by which their waters are discharged into the Persian Gulf. The neck in which they are united is the river that waters the garden. The rivers, before they unite, and the branches, after they separate; are the four rivers. The claim of this position to acceptance rests on the greater contiguity to Kissia or Susiana, a country of the Kushites, on the one side and on the other to Havilah, a district of Arabia, as well as its proximity to Babel, where the confusion of tongues took place. These claims do not constrain our assent. Susiana is nearer the Tigris itself than the present eastern branch after the separation. Havilah is not very near the western branch. If Babel be near, Armenia, where the ark rested, is very far away. Against this position is the forced meaning it puts on the text by its mode of accounting for the four rivers. The garden river in the text rises in Eden, and the whole four have their upper currents in that land. All is different in the case here supposed. Again, the land of Shinar is a great wheat country, and abounds in the date palm. But it is not otherwise distinguished for trees. It is a land of the simoon, the mirage, and the drought, and its summer heat is oppressive and enfeebling. It cannot therefore claim to be a land of delight (Eden), either in point of climate or variety of produce. It is not, consequently, so well suited as the northern position, either to the description in the text or the requirements of primeval man.

It is evident that this geographical description must have been written long after the document in which it is found might have been composed. Mankind must have multiplied to some extent, have spread themselves along these rivers, and become familiar with the countries here designated. All this might have taken place in the lifetime of Adam, and so have been put on record, or handed down by tradition from an eye-witness. But it is remarkable that the three names of countries reappear as proper names among the descendants of Noah after the flood.

Hence, arises a question of great interest concerning the composition of the document in which they are originally found. If these names be primeval, the document in its extant form may have been composed in the time of Adam, and therefore before the deluge. In this case Moses has merely authenticated it and handed it down in its proper place in the divine record. And the sons of Noah, from some unexplained association, have adopted the three names and perpetuated them as family names. If, on the other hand, these countries are named after the descendants of Noah, the geographical description of the garden must have been composed after these men had settled in the countries to which they have given their names. At the same time, these territorial designations apply to a time earlier than Moses; hence, the whole document may have been composed in the time of Noah, who survived the deluge three hundred and fifty years, and may have witnessed the settlement and the designation of these countries. And, lastly, if not put together in its present form by any previous writer, then the document is directly from the pen of Moses, who composed it out of pre-existent memorials. And as the previous document was solely due to inspiration, we shall in this case be led to ascribe the whole of Genesis to Moses as the immediate human composer.

It must be admitted that any of these ways of accounting for the existing form of this document is within the bounds of possibility. But the question is, Which is the most probable? We are in a fair position for discussing this question in a dispassionate manner, and without any anxiety, inasmuch as on any of the three suppositions Moses, who lived long after the latest event expressed or implied, is the acknowledged voucher for the document before us. It becomes us to speak with great moderation and caution on a point of so remote antiquity. To demonstrate this may be one of the best results of this inquiry.

I. The following are some of the grounds for the theory that the names of countries in the document are original and antediluvian:

First, it was impossible to present to the postdiluvians in later terms the exact features and conditions of Eden, because many of these were obliterated. The four rivers no longer sprang from one. Two of the rivers remained, indeed, but the others had been so materially altered as to be no longer clearly distinguishable. The Euxine and the Caspian may now cover their former channels. In circumstances like these later names would not answer.

Second, though the name Asshur represents a country nearly suitable to the original conditions, Havilah and Kush cannot easily have their postdiluvian meanings in the present passage. The presumption that they have has led interpreters into vain and endless conjectures. Supposing Kush to be Aethiopia, many have concluded the Gihon to be the Nile, which in that case must have had the same fountain-head, or at least risen in the same region with the Euphrates. Others, supposing it to be a district of the Tigris, near the Persian Gulf, imagine the Gihon to be one of the mouths of the united Euphrates and Tigris, and thus, give a distorted sense to the statement that the four streams issued from one. This supposition, moreover, rests on the precarious hypothesis that the two rivers had always a common neck. The supposition that Havilah was in Arabia or on the Indian Ocean is liable to the same objections. Hence, the presumption that these names are postdiluvian embarrasses the meaning of the passage.

Third, if these names be primeval, the present document in its integrity may have been composed in the time of Adam; and this accounts in the most satisfactory manner for the preservation of these traditions of the primitive age.

Fourth, the existence of antediluvian documents containing these original names would explain in the simplest manner the difference in the localities signified by them before and after the deluge. This difference has tended to invalidate the authenticity of the book in the eyes of some; whereas the existence of antiquated names in a document, though failing to convey to us much historical information, is calculated to impress us with a sense of its antiquity and authenticity. And this is of more importance than a little geographical knowledge in a work whose paramount object is to teach moral and religious truth.

Fifth, it is the habit of the sacred writers not to neglect the old names of former writers, but to append to them or conjoin with them the later or better known equivalents, when they wish to present a knowledge of the place and its former history. Thus, "Bela, this is Zoar"Gen 14:2, Gen 14:8; "Kiriath-Arba, this is Hebron"Gen 33:2; "Ephrath, this is Bethlehem"Gen 35:19.

Sixth, these names would be orignally personal; and hence, we can see a sufficient reason why the sons of Noah renewed them in their families, as they were naturally disposed to perpetuate the memory of their distinguished ancestors.

II. The second hypothesis, that the present form of the document originated in the time of Noah, after the flood, is supported by the following considerations:

First, it accounts for the three names of countries in the easiest manner. The three descendants of Noah had by this time given their names to these countries. The supposition of a double origin or application of these names is not necessary.

Second, it accounts for the change in the localities bearing these names. The migrations and dispersions of tribes carried the names to new and various districts in the time intervening between Noah and Moses.

Third, it represents with sufficient exactness the locality of the garden. The deluge may not have greatly altered the general features of the countries. It may not be intended to represent the four rivers as derived from any common head stream; it may only be meant that the water system of the country gathered into four principal rivers. The names of all these are primeval. Two of them have descended to our days, because a permanent body of natives remained on their banks. The other two names have changed with the change of the inhabitants.

Fourth, it allows for primeval documents, if such existed of so early a date. The surviving document was prepared from such preexisting writings, or from oral traditions of early days, as yet unalloyed with error in the God-fearing family of Noah.

Fifth, it is favored by the absence of explanatory proper names, which we might have expected if there had been any change known at the time of composition.

III. The hypothesis that Moses was not merely the authenticator, but the composer of this as well as the preceding and subsequent documents of Genesis, has some very strong grounds.

First, it explains the local names with the same simplicity as in the preceding case (1).

Second, it allows for primeval and successive documents equally well (4), the rivers Pishon and Gihon and the primary Havilah and Kush being still in the memory of man, though they disappeared from the records of later times.

Third, it notifies with fidelity to the attentive reader the changes in the geographical designations of the past.

Fourth, it accounts for the occurrence of comparatively late names of localities in an account of primeval times.

Fifth, it explains the extreme brevity of these ancient notices. If documents had been composed from time to time and inserted in their original state in the book of God, it must have been a very voluminous and unmanageable record at a very early period.

These presumptions might now be summed up and compared, and the balance of probability struck, as is usually done. But we feel bound not to do so. First. We have not all the possibilities before us, neither is it in the power of human imagination to enumerate them, and therefore we have not the whole data for a calculation of probabilities. Second. We have enough to do with facts, without elevating probabilities into the rank of facts, and thereby hopelessly embarrassing the whole premises of our deductive knowledge. Philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of criticism, has suffered long from this cause. Its very first principles have been overlaid with foregone conclusions, and its array of seeming facts has been impaired and enfeebled by the presence of many a sturdy probability or improbability in the solemn guise of a mock fact. Third. The supposed fact of a set of documents composed by successive authors, duly labelled and handed down to Moses to be merely collected into the book of Genesis, if it was lurking in any mind, stands detected as only a probability or improbability at best. The second document implies facts, which are possibly not recorded until the fifth. Fourth. And, lastly, there is no impossibility or improbability in Moses being not the compiler but the immediate author of the whole of Genesis, though it be morally certain that he had oral or written memoranda of the past before his mind.

Barnes: Gen 2:15-17

- XII. The Command

15. נוּח nûach "rest, dwell." עבד ‛ābad "work, till, serve." שׁמר shāmar "keep, guard."

We have here the education of man summed up in a single sentence. Let us endeavor to unfold the great lessons that are here taught.

Gen 2:15

The Lord God took the man. - The same omnipotent hand that made him still held him. "And put him into the garden."The original word is "caused him to rest,"or dwell in the garden as an abode of peace and recreation. "To dress it and to keep it."The plants of nature, left to their own course, may degenerate and become wild through the poverty of the soil on which they alight, or the gradual exhaustion of a once rich soil. The hand of rational man, therefore, has its appropriate sphere in preparing and enriching the soil, and in distributing the seeds and training the shoots in the way most favorable for the full development of the plant, and especially of its seed or fruits. This "dressing"was needed even in the garden. The "keeping"of it may refer to the guarding of it by enclosure from the depredations of the cattle, the wild beasts, or even the smaller animals. It includes also the faithful preservation of it as a trust committed to man by his bounteous Maker. There was now a man to till the soil. The second need of the world of plants was now supplied. Gardening was the first occupation of primeval man.

Gen 2:16-17

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying. - This is a pregnant sentence. It involves the first principles of our intellectual and moral philosophy.

I. The command here given in words brings into activity the intellectual nature of man. First, the power of understanding language is called forth. The command here addressed to him by his Maker is totally different from the blessings addressed to the animals in the preceding chapter. It was not necessary that these blessings should be understood in order to be carried into effect, inasmuch as He who pronounced them gave the instincts and powers requisite to their accomplishment. But this command addressed to man in words must be understood in order to be obeyed. The capacity for understanding language, then, was originally lodged in the constitution of man, and only required to be called out by the articulate voice of God. Still there is something wonderful here, something beyond the present grasp and promptitude of human apprehension. If we except the blessing, which may not have been heard, or may not have been uttered before this command, these words were absolutely the first that were heard by man.

The significance of the sentences they formed must have been at the same time conveyed to man by immediate divine teaching. How the lesson was taught in an instant of time we cannot explain, though we have a distant resemblance of it in an infant learning to understand its mother-tongue. This process, indeed, goes over a space of two years; but still there is an instant in which the first conception of a sign is formed, the first word is apprehended, the first sentence is understood. In that instant the knowledge of language is virtually attained. With man, created at once in his full though undeveloped powers, and still unaffected by any moral taint, this instant came with the first words spoken to his ear and to his soul by his Maker’ s impressive voice, and the first lesson of language was at once thoroughly taught and learned. Man is now master of the theory of speech; the conception of a sign has been conveyed into his mind. This is the passive lesson of elocution: the practice, the active lesson, will speedily follow.

Not only the secondary part, however, but at the same time the primary and fundamental part of man’ s intellectual nature is here developed. The understanding of the sign necessarily implies the knowledge of the thing signified. The objective is represented here by the "trees of the garden."The subjective comes before his mind in the pronoun "thou."The physical constitution of man appears in the process of "eating."The moral part of his nature comes out in the significance of the words "mayest"and "shalt not."The distinction of merit in actions and things is expressed in the epithets "good and evil."The notion of reward is conveyed in the terms "life"and "death."And, lastly, the presence and authority of "the Lord God"is implied in the very nature of a command. Here is at least the opening of a wide field of observation for the nascent powers of the mind. He, indeed, must bear the image of God in perceptive powers, who shall scan with heedful eye the loftiest as well as the lowest in these varied scenes of reality. But as with the sign, so with the thing signified, a glance of intelligence instantaneously begins the converse of the susceptible mind with the world of reality around, and the enlargement of the sphere of human knowledge is merely a matter of time without end. How rapidly the process of apprehension would go on in the opening dawn of man’ s intellectual activity, how many flashes of intelligence would be compressed into a few moments of his first consciousness, we cannot tell. But we can readily believe that he would soon be able to form a just yet an infantile conception of the varied themes which are presented to his mind in this brief command.

Thus, the susceptible part of man’ s intellect is evoked. The conceptive part will speedily follow, and display itself in the many inventions that will be sought out and applied to the objects which are placed at his disposal.

II. First. Next, the moral part of man’ s nature is here called into play. Mark God’ s mode of teaching. He issues a command. This is required in order to bring forth into consciousness the hitherto latent sensibility to moral obligation which was laid in the original constitution of man’ s being. A command implies a superior, whose right it is to command, and an inferior, whose duty it is to obey. The only ultimate and absolute ground of supremacy is creating, and of inferiority, being created. The Creator is the only proper and entire owner; and, within legitimate bounds, the owner has the right to do what he will with his own. The laying on of this command, therefore, brings man to the recognition of his dependence for being and for the character of that being on his Maker. From the knowledge of the fundamental relation of the creature to the Creator springs an immediate sense of the obligation he is under to render implicit obedience to the Author of his being. This is, therefore, man’ s first lesson in morals. It calls up in his breast the sense of duty, of right, of responsibility. These feelings could not have been elicited unless the moral susceptibility had been laid in the soul, and only waited for the first command to awaken it into consciousness. This lesson, however, is only the incidental effect of the command, and not the primary ground of its imposition.

Second. The special mandate here given is not arbitrary in its form, as is sometimes hastily supposed, but absolutely essential to the legal adjustment of things in this new stage of creation. Antecedent to the behest of the Creator, the only indefeasible right to all the creatures lay in himself. These creatures may be related to one another. In the great system of things, through the wonderful wisdom of the grand Designer, the use of some may be needful to the well-being, the development, and perpetuation of others. Nevertheless, no one has a shadow of right in the original nature of things to the use of any other. And when a moral agent comes upon the stage of being, in order to mark out the sphere of his legitimate action, an explicit declaration of the rights over other creatures granted and reserved must be made. The very issue of the command proclaims man’ s original right of property to be, not inherent, but derived.

As might be expected in these circumstances, the command has two clauses, - a permissive and a prohibitive. "Of every tree of the garden thou mayst freely eat."This displays in conspicuous terms the benignity of the Creator. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat."This signalizes the absolute right of the Creator over all the trees, and over man himself. One tree only is withheld, which, whatever were its qualities, was at all events not necessary to the well-being of man. All the others that were likely for sight and good for food, including the tree of life, are made over to him by free grant. In this original provision for the vested rights of man in creation, we cannot but acknowledge with gratitude and humility the generous and considerate bounty of the Creator. This is not more conspicuous in the bestowment of all the other trees than in the withholding of the one, the participation of which was fraught with evil to mankind.

Third. The prohibitory part of this enactment is not a matter of indifference, as is sometimes imagined, but indispensable to the nature of a command, and, in particular, of a permissive act or declaration of granted rights. Every command has a negative part, expressed or implied, without which it would be no command at all. The command, "Go work today in my vineyard,"implies thou shalt not do anything else; otherwise the son who works not obeys as well as the son who works. The present address of God to Adam, without the exceptive clause, would be a mere license, and not a command. But with the exceptive clause it is a command, and tantamount in meaning to the following positive injunction: Thou mayest eat of these trees only. An edict of license with a restrictive clause is the mildest form of command that could have been imposed for the trial of human obedience. Some may have thought that it would have been better for man if there had been no tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

But second thoughts will correct this rash and wrong conclusion. First. This tree may have had other purposes to serve in the economy of things of which we are not aware; and, if so, it could not have been absent without detriment to the general good. Second. But without any supposition at all, the tree was fraught with no evil whatever to man in itself. It was in the first instance the instrument of great good, of the most precious kind, to him. It served the purpose of calling up into view out of the depths of his nature the notion of moral obligation, with all the kindred notions of the inherent authority of the Creator and the innate subordination of himself, the creature, of the aboriginal right of the Creator alone in all the creatures, and the utter absence of any right in himself to any other creature whatsoever. The command concerning this tree thus set his moral convictions agoing, and awakened in him the new and pleasing consciousness that he was a moral being, and not a mere clod of the valley or brute of the field.

This is the first thing this tree did for man; and we shall find it would have done a still better thing for him if he had only made a proper use of it. Third. The absence of this tree would not at all have secured Adam from the possibility or the consequence of disobedience. Any grant to him whatsoever must have been made "with the reserve,"implicit or explicit, of the rights of all others. "The thing reserved"must in equity have been made known to him. In the present course of things it must have come in his way, and his trial would have been inevitable, and therefore his fall possible. Now, the forbidden tree is merely the thing reserved. Besides, even if man had been introduced into a sphere of existence where no reserved tree or other thing could ever have come within the range of his observation, and so no outward act of disobedience could have been perpetrated, still, as a being of moral susceptibility, he must come to the acknowledgment, express or implied, of the rights of the heavenly crown, before a mutual good understanding could have been established between him and his Maker. Thus, we perceive that even in the impossible Utopia of metaphysical abstraction there is a virtual forbidden tree which forms the test of a man’ s moral relation to his Creator. Now, if the reserve be necessary, and therefore the test of obedience inevitable, to a moral being, it only remains to inquire whether the test employed be suitable and seasonable.

Fourth. What is here made the matter of reserve, and so the test of obedience, is so far from being trivial or out of place, as has been imagined, that it is the proper and the only object immediately available for these purposes. The immediate need of man is food. The kind of food primarily designed for him is the fruit of trees. Grain, the secondary kind of vegetable diet, is the product of the farm rather than of the garden, and therefore does not now come into use. As the law must be laid down before man proceeds to an act of appropriation, the matter of reserve and consequent test of obedience is the fruit of a tree. Only by this can man at present learn the lessons of morality. To devise any other means, not arising from the actual state of things in which man was placed, would have been arbitrary and unreasonable. The immediate sphere of obedience lies in the circumstances in which he actually stands. These afforded no occasion for any other command than what is given. Adam had no father, or mother, or neighbor, male or female, and therefore the second table of the law could not apply. But he had a relation to his Maker, and legislation on this could not be postponed. The command assumes the kindest, most intelligible, and convenient form for the infantile mind of primeval man.

Fifth. We are now prepared to understand why this tree is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The prohibition of this tree brings man to the knowledge of good and evil. The products of creative power were all very good Gen 1:31. Even this tree itself is good, and productive of unspeakable good in the first instance to man. The discernment of merit comes up in his mind by this tree. Obedience to the command of God not to partake of this tree is a moral good. Disobedience to God by partaking of it is a moral evil. When we have formed an idea of a quality, we have at the same time an idea of its contrary. By the command concerning this tree man became possessed of the conceptions of good and evil, and so, theoretically, acquainted with their nature. This was that first lesson in morals of which we have spoken. It is quite evident that this knowledge could not be any physical effect of the tree, seeing its fruit was forbidden. It is obvious also that evil is as yet known in this fair world only as the negative of good. Hence, the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because by the command concerning it man comes to this knowledge.

Sixth. "In the day of thy eating thereof, die surely shalt thou."The divine command is accompanied with its awful sanction - death. The man could not at this time have any practical knowledge of the physical dissolution called death. We must, therefore, suppose either that God made him preternaturally acquainted with it, or that he conveyed to him the knowledge of it simply as the negation of life. The latter hypothesis is to be preferred, for several reasons. First, it is the more economical mode of instruction. Such knowledge may be imparted to man without anticipating experience. He was already conscious of life as a pure blessing. He was therefore capable of forming an idea of its loss. And death in the physical sense of the cessation of animal life and the disorganization of the body, he would come to understand in due time by experience. Secondly, death in reference to man is regarded in Scripture much more as the privation of life in the sense of a state of favor with God and consequent happiness than as the mere cessation of animal life Gen 28:13; Exo 3:6; Mat 22:32. Thirdly, the presence and privilege of the tree of life would enable man to see how easily he could be deprived of life, especially when he began to drink in its life-sustaining juices and feel the flow of vitality rushing through his veins and refreshing his whole physical nature. Take away this tree, and with all the other resources of nature he cannot but eventually droop and die. Fourthly, the man would thus regard his exclusion from the tree of life as the earnest of the sentence which would come to its fullness, when the animal frame would at length sink down under the wear and tear of life like the beasts that perish. Then would ensue to the dead but perpetually existing soul of man the total privation of all the sweets of life, and the experience of all the ills of penal death.

III. Man has here evidently become acquainted with his Maker. On the hearing and understanding of this sentence, at least, if not before, he has arrived at the knowledge of God, as existing, thinking, speaking, permitting, commanding, and thereby exercising all the prerogatives of that absolute authority over people and things which creation alone can give. If we were to draw all this out into distinct propositions, we should find that man was here furnished with a whole system of theology, ethics, and metaphysics, in a brief sentence. It may be said, indeed, that we need not suppose all this conveyed in the sentence before us. But, at all events, all this is implied in the few words here recorded to have been addressed to Adam, and there was not much time between his creation and his location in the garden for conveying any preliminary information. We may suppose the substance of the narrative contained in Gen 1:2-3, to have been communicated to him in due time. But it could not be all conveyed yet, as we are only in the sixth day, and the record in question reaches to the end of the seventh. It was not, therefore, composed until after that day had elapsed.

It is to be noticed here that God reserves to himself the administration of the divine law. This was absolutely necessary at the present stage of affairs, as man was but an individual subject, and not yet spread out into a multitude of people. Civil government was not formally constituted till after the deluge.

We can hardly overestimate the benefit, in the rapid development of his mind, which Adam thus derived from the presence and converse of his Maker. If no voice had struck his car, no articulate sentence had reached his intellect, no authoritative command had penetrated his conscience, no perception of the Eternal Spirit had been presented to his apprehension, he might have been long in the mute, rude, and imperfectly developed state which has sometimes been ascribed to primeval man. But if contact with a highly-accomplished master and a highly-polished state of society makes all the difference between the savage and the civilized, what instantaneous expansion and elevation of the primitive mind, while yet in its virgin purity and unimpaired power, must have resulted from free converse with the all-perfect mind of the Creator himself! To the clear eye of native genius a starting idea is a whole science. By the insinuation of a few fundamental and germinant notions into his mind, Adam shot up at once into the full height and compass of a master spirit prepared to scan creation and adore the Creator.

Barnes: Gen 2:18

- XIII. The Naming of the Animals

Here man’ s intellectual faculties proceed from the passive and receptive to the active and communicative stage. This advance is made in the review and designation of the various species of animals that frequent the land and skies.

A new and final need of man is stated in Gen 2:18. The Creator himself, in whose image he was made, had revealed himself to him in language. This, among many other effects, awakened the social affection. This affection was the index of social capacity. The first step towards communication between kindred spirits was accomplished when Adam heard and understood spoken language. Beyond all this God knew what was in the man whom he had formed. And he expresses this in the words, "It is not good for the man to be alone."He is formed to be social, to hold converse, not only with his superior, but also with his equal. As yet he is but a unit, an individual. He needs a mate, with whom he may take sweet counsel. And the benevolent Creator resolves to supply this want. "I will make him a helpmeet for him"- one who may not only reciprocate his feelings, but take an intelligent and appropriate part in his active pursuits.

Barnes: Gen 2:19

Here, as in several previous instances Gen 1:5; Gen 2:4, Gen 2:8-9, the narrative reverts to the earlier part of the sixth day. This is, therefore, another example of the connection according to thought overruling that according to time. The order of time, however, is restored, when we take in a sufficient portion of the narrative. We refer, therefore, to the fifth verse, which is the regulative sentence of the present passage. The second clause in the verse, however, which in the present case completes the thought in the mind of the writer, brings up the narrative to a point subsequent to that closing the preceding verse. The first two clauses, therefore, are to be combined into one; and when this is done, the order of time is observed.

Man has already become acquainted with his Maker. He has opened his eyes upon the trees of the garden, and learned to distinguish at least two of them by name. He is now to be introduced to the animal kingdom, with which he is connected by his physical nature, and of which he is the constituted lord. Not many hours or minutes before have they been called into existence. They are not yet, therefore, multiplied or scattered over the earth, and so do not require to be gathered for the purpose. The end of this introduction is said to be to see what he would call them. To name is to distinguish the nature of anything and do denote the thing by a sound bearing some analogy to its nature. To name is also the prerogative of the owner, superior, or head. Doubtless the animals instinctively distinguished man as their lord paramount, so far as his person and eye came within their actual observation. God had given man his first lesson in speech, when he caused him to hear and understand the spoken command. He now places him in a condition to put forth his naming power, and thereby go through the second lesson.

With the infant, the acquisition of language must be a gradual process, inasmuch as the vast multitude of words which constitute its vocabulary has to be heard one by one and noted in the memory. The infant is thus the passive recipient of a fully formed and long-established medium of converse. The first man, on the other hand, having received the conception of language, became himself the free and active inventor of the greatest part of its words. He accordingly discerns the kinds of animals, and gives each its appropriate name. The highly-excited powers of imagination and analogy break forth into utterance, even before he has anyone to hear and understand his words but the Creator himself.

This indicates to us a twofold use of language. First, it serves to register things and events in the apprehension and the memory. Man has a singular power of conferring with himself. This he carries on by means of language, in some form or other. He bears some resemblance to his Maker even in the complexity of his spiritual nature. He is at once speaker and hearer, and yet at the same time he is consciously one. Secondly, it is a medium of intelligent communication between spirits who cannot read another’ s thoughts by immediate intuition. The first of these uses seems to have preceded the second in the case of Adam, who was the former of the first language. The reflecting reader can tell what varied powers of reason are involved in the use of language, and to what an extent the mind of man was developed, when he proceeded to name the several classes of birds and beasts. He was evidently suited for the highest enjoyments of social contact.

Among the trees in the garden God took the initiative, named the two that were conspicuous and essential to man’ s well being, and uttered the primeval command. Adam has now made acquaintance with the animal world, and, profiting by the lesson of the garden, proceeds himself to exercise the naming power. The names he gives are thenceforth the permanent designations of the different species of living creatures that appeared before him. These names being derived from some prominent quality, were suited to be specific, or common to the class, and not special to the individual.

Barnes: Gen 2:20

We find, however, there was another end served by this review of the animals. "There was not found a helpmeet for the man"- an equal, a companion, a sharer of his thoughts, his observations, his joys, his purposes, his enterprises. It was now evident, from actual survey, that none of these animals, not even the serpent, was possessed of reason, of moral and intellectual ideas, of the faculties of abstracting and naming, of the capacities of rational fellowship or worship. They might be ministers to his purposes, but not helpers meet for him. On the other hand, God was the source of his being and the object of his reverence, but not on a par with himself in needs and resources. It was therefore apparent that man in respect of an equal was alone, and yet needed an associate. Thus, in this passage the existence of the desire is made out and asserted; in keeping with the mode of composition uniformly pursued by the sacred writer Gen 1:2; Gen 2:5.

Barnes: Gen 2:21-22

- XIV. The Woman

21. תרדמה tardēmâh , "deep sleep," ἔκστασις ekstasis , Septuagint. צלע tsēlā‛ , "rib, side, wing of a building."

23. פעם pa‛am , "beat, stroke, tread, anvil." אישׁ 'ı̂ysh , "man,"vir. אשׁה 'āshah , "be firm, as a foundation;" ישׁה yāshah , "be firm as a substance;" אנש 'ānash , "be strong;" אושׁ 'ûsh , "to give help: hence, the strong, the brave, the defender, the nourisher." אשׂה 'ı̂śâh , "woman,"feminine of the above; "wife."

The second creative step in the constitution of man as the natural head of a race is now described. This supplies the defect that was drawn forth into consciousness in the preceding passage. Man here passes out of solitude into society, out of unity into multiplicity.

Here we find ourselves still in the sixth day. This passage throws a new light on Gen 1:27. It is there stated that man was first created in the image of God, and then that he was created male and female. From the present passage we learn that these two acts of creation were distinct in point of time. First, we see man was really one in his origin, and contained in this unity the perfection of manhood. It does not appear, however, that man was so constituted by nature as to throw off another of the same kind by his inherent power. In fact, if he had, the other should have been, not a female, but another human being in every respect like himself; and he would thus have resembled those plants that are capable of being propagated by a bud. Besides, he would have been endowed with a power different from his actual posterity; and thus the head would not have corresponded with the members of the race.

The narrative, however, is opposed to this view of man’ s nature. For the change, by which the woman comes into existence, is directly ascribed to the original Maker. A part of the man is taken for the purpose, which can be spared without interfering with the integrity of his nature. It manifestly does not constitute a woman by the mere act of separation, as we are told that the Lord God built it into a woman. It is needless, therefore, to speculate whether the part taken were literally a rib, or some other side piece designedly put there by the provident Creator, for the purpose of becoming the rudiment of a full-grown woman. It is expressly called, not A rib, but one of his ribs; and this evidently implies that he had other similar parts. This binds us, we conceive, to the literal rib of bone and flesh. And thus, in accordance with the account in the foregoing chapter, we have, first, the single man created, the full representative and potential fountain of the race, and then, out of this one, in the way now described, we have the male and the female created.

The original unity of man constitutes the strict unity of the race. The construction of the rib into a woman establishes the individuality of man’ s person before, as well as after, the removal of the rib. The selection of a rib to form into a woman constitutes her, in an eminent sense, a helpmeet for him, in company with him, on a footing of equality with him. At the same time, the after building of the part into a woman determines the distinct personality and individuality of the woman. Thus, we perceive that the entire race, even the very first mother of it, has its essential unit and representative in the first man.

The Almighty has called intelligent beings into existence in two ways. The angels he seems to have created as individuals Mar 12:25, constituting an order of beings the unity of which lies in the common Creator. Man he created as the parent of a race about to spring from a single head, and having its unity in that head. A single angel then stands by himself, and for himself; and all his actions belong only to himself, except so far as example, persuasion, or leadership may have involved others in them. But the single man, who is at the same time head of a race, is in quite a different position. He stands for the race, which is virtually contained in him; and his actions belong not only to him as an individual, but, in a certain sense, to the whole race, of which he is at present the sum. An angel counts only for the unit of his order. The first man counts for the whole race as long as he is alone. The one angel is responsible only for himself. The first man is not only an individual, but, as long as he is alone, the sum total of a race; and is therefore so long responsible, not only for himself, but for the race, as the head of which he acts. This deep question of race will meet us again at a future stage of man’ s history.

Since the All-wise Being never does anything without reason, it becomes an interesting question, why the creation of woman was deferred to this precise juncture in human history. First, man’ s original unity is the counterpart of the unity of God. He was to be made in the image of God, and after his likeness. If the male and the female had been created at once, an essential feature of the divine likeness would have been missing. But, as in the absolute One there is no duality, whether in sex or in any other respect, so is there none in the original form and constitution of man. Hence, we learn the absurdity of those who import into their notions of the deity the distinction of sex, and all the alliances which are involved in a race of gods. Secondly, the natural unity of the first pair, and of the race descended from them, is established by the primary creation of an individual, from whom is derived, by a second creative process, the first woman.

The race of man is thus a perfect unity, flowing from a single center of human life. Thirdly, two remarkable events occur in the experience of man before the formation of the woman, - his installment in the garden as its owner, keeper, and dresser; and his review of the animals, as their rational superior, to whom they yield an instinctive homage. By the former he is prepared to provide for the sustenance and comfort of his wife; by the latter, he becomes aware of his power to protect her. Still further, by the interview with his Maker in the garden he came to understand language; and by the inspection of the animals to employ it himself. Speech implies the exercise of the susceptive and conceptive powers of the understanding. Thus, Adam was qualified to hold intelligent converse with a being like himself. He was competent to be the instructor of his wife in words and things. Again, he had met with his superior in his Creator, his inferiors in the animals; and he was now to meet his equal in the woman. And, lastly, by the divine command his moral sense had been brought into play, the theory of moral obligation had been revealed to his mind, and he was therefore prepared to deal with a moral being like himself, to understand and respect the rights of another, to do unto another as he would have another do to him. It was especially necessary that the sense of right should grow up in his breast, to keep in due check that might in which he excelled, before the weaker and gentler sex was called into being, and intrusted to his charge. These are some of the obvious reasons for delaying the formation of the woman to the present crisis.

Barnes: Gen 2:23

Whether the primeval man was conscious of the change in himself, and of the work of the Supreme Being while it was going on, or received supernatural information of the event when he awoke, does not appear. But he is perfectly aware of the nature of her who now for the first time appears before his eyes. This is evinced in his speech on beholding her: "This, now"- in contrast with the whole animal creation just before presented to his view, in which he had failed to find a helpmeet for him - "is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh;"whence we perceive that the rib included both bone and flesh. "To this"counterpart of myself "shall be called woman;"the word in the original being a feminine form of "man,"to which we have no exact equivalent, though the word "woman"(womb-man, or wife-man), proves our word "man"to have been originally of the common gender. "Because out of a man was she taken;"being taken out of a man, she is human; and being a perfect individual, she is a female man.

Barnes: Gen 2:24

These might be the words of the first man Gen 2:24. As he thoroughly understood the relation between himself and the woman, there is no new difficulty in conceiving him to become acquainted at the same time with the relationship of son to father and mother, which was in fact only another form of that in which the newly-formed woman stood to himself. The latter is really more intimateand permanent than the former, and naturally therefore takes its place, especially as the practical of the filial tie, - that of being trained to maturity, - is already accomplished, when the conjugal one begins.

But it seems more probable that this sentence is the reflection of the inspired author on the special mode in which the female was formed from the male. Such remarks of the writer are frequently introduced by the word "therefore"( על־כן kēn - ‛al ). It is designed to inculcate on the race that was to spring from them the inviolable sanctity of the conjugal relation. In the primeval wedlock one man was joined to one woman only for life. Hence, in the marriage relation the animal is subordinate to the rational. The communication of ideas; the cherishing of the true, the right, the good; the cultivation of the social affections; the spontaneous outflow of mutual good offices; the thousand nameless little thoughts, looks, words, and deeds that cheer the brow and warm the heart; the common care of children, servants, and dependents; the constant and heartfelt worship of the Father of all, constitute the main ends and joys of the married state.

After the exclamation of the man on contemplating the woman, as bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, and therefore physically, intellectually, and morally qualified to be his mate, we may suppose immediately to follow the blessing of man, and the general endowment of himself and the animals with the fruits of the soil as recorded in the preceding chapter Gen 1:28-30. The endowment of man embraces every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed. This general grant was of course understood by man to exclude the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was excepted, if not by its specific nature, yet by the previous command given to man. This command we find was given before the formation of the woman, and therefore sometime before the events recorded in the second and third clauses of Gen 1:27. Hence, it preceded the blessing and the endowment. It was not special, however, to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to be intended for other purposes than the food of man, as there are very many other trees that afford no proper nutriment to man. The endowment, therefore, refers to such trees as were at the same time nutritive and not expressly and previously forbidden.

This chapter is occupied with the "generations, issues or products of the skies and the land,"or, in other words, of the things created in the six days. It is the meet preface to the more specific history of man, as it records his constitution, his provision, his moral and intellectual cultivation, and his social perfection. It brings us up to the close of the sixth day. As the Creator pronounced a sentence of approbation on all that he had made at the end of that day, we have reason to believe that no moral derangement had yet taken place in man’ s nature.

Barnes: Gen 2:25

This is corroborated by the statement contained in Gen 2:25. "They were both naked, and were not ashamed."Of nakedness in our sense of the term they had as yet no conception. On the contrary, they were conscious of being sufficiently clothed in a physical sense by nature’ s covering, the skin - and, in a spiritual point of view, they were clad as in a panoply of steel with the consciousness of innocence, or, indeed, the unconsciousness of evil existing anywhere, and the simple ignorance of its nature, except so far as the command of God had awakened in them some speculative conception of it. Hence, they were not ashamed. For shame implies a sense of guilt, which they did not have, and an exposedness to the searching eye of a condemning judge, from which they were equally free. With the sentence terminates all we know of primeval innocence. May we surmise from it that the first pair spent at least the Sabbath, if not some days, or weeks, or years, in a state of integrity?

From what has been said, it is evident that this sentence was written after the fall; for it speaks in language which was not intelligible till after that event had occurred. Contemplated in this point of view, it is the most melancholy sentence in the book of God. For it is evidently placed here to foreshadow the dark event to be recorded in the next chapter.

Two hallowed institutions have descended to us from the days of primeval innocence, - the wedding and the Sabbath. The former indicates communion of the purest and most perfect kind between equals of the same class. The latter implies communion of the highest and holiest kind between the Creator and the intelligent creature. The two combined import communion with each other in communion with God.

Wedded union is the sum and type of every social tie. It gives rise and scope to all the nameless joys of home. It is the native field for the cultivation of all the social virtues. It provides for the due framing and checking of the overgrowth of interest in self, and for the gentle training and fostering of a growing interest in others. It unfolds the graces and charms of mutual love, and imparts to the susceptible heart all the peace and joy, all the light and fire, all the frankness and life of conscious and constant purity and good-will. Friendship, brotherly-kindness, and love are still hopeful and sacred names among mankind.

Sabbath-keeping lifts the wedded pair, the brethren, the friends, the one-minded, up to communion with God. The joy of achievement is a feeling common to God and man. The commemoration of the auspicious beginning of a holy and happy existence will live in man while memory lasts. The anticipation also of joyful repose after the end of a work well done will gild the future while hope survives. Thus, the idea of the Sabbath spans the whole of man’ s existence. History and prophecy commingle in its peaceful meditations, and both are linked with God. God IS: he is the Author of all being, and the Rewarder of them that diligently seek him. This is the noble lesson of the Sabbath. Each seventh day is well spent in attending to the realization of these great thoughts.

Hence, it appears that the social principle lies at the root of a spiritual nature. In the very essence of the spiritual monad is the faculty of self-consciousness. Here is the curious mystery of a soul standing beside itself, cognizing itself, and taking note of its various faculties and acts, and yet perfectly conscious of its unity and identity. And the process does not stop here. We catch ourselves at times debating with ourselves, urging the pros and cons of a case in hand, enjoying the sallies or sorry for the poverty of our wit, nay, solemnly sitting in judgment on ourselves, and pronouncing a sentence of approval or disapproval on the merit or demerit of our actions. Thus, throughout the whole range of our moral and intellectual nature, memory for the past and fancy for the future furnish us with another self, with whom we hold familiar converse. Here there is the social principle living and moving in the very center of our being. Let the soul only look out through the senses and descry another like itself, and social converse between kindred spirits must begin. The Sabbath and the wedding touch the inner springs of the soul, and bring, the social principle into exercise in the two great spheres of our relation to our Maker and to one another.

Poole: Gen 2:9

The tree of life so called, either symbolically, and sacramentally, because it was a sign and seal of that life which man had received from God, and of his continual enjoyment of it upon condition of his obedience; or, effectively, because God had planted in it a singular virtue for the support of nature, prolongation of life, and the prevention of all diseases, infirmities, and decays through age.

In the midst of the garden or, within the garden, as Tyrus said to be in the midst of the seas, Eze 28:2 , though it was but just within it.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil so called with respect, either,

1. To God, who thereby would prove and make known man’ s good or evil, his obedience and happiness, or his rebellion and misery; or rather,

2. To man, who by the use of it would know, to his cost, how great and good things he did enjoy, and might have kept by his obedience, and how evil and bitter the fruits of his disobedience were to himself and all his posterity. So it seems to be an ironical denomination: q.d. You thirsted after more knowledge, which also the devil promised you; and you have got what you desired, more knowledge, even dear-bought experience.

Poole: Gen 2:10

A river or, rivers, by a common enallage.

Eden the country in which Paradise was; where those rivers either arose from one spring, or met together in one channel.

From the garden, it was divided into four principal rivers, concerning which there are now many disputes. But it is no wonder if the rise and situation of these rivers be not now certainly known, because of the great changes, which in so long time might happen in this as well as in other rivers, partly by earthquakes, and principally by the general deluge. And yet Euphrates and Tigris, the chief of these rivers, whereof the other two are branches, are discovered by some learned men to have one and the same original or spring, and that in a most pleasant part of Armenia, where they conceive Paradise was. See my Latin Synopsis.

Poole: Gen 2:11

Pison an eminent branch of the river Tigris, probably that called by others Pasi-tigris, or Piso-tigris.

That is it which compasseth i.e. with many windings and turnings passed through; as this word is used, Jos 15:3 Mat 23:15 .

This whole land of Havilah either that which is in those parts of Arabia which is towards Mesopotamia, so called from Havilah the issue of Cham, Gen 10:7 ; or that which is nigh Persia, and in the borders of India, so called from another Havilah of the posterity of Shem, Gen 10:29 . To either of these following the description agrees well.

Poole: Gen 2:12

Good i.e. better than ordinary.

Bdellium which signifies either a precious gum, of which see Num 11:7 , or gems and pearls. Once for all observe, that many of the Hebrew words or names of stones, trees, birds, and beasts, are even to the Hebrew doctors and others, both ancient and modern interpreters, of uncertain signification, and that without any considerable inconvenience to us, who are free from the obligations which the Jews were formerly under of procuring such stones, and abstaining in their diet from such beasts and birds as then were sufficiently known to them; and if any were doubtful, they had one safe course, to abstain from them.

The onyx stone a kind of precious stone, of which see Exo 25:7 28:9,20 .

Poole: Gen 2:13

Gihon not that river in the land of Israel, so called, 1Ki 1:33 2Ch 32:30 ; but another of the same name, which in Hebrew signifies, the branch of a greater river: here it is a branch either of Euphrates, as most think, or of Tigris, as some late writers conceive.

Ethiopia not that country in Africa above Egypt, commonly so called; but either Arabia, which in Scripture is frequently called

Cush or Ethiopia of which, See Poole on "2Ki 19:9" , See Poole on "Job 28:19" , See Poole on "Eze 29:10" , See Poole on "Eze 30:8" , See Poole on "Eze 30:9" , See Poole on "Hab 3:7" .

Or rather a country adjoining to India and Persia, with which Cush is joined, Eze 38:5 ; see also Isa 11:11 Eze 27:10 ; and about which place the Ethiopians are seated by Herod. 1. 7, Homer, Hesiod, and others. Of which see my Latin Synopsis.

Poole: Gen 2:14

Hiddekel i.e. Tigris or an eminent branch of it. See Dan 10:4 .

Poole: Gen 2:15

Put him i.e. commanded and inclined him to go. To prune, dress, and order the trees and herbs of the garden,

and to keep it from the annoyance of beasts, which being unreasonable creatures, and allowed the use of herbs, might easily spoil the beauty of it.

Poole: Gen 2:16

God commanded the woman too, (as appears both from the permission for eating herbs and fruits given to her, together with her husband, Gen 1:28,29 , and from Gen 3:1-3 , and from Eve’ s punishment), and that either immediately, or by Adam, whom God enjoined to inform her thereof.

Thou mayest freely eat without offence to me, or hurt to thyself. The words in Hebrew have the form of a command, but are only a permission or indulgence, as 1Co 10:25,27 .

Poole: Gen 2:17

With a threefold death.

1. Spiritual, by the guilt and power of sin: at that instant thou shalt be dead in trespasses and sins, Eph 2:1 .

2. Temporal, or the death of the body, which shall then begin in thee, by decays, infirmities, terrors, dangers, and other harbingers of death.

3. Eternal, which shall immediately succeed the other.

Poole: Gen 2:18

The Lord God said or, had said, to wit, upon the sixth day, on which the woman was made, Gen 1:27,28 .

Not good not convenient either for my purpose of the increase of mankind, or for man’ s personal comfort, or for the propagation of his kind.

Meet for him a most emphatical phrase, signifying thus much, one correspondent to him, suitable both to his nature and necessity, one

altogether like to him in shape and constitution, disposition and affection; a second self; or one to be at hand and near to him, to stand continually before him, familiarly to converse with him, to be always ready to succour, serve, and comfort him; or one whose eye, respect, and care, as well as desire, Gen 3:16 , should be to him, whose business it shall be to please and help him.

Poole: Gen 2:19

Brought them unto Adam either by winds, or angels, or by their own secret instinct, by which storks, and cranes, and swallows change their places with the season; partly to own their subjection to him; partly that man, being re-created with their prospect, might adore and praise the Maker of them, and withal be sensible of his want of a meet companion, and so the better prepared to receive God’ s mercy therein; and partly for the reason here following.

To see, or, make a discovery; not to God, who knew it already, but to all future generations, who would hereby understand the deep wisdom and knowledge of their first parent.

That was the name thereof to wit, in the primitive or Hebrew language. And this was done for the manifestation both of man’ s dominion over the creatures, and of the largeness of his understanding; it being an act of authority to give names, and an effect of vast knowledge to give convenient names to all the creatures, which supposeth an exact acquaintance with their natures.

Poole: Gen 2:20

But though, in giving them names, he considered their several natures and perfections, it was evident to himself, as well as to the Lord, that none of them was an help meet for him.

Poole: Gen 2:21

1. God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam that he, who was without sin, might feel no pain in the taking away of his rib. And in this sleep some think Adam was in an ecstasy, wherein he saw what was done, together with the reason and mystery of it.

2. He took one of his ribs together with the flesh upon it, Gen 2:23 ; or, one of his sides, for the Hebrew word signifieth a side as well as a rib, which may be taken synecdochically, for a part of one of his sides, viz. a rib and the flesh upon it; or, for one part out of each of his sides; as if the two ribs clothed with flesh were taken out of the man, because he saith, Gen 2:23 ,

This is bone of my bones, not, of my bone. The woman was taken out of this part, not out of the higher or lower parts, to show that she is neither to be her husband’ s mistress, to usurp authority over him, 1Ti 2:12 ; nor yet to be his slave, to be abused, despised, or trampled under his feet; but to be kindly treated, and used like a companion, with moderation, respect, and affection.

Quest. How could a rib be taken from Adam, but it must be either superfluous in Adam, while it was in him, or defective afterwards, both which reflect upon the Creator?

Answ 1. It was no superfluity, but a conveniency, if Adam had at first one rib extraordinary put into him for this purpose.

2. If Adam lost a rib upon so glorious an occasion, it was but a scar or badge of honour, and no disparagement either to him or to his Creator.

3. Either God created him a new rib, or hardened the flesh to the nature and use of a rib, and so there was no defect in him.

3. He closed up the flesh together with another bone or rib, instead of that rib and flesh which he took away from him, which was easy for God to do.

Poole: Gen 2:22

From some place at a little distance, whither he first carried her, that for the decency of the action he might bring her thence; a bride to a bridegroom to be married to him: the great God being pleased to act the part of a father to give his daughter and workmanship to him, thereby both teaching parents their duty of providing marriages for their children, and children their duty of expecting their parents’ consent in marriage.

Poole: Gen 2:23

And Adam said

Quest. How knew he this?

Answ Either,

1. By his own observation; for though it be said that he was asleep till the rib was taken out and restored, yet he might awake as soon as ever that was done, the reason of his sleep ceasing, and so might see the making of the woman. Or,

2. By the revelation of God, who put these words into Adam’ s mouth, to whom therefore these words of Adam are ascribed, Mat 19:5 .

This is now or, for this time the woman is made of my bones, &c.; but for the time to come the woman as well as the man shall be produced another way, to wit, by generation. Made of my rib and flesh; i.e. God hath provided me a meet help and wife, not out of the brute creatures, but nearer hand, a part of my own body, and of the same nature with myself.

Poole: Gen 2:24

These are the words of Moses by Divine instinct, or his inference from Adam’ s words.

Shall a man leave his father and his mother in regard of habitation and society, but not as to natural duty and affection; and in conjugal relation and highest affection, even above what they owe to their parents, they two (as it is in the Samaritan, Syriac, and Arabic translations, and Mat 19:5 ) shall be esteemed by themselves and others to be as entirely and inseparably united, and shall have as intimate and universal commmunion, as if they were one person, one soul, one body. And this first institution shows the sinfulness of divorces, and polygamy, however God might upon a particular reason for a time dispense with his own institution, or remit the punishment due to the violators of it.

Poole: Gen 2:25

To wit, of their nakedness, as having no guilt, nor cause of shame, no filthy or evil inclinations in their bodies, no sinful concupiscence or impure motions in their souls, but spotless innocency and perfection, which must needs exclude shame.

PBC: Gen 2:17

But, Satan said to Eve "thou shalt not surely die" {Ge 3:4} Adam immediately lost fellowship with God but Adam may have thought after he had lived a hundred years "you know I’ve escaped the other part of that judgment" -when 500 years had passed he said "Ah, I know I’m free- I’ve escaped that other part of the judgment, I lost fellowship with God but I’m going to live forever" and he may have felt good when he was 900 years old but the bible says that he "...lived nine hundred and thirty years:" in Ge 5:5 "..and he died!"

Beloved, God is true- Satan’s a liar. God is true -he (Adam) died. In Ec 8:11 "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

488

"for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

-may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Ro 6:23. GILL

"thou shalt surely die"

Under law Adam was, as is evident; but not under the moral law, which an innocent being could not even have understood. The commandment to him was simply not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: the terms’, not, "This do and thou shalt live," but "Do this, and thou shalt die." He had not to seek a better place, but enjoy the place he had. ENT

Ge 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

But, Satan said to Eve "thou shalt not surely die" {Ge 3:4} Adam immediately lost fellowship with God but Adam may have thought after he had lived a hundred years "you know I’ve escaped the other part of that judgment" -when 500 years had passed he said "Ah, I know I’m free- I’ve escaped that other part of the judgment, I lost fellowship with God but I’m going to live forever" and he may have felt good when he was 900 years old but the bible says that he "...lived nine hundred and thirty years:" in Ge 5:5 "..and he died!"

Beloved, God is true- Satan’s a liar. God is true -he (Adam) died. In Ec 8:11 "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

488

"for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

-may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Ro 6:23. GILL

"thou shalt surely die"

Under law Adam was, as is evident; but not under the moral law, which an innocent being could not even have understood. The commandment to him was simply not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: the terms’, not, "This do and thou shalt live," but "Do this, and thou shalt die." He had not to seek a better place, but enjoy the place he had. ENT

Haydock: Gen 2:9

The tree of life. So called, because it had that quality, that by eating of the fruit of it, man would have been preserved in a constant state of health, vigour, and strength, and would not have died at all. The tree of knowledge. To which the deceitful serpent falsely attributed the power of imparting a superior kind of knowledge beyond that which God was pleased to give. (Challoner) ---

Of what species these two wonderful trees were, the learned are not agreed. The tree of knowledge, could not communicate any wisdom to man; but, by eating of its forbidden fruit, Adam dearly purchased the knowledge of evil, to which he was before a stranger. Some say it was the fig-tree, others an apple-tree, Canticle of Canticles viii. 5. But it probably agreed with no species of trees with which we are acquainted, nor was there perhaps any of the same kind in paradise. (Tirinus)

Haydock: Gen 2:10

A river, &c. Moses gives many characteristics of Paradise, inviting us, as it were, to search for it; and still we cannot certainly discover where it is, or whether it exist at all at present, in state of cultivation. We must therefore endeavour to find the mystic Paradise, Heaven and the true Church; the road to which, though more obvious, is too frequently mistaken. See St. Augustine, City of God xiii. 21; Proverbs iii. 18. (Haydock)

Haydock: Gen 2:15

To dress it . Behold God would not endure idleness even in Paradise. (Haydock)

Haydock: Gen 2:17

The death of the soul, and become obnoxious to that of the body; thou shalt become a mortal and lose all the privileges of innocence. Though Adam lived 930 years after this, he was dying daily; he carried along with him the seeds of death, as we do, from our very conception. He had leave to eat of any fruit in this delicious garden, one only excepted, and this one prohibition makes him more eager to taste of that tree than of all the rest. So we struggle constantly to attain what is forbidden, and covet what is denied, cupimusque negata. God laid this easy command upon Adam, to give him an opportunity of shewing his ready obedience, and to assert his own absolute dominion over him. Eve was already formed, and was apprised of this positive command, (chap. iii. 3.) and therefore, transgressing, is justly punished with her husband. True obedience does not inquire why a thing is commanded, but submits without demur. Would a parent be satisfied with his child, if he should refuse to obey, because he could not discern the propriety of the restraint? If he should forbid him to touch some delicious fruits which he had reserved for strangers, and the child were to eat them, excusing himself very impertinently and blasphemously, with those much abused words of our Saviour, It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles a man, &c. would not even a Protestant parent be enraged and seize the rod, though he could not but see that he was thus condemning his own conduct, in disregarding, on the very same plea, the fasts and days of abstinence, prescribed by the Church and by God's authority? All meats are good, as that fruit most certainly was which Adam was forbidden to eat; though some have foolishly surmised that it was poisonous; but, the crime of disobedience draws on punishment. (Haydock) ---

Even when the sin is remitted, as it was to Adam, the penalty is not of course released, as some have pretended. This also clearly appears in baptized infants, who suffer the penalties due to original sin, as much as those who have not been admitted to the laver of regeneration. (St. Augustine; Worthington; Tirinus, &c.) ---

If on this occasion, Eve had alone transgressed, as she was not the head, her sin would have hurt only herself. But with Adam, the representative of all his posterity, God made a sort of compact, (Osee vi. 7.) giving him to understand, that if he continued faithful, his children should be born in the state of innocence like himself, happy and immortal, to be translated in due time to a happier Paradise, &c. but if he should refuse to obey, his sin should be communicated to all his race, who should be, by nature, children of wrath. ---

(St. Augustine, City of God xvi. 27; Ven. Bede in Luc. 11; &c.) ---

(Haydock) (Calmet)

Haydock: Gen 2:20

Names, probably in the Hebrew language, in which the names of things, frequently designate their nature and quality. See Bochart. ---

(Calmet)

Haydock: Gen 2:21

A deep sleep. Septuagint, "an ecstacy," or mysterious sleep, in which Adam was apprised of the meaning of what was done, and how the Church would be taken from the side of Christ, expiring on the cross. (Menochius)

Haydock: Gen 2:23

Of my flesh. God did not, therefore, take a rib without flesh, nor perhaps did he replace flesh without a rib in Adam's side, though St. Augustine thinks he did. These words of Adam are attributed to God, Matthew xix, because they were inspired by him. ---

Woman. As this word is derived from man, so in Hebrew Isha (or Asse ) comes from Iish or Aiss ; Latin vira woman, and virago comes from vir. (Haydock) ---

But we do not find this allusion so sensible in any of the Oriental languages, as in the Hebrew, whence another proof arises of this being the original language. (Calmet)

Haydock: Gen 2:24

One flesh, connected by the closest ties of union, producing children, the blood of both. St. Paul, Ephesians v. 23, discloses to us the mystery of Christ's union with his church for ever, prefigured by this indissoluble marriage of our first parents. (Calmet)

Haydock: Gen 2:25

Not ashamed, because they had not perverted the work of God. Inordinate concupiscence is the effect of sin. (Haydock)

Gill: Gen 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,.... That is, out of the ground of the garden of Eden; and this was done on the third day, when the whole earth brought forth grass, herbs, and trees: but a peculiar spot of ground was fixed on for man, and stocked with trees of all sorts for his use, not only to bear fruit, which would be suitable and agreeable food for him, but others also, which would yield him delight to look at; such as the tall cedars for their loftiness, spreading branches and green leaves, with many others; so that not only there were trees to gratify the senses of tasting and smelling, but that of sight; and such a sightly goodly tree to look at was the tree of knowledge, Gen 3:6. These trees may be an emblem of the saints, the trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, and made to grow by him through the influence of his Spirit and grace; and whom he plants in his gardens, the churches, and transplants into the heavenly paradise, and are often compared to palm trees, cedars, olive trees, pomegranates, &c.

the tree of life also in the midst of the garden; set there as in the most excellent place, where it might be most conspicuous, and to be come at; for before Adam sinned, as there was no prohibition of his eating of it, so there was no obstruction to it; and as he had a grant to eat of it, with the other trees, it was designed for his use, to support and maintain his natural life, which would have been continued, had he persisted in his obedience and state of innocence, and very probably by means of this chiefly: hence the son of Sirach calls it the tree of immortality,"The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is the doctrine of life: and they that do things that please him shall receive the fruit of the tree of immortality.'' (Sirach 19:19)and it might be also a sign, token, and symbol to him of his dependence on God; that he received his life from him; and that this was preserved by his blessing and providence, and not by his own power and skill; and that this would be continued, provided he transgressed not the divine law: and it seems to have a further respect, even to eternal life; by Christ; for though it might not be a symbol of that life to Adam in his state of innocence, yet it became so after his fall: hence Christ is sometimes signified by the tree of life, Pro 3:18 who is not only the author of natural and spiritual life, but the giver of eternal life; the promise of it is in him, and the blessing itself; he has made way for it by his obedience, sufferings, and death, and is the way unto it; it is in his gift, and he bestows it on all his people, and it will lie greatly in the enjoyment of him. The situation of this tree in the midst of the garden well agrees with him who is in the midst of his church and people, Rev 1:13 stands open, is in sight, and is accessible to them all now, who may come to him, and partake of the fruits and blessings of his grace, which are many, constant, and durable, Rev 22:2 and who will be seen and enjoyed by all, to all eternity:

and the tree of knowledge of good and evil; so called, either with respect to God, who by it tried man, when he had made him, whether he would be good or evil; but this he foreknew: rather therefore with respect to man, not that the eating the fruit of it could really give him such knowledge, nor did he need it; for by the law of nature inscribed on his heart, he knew the difference between good and evil, and that what God commanded was good, and what he forbid was evil: but either it had its name from the virtue Satan ascribed to it, Gen 3:5 or from the sad event following on man's eating the fruit of it, whereby he became experimentally sensible of the difference between good and evil, between obedience and disobedience to the will of God; he found by sad experience what good he had lost, or might have enjoyed, and what evil he had brought on himself and his posterity, he might have avoided. What this tree was is not certain; there are various conjectures about it, and nothing else can be come at concerning it. Some take it to be the fig tree, as Jarchi, and some in Aben Ezra on Gen 3:6 because fig leaves were at hand, and immediately made use of on eating the fruit of it; some the vine, and particularly the black grape, as in the book of Zohar ^d; others, as Baal Hatturim on Gen 1:29 the pome citron, or citron apple tree ^e; others, the common apple, as the author of the old Nizzechon ^f, and which is the vulgar notion; evil and an apple being called by the same Latin word "malum": in the Talmud ^g, some say it was the vine, some the fig tree, and others wheat ^h: the Mahometans say it was a tree, called by the Africans by the name of Musa ⁱ.

Gill: Gen 2:10

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden,.... Before man was created, as Aben Ezra observes, this river went out of Eden and watered it on every side; but what river is here meant, is hard to say. It is more generally thought to be the river Euphrates, when that and the Tigris met, and became one stream or river, and as such entered and passed through Eden; and as it was parted into four rivers afterwards, in two of which they retained their names: the learned Reland ^k thinks, this river is now lost; but the learned writer before referred to thinks, as has been observed, that it is the river Jordan; see note on Gen 2:8 and which, as Pliny ^l says, was a very pleasant river:

and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads; after it had passed through Eden, and the garden in it, watering it, it divided into four parts or heads of water, or four chief principal rivers, hereafter mentioned; and which circumstance the above writer thinks makes it the more probable to be the river Jordan, which and with the four rivers are spoken of together by the son of Sirach, in the Apocrypha:"25 He filleth all things with his wisdom, as Phison and as Tigris in the time of the new fruits. 26 He maketh the understanding to abound like Euphrates, and as Jordan in the time of the harvest. 27 He maketh the doctrine of knowledge appear as the light, and as Geon in the time of vintage.'' (Sirach 24)of which in the following verses. This river may be an emblem of the everlasting love of God, that pure river of water of life, which springs from the throne of God, and of the Lamb, from divine sovereignty, and not from the faith, love, and obedience of man; that river, the streams whereof make glad the city of God, and which water the garden, the church, revive its plants, and make it fruitful and delightful; the four heads or branches of which are eternal election of God, particular redemption by Christ, regeneration and sanctification by the Spirit, and eternal life and happiness, as the free gift of God through Christ; see Psa 46:4.

Gill: Gen 2:11

The name of the first is Pison,.... Not the river Nile in Egypt, as Jarchi, who thinks it is derived from "Pashah", which signifies to increase, expand, and diffuse, as that does at certain times, and spreads itself over the land of Egypt, or from "Pishten", linen, which grows there, Isa 19:9 nor the river Ganges in India, as Josephus ^m, and others; for the country where it is afterwards said to run agrees with neither Egypt nor India: rather it seems to be the same river, which is the Phasis of Pliny ⁿ, and Strabo ^o, and the Physcus of Xenophon ^p, and the Hyphasis of Philostorgius ^q, a river in Armenia, and about Colchis; and which is sometimes called Pasitigris, being a branch of that river, and mixed with, or arising from channels, drawn from Tigris, Euphrates, and other waters ^r.

that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; this country had its name from Havilah, one of the sons of Cush, Gen 10:7 who very probably seated himself near his brother Seba, from whom came the Sabeans, who inhabited one part of Arabia; and Havilah, it is plain, was before Egypt, in the way to Assyria, and bordered upon the Ishmaelites, who inhabited Arabia Deserta, Gen 25:16. So that it seems to be a country in Arabia, near unto, or a part of Cush or Arabia Cusea, and near to Seba or Arabia Felix: and so Strabo, among the nations of the Arabians, and along with the Nabatheans, places the Chaulotaeans ^s, who seem to be no other than the posterity of Havilah: according to the learned Reland ^t, it is the same with Colchis, a part of Scythia, and Phasis is well known to be a river of Colchis; and which runs into Pontus, as appears from Pliny ^u and includes Scythia, as Justin ^w says; and then it must have its name from Havilah, the son of Joktan, Gen 10:29 and in either of these countries there was gold, and an abundance of it, and of the best, as follows:(After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of these rivers could be determined with any degree of certainty today. Ed.)

Gill: Gen 2:12

And the gold of that land is good,.... Arabia was famous for gold: Diodorus Siculus ^x speaks of gold in Arabia, called "apyrus", which is not melted by fire out of small filings, as other; but as soon as dug is said to be pure gold, and that in the size of chestnuts, and of such a flaming colour, that the most precious stones are set in it by artificers for ornament: and in Colchis and Scythia, as Strabo ^y relates, there are rivers which produce gold; and from whence came the fable of the golden fleece, the Argonauts went to Colchis for:

there is the bdellium, and the onyx stone; the first of these is either an aromatic gum; the tree, according to Pliny ^z, is black, and is of the size of an olive tree, has the leaf of an oak, and its fruit is like capers; it is found in Arabia, India, Media, and Babylon; but the best, according to him, is in Bactriana, and, next to that, the bdellium of Arabia: or else it is a precious stone, and which the Jewish writers ^a commonly take to be crystal; and, according to Solinus ^b, the best crystal is in Scythia. Bochart ^c would have it that the pearl is meant, because of its whiteness and roundness, for which the manna is compared to it, Num 11:7 and the rather because of the pearl fishery at Catipha, taking Havilah to be that part of Arabia which lies upon the Persian gulf. The latter, the onyx, is a precious stone, which has its name from its being of the colour of a man's nail; and, according to Pliny ^d, the onyx marble is found in the mountains of Arabia, and the ancients thought it was nowhere else; and he speaks elsewhere of the Arabian onyx precious stone, and of the sardonyx, as in the same country ^e; and some think that is here meant; though the word is sometimes by the Septuagint rendered the emerald; and the best of these, according to Solinus ^f and Pliny ^g, were in Scythia. (After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of these places could be determined with degree of certainty today. Ed.)

Gill: Gen 2:13

And the name of the second river is Gihon,.... There was one of this name in the land of Israel, which, or a branch of it, flowed near Jerusalem, 1Ki 1:33 this Aben Ezra suggests is here meant, and which favours the notion of the above learned man, that the garden of Eden was in the land of Israel. Josephus ^h takes it to be the river Nile, as do many others; it seems to have been a branch of the river Euphrates or Tigris, on the eastern side, as Phison was on the west; and so Aben Ezra says it came from the south east. The learned Reland ⁱ will have it to be the river Araxes: it has its name, according to Jarchi, from the force it goes with, and the noise it makes. And it seems to have its name from גוח, which signifies to come forth with great force, as this river is said to do, when it pours itself into the Baltic sea.

The same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia; either Ethiopia above Egypt; and this favours the notion of those who take Gihon to be the Nile: for Pausanias ^k says, that it was commonly reported that the Nile was Euphrates, which disappearing in a marsh, rose up above Ethiopia, and became the Nile, and so washed that country, and is thought to agree very well with the Mosaic account: or else that Cush or Ethiopia, which bordered on Midian, and was a part of Arabia, and may be called Arabia Chusea, often meant by Cush in Scripture. Reland ^l thinks the country of the Cossaeans or Cussaeans, a people bordering on Media, the country of Kuhestan, a province of Persia, is intended. (After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of these rivers could be determined with any degree of certainty today. Ed.)

Gill: Gen 2:14

The name of the third river is Hiddekel,.... A river which ran by Shushan in Persia, and retained its name in the times of Daniel, Dan 10:4 where it is called the great river; and it seems it bears the same name now among the Persians; at least it did an hundred and fifty years ago, when Rauwolff ^m travelled in those parts. The Targum of Jonathan here calls it Diglath, the same with the Diglito of Pliny ⁿ; and according to him it is called Tigris, from its swiftness, either from the tiger, a swift creature, or from גרא, "to dart", in the Chaldee language; and so Curtius ^o says, that in the Persian language they call a dart "tigris": and with this agrees the word "Hiddekel", which in the Hebrew language signifies sharp and swift, as a polished arrow is; and Jarchi says it is so called, because its waters are sharp and swift: though this is contradicted by some modern travellers ^p who say it is a slower stream than the Euphrates, and is not only very crooked, and full of meanders, but also choked up with islands, and great banks of stone:

that is it which goeth towards the east of Assyria: a country which had its name from Ashur, a son of Shem, Gen 10:11 it became a famous kingdom and monarchy, Nineveh was the metropolis of it, which was built on the river Tigris or Hiddekel; and, as before observed, it ran by Shushan in Persia; and so, as Diodorus Siculus ^q says, it passed through Media into Mesopotamia; and which very well agrees with its being, according to Moses, one of the rivers of Eden. Twelve miles up this river, from Mosul, near which Nineveh once stood, lies an island, called the island of Eden, in the heart of the Tigris, about ten English miles in circuit, and is said to be undoubtedly a part of paradise ^r:

and the fourth river is Euphrates: or "Phrat", as in the Hebrew tongue. Reland ^s seems rightly to judge, that the syllable "eu", prefixed to it, is the Persian "au" or "cu", which in that language signifies "water"; so that "Euphrates" is no other than "the water of Phrat", so called from the fruitfulness of it; for its waters, as Jarchi says, fructify, increase, and fatten the earth; and who rightly observes that these names, and so those of other rivers, and of the countries here mentioned, are named by a prolepsis or anticipation, these being the names they bore when Moses wrote; unless it may be thought to be the Hebrew הוא, "Hu, the, that Phrat"; and which the Greeks have made an "eu" of. (After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of these rivers could be determined with any degree of certainty today. Ed.)

Gill: Gen 2:15

And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden,.... This is observed before in Gen 2:8 and is here repeated to introduce what follows; and is to be understood not of a corporeal assumption, by a divine power lifting him up from the place where he was, and carrying him into another; rather of a manuduction, or taking him by the hand and leading him thither; so Onkelos renders it, he "led" him, that is, he ordered and directed him thither: hence Jarchi paraphrases it, he took him with good words, and persuaded him to go thither: the place from whence he is supposed by some to be taken was near Damascus, where he is by them said to be created; or the place where the temple was afterwards built, as say the Jewish writers: the Targum of Jonathan is,"the Lord God took the man from the mount of Service, the place in which he was created, and caused him to dwell in the garden of Eden.''And elsewhere ^t it is said,"the holy blessed God loved the first Adam with an exceeding great love, for he created him out of a pure and holy place; and from what place did he take him? from the place of the house of the sanctuary, and brought him into his palace, as it is said, Gen 2:15 "and the Lord God took", &c.''though no more perhaps is intended by this expression, than that God spoke to him or impressed it on his mind, and inclined him to go, or stay there:

to dress it, and to keep it; so that it seems man was not to live an idle life, in a state of innocence; but this could not be attended with toil and labour, with fatigue and trouble, with sorrow and sweat, as after his fall; but was rather for his recreation and pleasure; though what by nature was left to be improved by art, and what there was for Adam to do, is not easy to say: at present there needed no ploughing, nor sowing, nor planting, nor watering, since God had made every tree pleasant to the sight, good for food, to grow out of it; and a river ran through it to water it: hence in a Jewish tract ^u, before referred to, it is said, that his work in the garden was nothing else but to study in the words of the law, and to keep or observe the way of the tree of life: and to this agree the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem,"and he placed him in the garden of Eden, to serve in the law, and keep the commands of it.''And in another tract ^w it is said,"God brought Adam the law, Job 28:27 and "he put him in the garden of Eden"; that is, the garden of the law, "to dress it", to do the affirmative precepts of the law, "and to keep it", the negative precepts:''though Aben Ezra interprets this service of watering the garden, aud keeping wild beasts from entering into it. And indeed the word may be rendered to "till", as well as to dress, as it is in Gen 3:23 and by Ainsworth here; so Milton ^x expresses it; and some have thought Adam was to have planted and sowed, had he continued in the garden.

Gill: Gen 2:16

And the Lord God commanded the man,.... Over whom he had power and authority; and he had a right to command him what he pleased, being his Creator, benefactor, and preserver; and this is to be understood not of man only, but of the woman also, whose creation, though related afterwards, yet was before this grant to eat of all the trees of the garden but one, and the prohibition of the fruit of that; for that she was in being, and present at this time, seems manifest from Gen 3:2.

saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: a very generous, large, and liberal allowance this: or "in eating thou mayest eat" ^y; which was giving full power, and leaving them without any doubt and uncertainty about their food; which they might freely take, and freely eat of, wherever they found it, or were inclined to, even of any, and every tree in the garden, excepting one, next forbidden.

Gill: Gen 2:17

But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,.... Of the name of this tree, and the reasons of it; see Gill on Gen 2:9.

thou shalt not eat of it; not that this tree had any efficacy in it to increase knowledge, and improve in science and understanding, as Satan suggested God knew; and therefore forbid the eating of it out of envy to man, which the divine Being is capable of; or that there was anything hurtful in it to the bodies of men, if they had eaten of it; or that it was unlawful and evil of itself, if it had not been expressly prohibited: but it was, previous to this injunction, a quite indifferent thing whether man ate of it or not; and therefore was pitched upon as a trial of man's obedience to God, under whose government he was, and whom it was fit he should obey in all things; and since he had a grant of all the trees of the garden but this, it was the greater aggravation of his offence that he should not abstain from it:

for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; or "in dying, die" ^z; which denotes the certainty of it, as our version expresses it; and may have regard to more deaths than one; not only a corporeal one, which in some sense immediately took place, man became at once a mortal creature, who otherwise continuing in a state of innocence, and by eating of the tree of life, he was allowed to do, would have lived an immortal life; of the eating of which tree, by sinning he was debarred, his natural life not now to be continued long, at least not for ever; he was immediately arraigned, tried, and condemned to death, was found guilty of it, and became obnoxious to it, and death at once began to work in him; sin sowed the seeds of it in his body, and a train of miseries, afflictions, and diseases, began to appear, which at length issued in death. Moreover, a spiritual or moral death immediately ensued; he lost his original righteousness, in which he was created; the image of God in him was deformed; the powers and faculties of his soul were corrupted, and he became dead in sins and trespasses; the consequence of which, had it not been for the interposition of a surety and Saviour, who engaged to make satisfaction to law and justice, must have been eternal death, or an everlasting separation from God, to him and all his posterity; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, Rom 6:23. So the Jews ^a interpret this of death, both in this world and in the world to come.

Gill: Gen 2:18

And the Lord God said,.... Not at the same time he gave the above direction and instruction to man, how to behave according to his will, but before that, even at the time of the formation of Adam and which he said either to him, or with himself: it was a purpose or determination in his own mind, and may be rendered, as it is by many, he "had said" ^b, on the sixth day, on which man was created:

it is not good that man should be alone; not pleasant and comfortable to himself, nor agreeable to his nature, being a social creature; nor useful to his species, not being able to propagate it; nor so much for the glory of his Creator:

I will made him an help meet for him; one to help him in all the affairs of life, not only for the propagation of his species, but to provide things useful and comfortable for him; to dress his food, and take care of the affairs of the family; one "like himself" ^c, in nature, temper, and disposition, in form and shape; or one "as before him" ^d, that would be pleasing to his sight, and with whom he might delightfully converse, and be in all respects agreeable to him, and entirely answerable to his case and circumstances, his wants and wishes.

Gill: Gen 2:19

And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air,.... Or "had formed them" ^e on the fifth and sixth days; and these were formed two and two, male and female, in order to continue their species; whereas man was made single, and had no companion of the same nature with him: and while in these circumstances, God

brought them unto Adam; or "to the man" ^f; either by the ministry of angels, or by a kind of instinct or impulse, which brought them to him of their own accord, as to the lord and proprietor of them, who, as soon as he was made, had the dominion of all the creatures given him; just as the creatures at the flood went in unto Noah in the ark; and as then, so now, all creatures, fowl and cattle, came, all but the fishes of the sea: and this was done

to see what he would call them; what names he would give to them; which as it was a trial of the wisdom of man, so a token of his dominion over the creatures, it being an instance of great knowledge of them to give them apt and suitable names, so as to distinguish one from another, and point at something in them that was natural to them, and made them different from each other; for this does not suppose any want of knowledge in God, as if he did this to know what man would do, he knew what names man would give them before he did; but that it might appear he had made one superior to them all in wisdom and power, and for his pleasure, use, and service; and therefore brings them to him, to put them into his hands, and give him authority over them; and being his own, to call them by what names he pleased:

and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof; it was always afterwards called by it, by him and his posterity, until the confusion of languages, and then every nation called them as they thought proper, everyone in their own language: and as there is a good deal of reason to believe, that the Hebrew language was the first and original language; or however that eastern language, of which the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, are so many dialects; it was this that he spoke, and in it gave names to the creatures suitable to their nature, or agreeable to some property or other observed in them: and Bochart ^g has given us many instances of creatures in the Hebrew tongue, whose names answer to some character or another in them: some think this was done by inspiration; and Plato says, that it seemed to him that that nature was superior to human, that gave names to things; and that this was not the work of vain and foolish man, but the first names were appointed by the gods ^h; and so Cicero ⁱ asks, who was the first, which with Pythagoras was the highest wisdom, who imposed names on all things?

Gill: Gen 2:20

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowls of the air, and to every beast of the field,.... As they came before him, and passed by him, paying as it were their homage to him, their lord and owner:

but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him; and perhaps this might be one reason of their being brought unto him, that he might become sensible that there was none among all the creatures of his nature, and that was fit to be a companion of his; and to him must this be referred, and not to God; not as if God looked out an help meet for him among the creatures, and could find none; but, as Aben Ezra observes, man could not find one for himself; and this made it the more grateful and acceptable to him, when God had formed the woman of him, and presented her before him.

Gill: Gen 2:21

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept,.... This was not a common and natural sleep that Adam fell into, occasioned by any weariness of the animal spirits, in viewing the creatures as they passed by him, and in examining them, and giving them suitable and proper names; but it was supernatural, and from the Lord, his power and providence, who caused it to fall upon him: it was not a drowsiness, nor a slumber, but a sound sleep: his senses were so locked up by it, that he perceived not anything that was done to him; and it seems to have been on purpose, that he might feel no pain, while the operation was made upon him, as well as that it might appear that he had no hand in the formation of the woman; and that he might be the more surprised at the sight of her, just awaking out of sleep, to see so lovely an object, so much like himself, and made out of himself, and in so short a time as while he was taking a comfortable nap:

and he took one of his ribs; with the flesh along with it: men have commonly, as anatomists ^k observe, twelve ribs on a side; it seems by this, that Adam had thirteen. The Targum of Jonathan is,"and he took one of his ribs; that is, the thirteenth rib of his right side:''but our English poet ^l takes it to be one of the left side, and also a supernumerary one ^m. God made an opening in him, and took it out, without putting him to any pain, and without any sensation of it: in what manner this was done we need not inquire; the power of God was sufficient to perform it; Adam was asleep when it was done, and saw it not, and the manner of the operation is not declared:

and closed up the flesh instead thereof: so that there was no opening left, nor any wound made, or a scar appeared, or any loss sustained, but what was made up by an increase of flesh, or by closing up the flesh; and that being hardened like another rib, and so answered the same purpose. (Adam probably had the same number of ribs as we do today. Otherwise the genetic code for creation of an extra rib would cause at least some people today to have thirteen ribs. I know of no such case. Also, we know that acquired characteristics cannot be passed on to the next generation. A man who loses both legs in an accident, usually has children who have two legs. Ed.)

Gill: Gen 2:22

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he woman,.... It is commonly observed, and pertinently enough, that the woman was not made from the superior part of man, that she might not be thought to be above him, and have power over him; nor from any inferior part, as being below him, and to be trampled on by him; but out of his side, and from one of his ribs, that she might appear to be equal to him; and from a part near his heart, and under his arms, to show that she should be affectionately loved by him, and be always under his care and protection: and she was not "created" as things were, out of nothing, nor "formed" as Adam was, out of the dust of the earth, being in the same form as man; but "made" out of refined and quickened dust, or the flesh and bones of man, and so in her make and constitution fine and lovely; or "built" ⁿ, as the word signifies, which is used, because she is the foundation of the house or family, and the means of building it up: or rather to denote the singular care and art used, and fit proportion observed in the make of her:

and brought her unto the man: from the place where the rib had been carried, and she was made of it; or he brought her, as the parent of her, at whose dispose she was, and presented her to Adam as his spouse, to be taken into a conjugal relation with him, and to be loved and cherished by him; which, as it affords a rule and example to be followed by parents and children, the one to dispose of their children in marriage, and the other to have the consent of their parents in it; as well as it is a recommendation of marriage, as agreeable to the divine will, and to be esteemed honourable, being of God: so it was a type of the marriage of Christ, the second Adam, between him and his church, which sprung from him, from his side; and is of the same nature with him, and was presented by his divine Father to him, who gave her to him; and he received her to himself as his spouse and bride; see Eph 5:29.

Gill: Gen 2:23

And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,.... Of "his bones", because made out of a pair of his ribs, as some think, one on each side, and therefore expressed in the plural number, "and of his flesh", a part of which was taken with the rib; this Adam knew, either being awake while she was made, though asleep when the rib was taken out; or by divine revelation, by an impress of it on his mind; or it might have been declared to him in a dream, while asleep, when, being in an ecstasy or trance, this whole affair was represented unto him: and this was "now" done, just done, and would be done no more in like manner; "this time" ^o, this once, as many render it; so it was, but hereafter the woman was to be produced in the way of generation, as man:

she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man: her name was "Ishah", because taken from "Ish", as "vira" in Latin from "vir", and "woman" in our language from "man".

Gill: Gen 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father, and his mother,.... These are thought by some to be the words of Moses, inferring from the above fact, what ought to be among men; and by others, the words of Adam under divine inspiration, as the father of mankind instructing his sons what to do, and foretelling what would be done in all succeeding ages: though they rather seem to be the words of God himself, by whom marriage was now instituted; and who here gives direction about it, and declares the case and circumstance of man upon it, and how he would and should behave: and thus our Lord Jesus Christ, quoting these words, makes them to be the words of him that made man, male and female, and supplies and prefaces them thus, and said, "for this cause", &c. Mat 19:5 so Jarchi paraphrases them,"the Holy Ghost said so:''not that a man upon his marriage is to drop his affections to his parents, or be remiss in his obedience to them, honour of them, and esteem for then, or to neglect the care of them, if they stand in need of his assistance; but that he should depart from his father's house, and no more dwell with him, or bed and board in his house; but having taken a wife to himself, should provide an habitation for him and her to dwell together: so all the three Targums interpret it, of quitting "the house of his father, and his mother's bed":

and shall cleave unto his wife; with a cordial affection, taking care of her, nourishing and cherishing her, providing all things comfortable for her, continuing to live with her, and not depart from her as long as they live: the phrase is expressive of the near union by marriage between man and wife; they are, as it were, glued together, and make but one; which is more fully and strongly expressed in the next clause:

and they shall be one flesh; that is, "they two", the man and his wife, as it is supplied and interpreted by Christ, Mat 19:5 and so here in the Targum of Jonathan, and in the Septuagint and Samaritan versions: the union between them is so close, as if they were but one person, one soul, one body; and which is to be observed against polygamy, unlawful divorces, and all uncleanness, fornication, and adultery: only one man and one woman, being joined in lawful wedlock, have a right of copulation with each other, in order to produce a legitimate offspring, partaking of the same one flesh, as children do of their parents, without being able to distinguish the flesh of the one from the other, they partake of: and from hence it appears to be a fabulous notion, that Cecrops, the first king of Athens, was the first institutor of matrimony and joiner of one man to one woman; whence he was said to be "biformis" ^p, and was called διφυης; unless, as some ^q have thought, that he and Moses were one and the same who delivered out the first institution of marriage, which is this.

Gill: Gen 2:25

And they were both naked, the man and his wife,.... Were as they were created, having no clothes on them, and standing in need of none, to shelter them from the heat or cold, being in a temperate climate; or to conceal any parts of their bodies from the sight of others, there being none of the creatures to guard against on that account:

and were not ashamed; having nothing in them, or on them, or about them, that caused shame; nothing sinful, defective, scandalous or blameworthy; no sin in their nature, no guilt on their consciences, or wickedness in their hands or actions; and particularly they were not ashamed of their being naked, no more than children are to see each other naked, or we are to behold them: besides, they were not only alone, and none to behold them; but their being naked was no disgrace to them, but was agreeably to their nature; and they were not sensible that there was any necessity or occasion to cover themselves, nor would they have had any, had they continued in their innocent state: moreover, there was not the least reason to be ashamed to appear in such a manner, since they were but one flesh. The Jerusalem Targum is,"they knew not what shame was,''not being conscious of any sin, which sooner or later produces shame. Thus Plato ^r describes the first men, who, he says, were produced out of the earth; and for whom the fertile ground and trees brought forth fruit of all kind in abundance of themselves, without any agriculture; that these were γυμνοι και αρρωτοι, "naked and without any covering"; and so Diodories Siculus ^s says, the first of men were naked and without clothing. The word here used sometimes signifies wise and cunning; it is rendered "subtle" first verse of the next chapter: and here the Targum of Jonathan is,"they were both wise, Adam and his wife, but they continued not in their glory;''the next thing we hear of is their fall.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Gen 2:9

¹ tn Heb “ground,” referring to the fertile soil.

² tn Heb “desirable of sight [or “appearance”].” The phrase describes the kinds of trees that are visually pleasing and yield fruit that is desirable to the appetite.

³ tn The verse ends with a disjunctive clause providing a parenthetical bit of information about the existence of two special trees in the garden.

⁴ tn In light of Gen 3:22, the construction “tree of life” should be interpreted to mean a tree that produces life-giving fruit (objective genitive) rather than a living tree (attributive genitive). See E. O. James, The Tree of Life (SHR); and R. Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” JBL 62 (1943): 117-20.

⁵ tn The expression “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” must be interpreted to mean that the tree would produce fruit which, when eaten, gives special knowledge of “good and evil.” Scholars debate what this phrase means here. For a survey of opinions, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:62-64. One view is that “good” refers to that which enhances, promotes, and produces life, while “evil” refers to anything that hinders, interrupts or destroys life. So eating from this tree would change human nature – people would be able to alter life for better (in their thinking) or for worse. See D. J. A. Clines, “The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of Yahweh,” VT 24 (1974): 8-14; and I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East [VTSup], 103-19. Another view understands the “knowledge of good and evil” as the capacity to discern between moral good and evil. The following context suggests the tree’s fruit gives one wisdom (see the phrase “capable of making one wise” in 3:6, as well as the note there on the word “wise”), which certainly includes the capacity to discern between good and evil. Such wisdom is characteristic of divine beings, as the serpent’s promise implies (3:5) and as 3:22 makes clear. (Note, however, that this capacity does not include the ability to do what is right.) God prohibits man from eating of the tree. The prohibition becomes a test to see if man will be satisfied with his role and place, or if he will try to ascend to the divine level. There will be a time for man to possess moral discernment/wisdom, as God reveals and imparts it to him, but it is not something to be grasped at in an effort to become “a god.” In fact, the command to be obedient was the first lesson in moral discernment/wisdom. God was essentially saying: “Here is lesson one – respect my authority and commands. Disobey me and you will die.” When man disobeys, he decides he does not want to acquire moral wisdom God’s way, but instead tries to rise immediately to the divine level. Once man has acquired such divine wisdom by eating the tree’s fruit (3:22), he must be banned from the garden so that he will not be able to achieve his goal of being godlike and thus live forever, a divine characteristic (3:24). Ironically, man now has the capacity to discern good from evil (3:22), but he is morally corrupted and rebellious and will not consistently choose what is right.

NET Notes: Gen 2:10

¹ tn The disjunctive clause (note the construction conjunction + subject + predicate) introduces an entire paragraph about the richness of the region in the east.

² tn The Hebrew active participle may be translated here as indicating past durative action, “was flowing,” or as a present durative, “flows.” Since this river was the source of the rivers mentioned in vv. 11-14, which appear to describe a situation contemporary with the narrator, it is preferable to translate the participle in v. 10 with the present tense. This suggests that Eden and its orchard still existed in the narrator’s time. According to ancient Jewish tradition, Enoch was taken to the Garden of Eden, where his presence insulated the garden from the destructive waters of Noah’s flood. See Jub. 4:23-24.

³ sn Eden is portrayed here as a source of life-giving rivers (that is, perennial streams). This is no surprise because its orchard is where the tree of life is located. Eden is a source of life, but tragically its orchard is no longer accessible to humankind. The river flowing out of Eden is a tantalizing reminder of this. God continues to provide life-giving water to sustain physical existence on the earth, but immortality has been lost.

⁴ tn The imperfect verb form has the same nuance as the preceding participle. (If the participle is taken as past durative, then the imperfect would be translated “was dividing.”)

⁵ tn Or “branches”; Heb “heads.” Cf. NEB “streams”; NASB “rivers.”

NET Notes: Gen 2:11

¹ tn Heb “it is that which goes around.”

NET Notes: Gen 2:12

¹ tn Heb “good.”

² tn The Hebrew term translated “pearls” may be a reference to resin (cf. NIV “aromatic resin”) or another precious stone (cf. NEB, NASB, NRSV “bdellium”).

³ tn Or “onyx.”

NET Notes: Gen 2:13

¹ tn Heb “it is that which goes around.”

² sn Cush. In the Bible the Hebrew word כּוּשׁ (kush, “Kush”) often refers to Ethiopia (so KJV, CEV), but here it must refer to a region in Mesopotamia, the area of the later Cassite dynasty of Babylon. See Gen 10:8 as well as E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB), 20.

NET Notes: Gen 2:14

¹ tn Heb “Asshur” (so NEB, NIV).

NET Notes: Gen 2:15

¹ tn The Hebrew verb נוּחַ (nuakh, translated here as “placed”) is a different verb than the one used in 2:8.

² tn Traditionally translated “the Garden of Eden,” the context makes it clear that the garden (or orchard) was in Eden (making “Eden” a genitive of location).

³ tn Heb “to work it and to keep it.”

sn Note that man’s task is to care for and maintain the trees of the orchard. Not until after the fall, when he is condemned to cultivate the soil, does this task change.

NET Notes: Gen 2:16

¹ sn This is the first time in the Bible that the verb tsavah (צָוָה, “to command”) appears. Whatever the man had to do in the garden, the main focus of the narrative is on keeping God’s commandments. God created humans with the capacity to obey him and then tested them with commands.

² tn The imperfect verb form probably carries the nuance of permission (“you may eat”) since the man is not being commanded to eat from every tree. The accompanying infinitive absolute adds emphasis: “you may freely eat,” or “you may eat to your heart’s content.”

³ tn The word “fruit” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied as the direct object of the verb “eat.” Presumably the only part of the tree the man would eat would be its fruit (cf. 3:2).

NET Notes: Gen 2:17

¹ tn The disjunctive clause here indicates contrast: “but from the tree of the knowledge….”

² tn The negated imperfect verb form indicates prohibition, “you must not eat.”

³ tn Or “in the very day, as soon as.” If one understands the expression to have this more precise meaning, then the following narrative presents a problem, for the man does not die physically as soon as he eats from the tree. In this case one may argue that spiritual death is in view. If physical death is in view here, there are two options to explain the following narrative: (1) The following phrase “You will surely die” concerns mortality which ultimately results in death (a natural paraphrase would be, “You will become mortal”), or (2) God mercifully gave man a reprieve, allowing him to live longer than he deserved.

⁴ tn Heb “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute, “you will surely die.”

sn The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (“dying spiritually, you will then die physically”). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.

NET Notes: Gen 2:18

¹ tn Heb “The being of man by himself is not good.” The meaning of “good” must be defined contextually. Within the context of creation, in which God instructs humankind to be fruitful and multiply, the man alone cannot comply. Being alone prevents the man from fulfilling the design of creation and therefore is not good.

² tn Traditionally “helper.” The English word “helper,” because it can connote so many different ideas, does not accurately convey the connotation of the Hebrew word עֵזֶר (’ezer). Usage of the Hebrew term does not suggest a subordinate role, a connotation which English “helper” can have. In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper,” the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.” The woman would supply what the man was lacking in the design of creation and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking, although that is not stated here. See further M. L. Rosenzweig, “A Helper Equal to Him,” Jud 139 (1986): 277-80.

³ tn The Hebrew expression כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (kÿnegdo) literally means “according to the opposite of him.” Translations such as “suitable [for]” (NASB, NIV), “matching,” “corresponding to” all capture the idea. (Translations that render the phrase simply “partner” [cf. NEB, NRSV], while not totally inaccurate, do not reflect the nuance of correspondence and/or suitability.) The man’s form and nature are matched by the woman’s as she reflects him and complements him. Together they correspond. In short, this prepositional phrase indicates that she has everything that God had invested in him.

NET Notes: Gen 2:19

¹ tn Or “fashioned.” To harmonize the order of events with the chronology of chapter one, some translate the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) consecutive as a past perfect (“had formed,” cf. NIV) here. (In chapter one the creation of the animals preceded the creation of man; here the animals are created after the man.) However, it is unlikely that the Hebrew construction can be translated in this way in the middle of this pericope, for the criteria for unmarked temporal overlay are not present here. See S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 84-88, and especially R. Buth, “Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis,” Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, 138-54. For a contrary viewpoint see IBHS 552-53 §33.2.3 and C. J. Collins, “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why,” TynBul 46 (1995): 117-40.

² tn The imperfect verb form is future from the perspective of the past time narrative.

NET Notes: Gen 2:20

¹ tn Here for the first time the Hebrew word אָדָם (’adam) appears without the article, suggesting that it might now be the name “Adam” rather than “[the] man.” Translations of the Bible differ as to where they make the change from “man” to “Adam” (e.g., NASB and NIV translate “Adam” here, while NEB and NRSV continue to use “the man”; the KJV uses “Adam” twice in v. 19).

² tn Heb “there was not found a companion who corresponded to him.” The subject of the third masculine singular verb form is indefinite. Without a formally expressed subject the verb may be translated as passive: “one did not find = there was not found.”

NET Notes: Gen 2:21

¹ tn Heb “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man.”

² tn Heb “and he slept.” In the sequence the verb may be subordinated to the following verb to indicate a temporal clause (“while…”).

³ tn Traditionally translated “rib,” the Hebrew word actually means “side.” The Hebrew text reads, “and he took one from his sides,” which could be rendered “part of his sides.” That idea may fit better the explanation by the man that the woman is his flesh and bone.

⁴ tn Heb “closed up the flesh under it.”

NET Notes: Gen 2:22

¹ tn The Hebrew verb is בָּנָה (banah, “to make, to build, to construct”). The text states that the Lord God built the rib into a woman. Again, the passage gives no indication of precisely how this was done.

NET Notes: Gen 2:23

¹ tn The Hebrew term הַפַּעַם (happa’am) means “the [this] time, this place,” or “now, finally, at last.” The expression conveys the futility of the man while naming the animals and finding no one who corresponded to him.

² tn The Hebrew text is very precise, stating: “of this one it will be said, ‘woman’.” The text is not necessarily saying that the man named his wife – that comes after the fall (Gen 3:20).

sn Some argue that naming implies the man’s authority or ownership over the woman here. Naming can indicate ownership or authority if one is calling someone or something by one’s name and/or calling a name over someone or something (see 2 Sam 12:28; 2 Chr 7:14; Isa 4:1; Jer 7:14; 15:16), especially if one is conquering and renaming a site. But the idiomatic construction used here (the Niphal of קָרָא, qara’, with preposition lamed [לְ, lÿ]) does not suggest such an idea. In each case where it is used, the one naming discerns something about the object being named and gives it an appropriate name (See 1 Sam 9:9; 2 Sam 18:18; Prov 16:21; Isa 1:26; 32:5; 35:8; 62:4, 12; Jer 19:6). Adam is not so much naming the woman as he is discerning her close relationship to him and referring to her accordingly. He may simply be anticipating that she will be given an appropriate name based on the discernible similarity.

³ tn Or “from” (but see v. 22).

⁴ sn This poetic section expresses the correspondence between the man and the woman. She is bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh. Note the wordplay (paronomasia) between “woman” (אִשָּׁה, ’ishah) and “man” (אִישׁ, ’ish). On the surface it appears that the word for woman is the feminine form of the word for man. But the two words are not etymologically related. The sound and the sense give that impression, however, and make for a more effective wordplay.

NET Notes: Gen 2:24

¹ tn This statement, introduced by the Hebrew phrase עַל־כֵּן (’al-ken, “therefore” or “that is why”), is an editorial comment, not an extension of the quotation. The statement is describing what typically happens, not what will or should happen. It is saying, “This is why we do things the way we do.” It links a contemporary (with the narrator) practice with the historical event being narrated. The historical event narrated in v. 23 provides the basis for the contemporary practice described in v. 24. That is why the imperfect verb forms are translated with the present tense rather than future.

² tn The imperfect verb form has a habitual or characteristic nuance. For other examples of עַל־כֵּן (’al-ken, “therefore, that is why”) with the imperfect in a narrative framework, see Gen 10:9; 32:32 (the phrase “to this day” indicates characteristic behavior is in view); Num 21:14, 27; 1 Sam 5:5 (note “to this day”); 19:24 (perhaps the imperfect is customary here, “were saying”); 2 Sam 5:8. The verb translated “leave” (עָזָב, ’azab) normally means “to abandon, to forsake, to leave behind, to discard,” when used with human subject and object (see Josh 22:3; 1 Sam 30:13; Ps 27:10; Prov 2:17; Isa 54:6; 60:15; 62:4; Jer 49:11). Within the context of the ancient Israelite extended family structure, this cannot refer to emotional or geographical separation. The narrator is using hyperbole to emphasize the change in perspective that typically overtakes a young man when his thoughts turn to love and marriage.

³ tn The perfect with vav (ו) consecutive carries the same habitual or characteristic nuance as the preceding imperfect. The verb is traditionally translated “cleaves [to]”; it has the basic idea of “stick with/to” (e.g., it is used of Ruth resolutely staying with her mother-in-law in Ruth 1:14). In this passage it describes the inseparable relationship between the man and the woman in marriage as God intended it.

⁴ tn Heb “and they become one flesh.” The perfect with vav consecutive carries the same habitual or characteristic nuance as the preceding verbs in the verse. The retention of the word “flesh” (בָּשָׂר, basar) in the translation often leads to improper or incomplete interpretations. The Hebrew word refers to more than just a sexual union. When they unite in marriage, the man and woman bring into being a new family unit (הָיָה + לְ, hayah + lamed preposition means “become”). The phrase “one flesh” occurs only here and must be interpreted in light of v. 23. There the man declares that the woman is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. To be one’s “bone and flesh” is to be related by blood to someone. For example, the phrase describes the relationship between Laban and Jacob (Gen 29:14); Abimelech and the Shechemites (Judg 9:2; his mother was a Shechemite); David and the Israelites (2 Sam 5:1); David and the elders of Judah (2 Sam 19:12); and David and his nephew Amasa (2 Sam 19:13, see 2 Sam 17:2; 1 Chr 2:16-17). The expression “one flesh” seems to indicate that they become, as it were, “kin,” at least legally (a new family unit is created) or metaphorically. In this first marriage in human history, the woman was literally formed from the man’s bone and flesh. Even though later marriages do not involve such a divine surgical operation, the first marriage sets the pattern for how later marriages are understood and explains why marriage supersedes the parent-child relationship.

NET Notes: Gen 2:25

¹ tn Heb “And the two of them were naked, the man and his wife.”

sn Naked. The motif of nakedness is introduced here and plays an important role in the next chapter. In the Bible nakedness conveys different things. In this context it signifies either innocence or integrity, depending on how those terms are defined. There is no fear of exploitation, no sense of vulnerability. But after the entrance of sin into the race, nakedness takes on a negative sense. It is then usually connected with the sense of vulnerability, shame, exploitation, and exposure (such as the idea of “uncovering nakedness” either in sexual exploitation or in captivity in war).

² tn The imperfect verb form here has a customary nuance, indicating a continuing condition in past time. The meaning of the Hebrew term בּוֹשׁ (bosh) is “to be ashamed, to put to shame,” but its meaning is stronger than “to be embarrassed.” The word conveys the fear of exploitation or evil – enemies are put to shame through military victory. It indicates the feeling of shame that approximates a fear of evil.

Geneva Bible: Gen 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 ^{( g )} tree of life also in the midst of the garden, ^{( h )} and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

^{( g )} Who was a sign of the life received from God.

^{( h )} That is, of miserable experience, which came by disobeying God.

Geneva Bible: Gen 2:11

The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land ^{( i )} of Havilah, where [there is] gold;

^{( i )} Havilah is a country adjoining Persia to the east, and inclining towards the west.

Geneva Bible: Gen 2:15

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to ^{( k )} dress it and to keep it.

^{( k )} God would not have man idle, though as yet there was no need to labour.

Geneva Bible: Gen 2:16

And the LORD God ^{( l )} commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

^{( l )} So that man might know there was a sovereign Lord, to whom he owed obedience.

Geneva Bible: Gen 2:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely ^{( m )} die.

^{( m )} By death he means the separation of man from God, who is our life and chief happiness: and also that our disobedience is the cause of it.

Geneva Bible: Gen 2:19

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto ^{( n )} Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

^{( n )} By moving them to come and submit themselves to Adam.

Geneva Bible: Gen 2:22

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a ^{( o )} woman, and brought her unto the man.

^{( o )} Signifying that mankind was perfect, when the woman was created, who before was like an imperfect building.

Geneva Bible: Gen 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave ^{( p )} his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

^{( p )} So marriage requires a greater duty of us toward our wives, than otherwise we are bound to show to our parents.

Geneva Bible: Gen 2:25

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ^{( q )} ashamed.

^{( q )} For before sin entered, all things were honest and comely.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Gen 2:1-25

1 The first Sabbath.

4 Further particulars concerning the manner of creation.

8 The planting of the garden of Eden, and its situation;

15 man is placed in it; and the tree of knowledge only forbidden.

18 The animals are named by Adam.

21 The making of woman, and the institution of marriage.

MHCC: Gen 2:8-14

The place fixed upon for Adam to dwell in, was not a palace, but a garden. The better we take up with plain things, and the less we seek things to gratify pride and luxury, the nearer we approach to innocency. Nature is content with a little, and that which is most natural; grace with less; but lust craves every thing, and is content with nothing. No delights can be satisfying to the soul, but those which God himself has provided and appointed for it. Eden signifies delight and pleasure. Wherever it was, it had all desirable conveniences, without any inconvenience, though no other house or garden on earth ever was so. It was adorned with every tree pleasant to the sight, and enriched with every tree that yielded fruit grateful to the taste and good for food. God, as a tender Father, desired not only Adam's profit, but his pleasure; for there is pleasure with innocency, nay there is true pleasure only in innocency. When Providence puts us in a place of plenty and pleasure, we ought to serve God with gladness of heart in the good things he gives us. Eden had two trees peculiar to itself. 1. There was the tree of life in the midst of the garden. Of this man might eat and live. Christ is now to us the Tree of life, Rev 2:7; Rev 22:2; and the Bread of life, Joh 6:48, Joh 6:51. 2. There was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so called because there was a positive revelation of the will of God about this tree, so that by it man might know moral good and evil. What is good? It is good not to eat of this tree. What is evil? It is evil to eat of this tree. In these two trees God set before Adam good and evil, the blessing and the curse.

MHCC: Gen 2:15

After God had formed Adam, he put him in the garden. All boasting was thereby shut out. Only he that made us can make us happy; he that is the Former of our bodies, and the Father of our spirits, and none but he, can fully provide for the happiness of both. Even in paradise itself man had to work. None of us were sent into the world to be idle. He that made our souls and bodies, has given us something to work with; and he that gave us this earth for our habitation, has made us something to work upon. The sons and heirs of heaven, while in this world, have something to do about this earth, which must have its share of their time and thoughts; and if they do it with an eye to God, they as truly serve him in it, as when they are upon their knees. Observe that the husbandman's calling is an ancient and honourable calling; it was needful even in paradise. Also, there is true pleasure in the business God calls us to, and employs us in. Adam could not have been happy if he had been idle: it is still God's law, He that will not work has no right to eat, 2Th 3:10.

MHCC: Gen 2:16-17

Let us never set up our own will against the holy will of God. There was not only liberty allowed to man, in taking the fruits of paradise, but everlasting life made sure to him upon his obedience. There was a trial appointed of his obedience. By transgression he would forfeit his Maker's favour, and deserve his displeasure, with all its awful effects; so that he would become liable to pain, disease, and death. Worse than that, he would lose the holy image of God, and all the comfort of his favour; and feel the torment of sinful passions, and the terror of his Maker's vengeance, which must endure for ever with his never dying soul. The forbidding to eat of the fruit of a particular tree was wisely suited to the state of our first parents. In their state of innocence, and separated from any others, what opportunity or what temptation had they to break any of the ten commandments? The event proves that the whole human race were concerned in the trial and fall of our first parents. To argue against these things is to strive against stubborn facts, as well as Divine revelation; for man is sinful, and shows by his first actions, and his conduct ever afterwards, that he is ready to do evil. He is under the Divine displeasure, exposed to sufferings and death. The Scriptures always speak of man as of this sinful character, and in this miserable state; and these things are true of men in all ages, and of all nations.

MHCC: Gen 2:18-25

Power over the creatures was given to man, and as a proof of this he named them all. It also shows his insight into the works of God. But though he was lord of the creatures, yet nothing in this world was a help meet for man. From God are all our helpers. If we rest in God, he will work all for good. God caused deep sleep to fall on Adam; while he knows no sin, God will take care that he shall feel no pain. God, as her Father, brought the woman to the man, as his second self, and a help meet for him. That wife, who is of God's making by special grace, and of God's bringing by special providence, is likely to prove a help meet for a man. See what need there is, both of prudence and prayer in the choice of this relation, which is so near and so lasting. That had need to be well done, which is to be done for life. Our first parents needed no clothes for covering against cold or heat, for neither could hurt them: they needed none for ornament. Thus easy, thus happy, was man in his state of innocency. How good was God to him! How many favours did he load him with! How easy were the laws given to him! Yet man, being in honour, understood not his own interest, but soon became as the beasts that perish.

Matthew Henry: Gen 2:8-15

Man consisting of body and soul, a body made out of the earth and a rational immortal soul the breath of heaven, we have, in these verses, the provision that was made for the happiness of both; he that made him took care to make him happy, if he could but have kept himself so and known when he was well off. That part of man by which he is allied to the world of sense was made happy; for he was put in the paradise of God: that part by which he is allied to the world of spirits was well provided for; for he was taken into covenant with God. Lord, what is man that he should be thus dignified - man that is a worm! Here we have,

I. A description of the garden of Eden, which was intended for the mansion and demesne of this great lord, the palace of this prince. The inspired penman, in this history, writing for the Jews first, and calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them. Spiritual things were strong meat, which they could not yet bear; but he writes to them as unto carnal, 1Co 3:1. Therefore he does not so much insist upon the happiness of Adam's mind as upon that of his outward state. The Mosaic history, as well as the Mosaic law, has rather the patterns of heavenly things than the heavenly things themselves, Heb 9:23. Observe,

1. The place appointed for Adam's residence was a garden; not an ivory house nor a palace overlaid with gold, but a garden, furnished and adorned by nature, not by art. What little reason have men to be proud of stately and magnificent buildings, when it was the happiness of man in innocency that he needed none! As clothes came in with sin, so did houses. The heaven was the roof of Adam's house, and never was any roof so curiously ceiled and painted. The earth was his floor, and never was any floor so richly inlaid. The shadow of the trees was his retirement; under them were his dining-rooms, his lodging-rooms, and never were any rooms so finely hung as these: Solomon's, in all their glory, were not arrayed like them. The better we can accommodate ourselves to plain things, and the less we indulge ourselves with those artificial delights which have been invented to gratify men's pride and luxury, the nearer we approach to a state of innocency. Nature is content with a little and that which is most natural, grace with less, but lust with nothing.

2. The contrivance and furniture of this garden were the immediate work of God's wisdom and power. The Lord God planted this garden, that is, he had planted it - upon the third day, when the fruits of the earth were made. We may well suppose to have been the most accomplished place for pleasure and delight that ever the sun saw, when the all-sufficient God himself designed it to be the present happiness of his beloved creature, man, in innocency, and a type and a figure of the happiness of the chosen remnant in glory. No delights can be agreeable nor satisfying to a soul but those that God himself has provided and appointed for it; no true paradise, but of God's planting. The light of our own fires, and the sparks of our own kindling, will soon leave us in the dark, Isa 50:11. The whole earth was now a paradise compared with what it is since the fall and since the flood; the finest gardens in the world are a wilderness compared with what the whole face of the ground was before it was cursed for man's sake: yet that was not enough; God planted a garden for Adam. God's chosen ones shall have distinguishing favours shown them.

3. The situation of this garden was extremely sweet. It was in Eden, which signifies delight and pleasure. The place is here particularly pointed out by such marks and bounds as were sufficient, I suppose, when Moses wrote, to specify the place to those who knew that country; but now, it seems, the curious cannot satisfy themselves concerning it. Let it be our care to make sure a place in the heavenly paradise, and then we need not perplex ourselves with a search after the place of the earthly paradise. It is certain that, wherever it was, it had all desirable conveniences, and (which never any house nor garden on earth was) without any convenience. Beautiful for situation, the joy and the glory of the whole earth, was this garden: doubtless it was earth in its highest perfection.

4. The trees with which this garden was planted. (1.) It had all the best and choicest trees in common with the rest of the ground. It was beautiful and adorned with every tree that, for its height or breadth, its make or colour, its leaf or flower, was pleasant to the sight and charmed the eye; it was replenished and enriched with every tree that yielded fruit grateful to the taste and useful to the body, and so good for food. God, as a tender Father, consulted not only Adam's profit, but his pleasure; for there is a pleasure consistent with innocency, nay, there is a true and transcendent pleasure in innocency. God delights in the prosperity of his servants, and would have them easy; it is owing to themselves if they be uneasy. When Providence puts us into an Eden of plenty and pleasure, we ought to serve him with joyfulness and gladness of heart, in the abundance of the good things he gives us. But, (2.) It had two extraordinary trees peculiar to itself; on earth there were not their like. [1.] There was the tree of life in the midst of the garden, which was not so much a memorandum to him of the fountain and author of his life, nor perhaps any natural means to preserve or prolong life; but it was chiefly intended to be a sign and seal to Adam, assuring him of the continuance of life and happiness, even to immortality and everlasting bliss, through the grace and favour of his Maker, upon condition of his perseverance in this state of innocency and obedience. Of this he might eat and live. Christ is now to us the tree of life (Rev 2:7; Rev 22:2), and the bread of life, Joh 6:48, Joh 6:53. [2.] There was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so called, not because it had any virtue in it to beget or increase useful knowledge (surely then it would not have been forbidden), but, First, Because there was an express positive revelation of the will of God concerning this tree, so that by it he might know moral good and evil. What is good? It is good not to eat of this tree. What is evil? It is evil to eat of this tree. The distinction between all other moral good and evil was written in the heart of man by nature; but this, which resulted from a positive law, was written upon this tree. Secondly, Because, in the event, it proved to give Adam an experimental knowledge of good by the loss of it and of evil by the sense of it. As the covenant of grace has in it, not only Believe and be saved, but also, Believe not and be damned (Mar 16:16), so the covenant of innocency had in it, not only "Do this and live,"which was sealed and confirmed by the tree of life, but, "Fail and die,"which Adam was assured of by this other tree: "Touch it at your peril;"so that, in these two trees, God set before him good and evil, the blessing and the curse, Deu 30:19. These two trees were as two sacraments.

5. The rivers with which this garden was watered, Gen 2:10-14. These four rivers (or one river branched into four streams) contributed much both to the pleasantness and the fruitfulness of this garden. The land of Sodom is said to be well watered every where, as the garden of the Lord, Gen 13:10. Observe, That which God plants he will take care to keep watered. The trees of righteousness are set by the rivers, Psa 1:3. In the heavenly paradise there is a river infinitely surpassing these; for it is a river of the water of life, not coming out of Eden, as this, but proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb (Rev 22:1), a river that makes glad the city of our God, Psa 46:4. Hiddekel and Euphrates are rivers of Babylon, which we read of elsewhere. By these the captive Jews sat down and wept, when they remembered Sion (Psa 137:1); but methinks they had much more reason to weep (and so have we) at the remembrance of Eden. Adam's paradise was their prison; such wretched work has sin made. Of the land of Havilah it is said (Gen 2:12), The gold of that land is good, and there is bdellium and the onyx-stone: surely this is mentioned that the wealth of which the land of Havilah boasted might be as foil to that which was the glory of the land of Eden. Havilah had gold, and spices, and precious stones; but Eden had that which was infinitely better, the tree of life, and communion with God. So we may say of the Africans and Indians: "They have the gold, but we have the gospel. The gold of their land is good, but the riches of ours are infinitely better."

II. The placing of man in this paradise of delight, Gen 2:15, where observe,

1. How God put him in possession of it: The Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden; so Gen 2:8, Gen 2:15. Note here, (1.) Man was made out of paradise; for, after God had formed him, he put him into the garden: he was made of common clay, not of paradise-dust. He lived out of Eden before he lived in it, that he might see that all the comforts of his paradise-state were owing to God's free grace. He could not plead a tenant-right to the garden, for he was not born upon the premises, nor had any thing but what he received; all boasting was hereby for ever excluded. (2.) The same God that was the author of his being was the author of his bliss; the same hand that made him a living soul planted the tree of life for him, and settled him by it. He that made us is alone able to make us happy; he that is the former of our bodies and the Father of our spirits, he, and none but he, can effectually provide for the felicity of both. (3.) It adds much to the comfort of any condition if we have plainly seen God going before us and putting us into it. If we have not forced providence, but followed it, and taken the hints of direction it has given us, we may hope to find a paradise where otherwise we could not have expected it. See Psa 47:4.

2. How God appointed him business and employment. He put him there, not like Leviathan into the waters, to play therein, but to dress the garden and to keep it. Paradise itself was not a place of exemption from work. Note, here, (1.) We were none of us sent into the world to be idle. He that made us these souls and bodies has given us something to work with; and he that gave us this earth for our habitation has made us something to work on. If a high extraction, or a great estate, or a large dominion, or perfect innocency, or a genius for pure contemplation, or a small family, could have given a man a writ of ease, Adam would not have been set to work; but he that gave us being has given us business, to serve him and our generation, and to work out our salvation: if we do not mind our business, we are unworthy of our being and maintenance. (2.) Secular employments will vary well consist with a state of innocency and a life of communion with God. The sons and heirs of heaven, while they are here in this world, have something to do about this earth, which must have its share of their time and thoughts; and, if they do it with an eye to God, they are as truly serving him in it as when they are upon their knees. (3.) The husbandman's calling is an ancient and honourable calling; it was needful even in paradise. The garden of Eden, though it needed not to be weeded (for thorns and thistles were not yet a nuisance), yet must be dressed and kept. Nature, even in its primitive state, left room for the improvements of art and industry. It was a calling fit for a state of innocency, making provision for life, not for lust, and giving man an opportunity of admiring the Creator and acknowledging his providence: while his hands were about his trees, his heart might be with his God. (4.) There is a true pleasure in the business which God calls us to, and employs us in. Adam's work was so far from being an allay that it was an addition to the pleasures of paradise; he could not have been happy if he had been idle: it is still a law, He that will not work has no right to eat, 2Th 3:10; Pro 27:23.

III. The command which God gave to man in innocency, and the covenant he then took him into. Hitherto we have seen God as man's powerful Creator and his bountiful Benefactor; now he appears as his Ruler and Lawgiver. God put him into the garden of Eden, not to live there as he might list, but to be under government. As we are not allowed to be idle in this world, and to do nothing, so we are not allowed to be wilful, and do what we please. When God had given man a dominion over the creatures, he would let him know that still he himself was under the government of his Creator.

Matthew Henry: Gen 2:16-17

Observe here, I. God's authority over man, as a creature that had reason and freedom of will. The Lord God commanded the man, who stood now as a public person, the father and representative of all mankind, to receive law, as he had lately received a nature, for himself and all his. God commanded all the creatures, according to their capacity; the settled course of nature is a law, Psa 148:6; Psa 104:9. The brute-creatures have their respective instincts; but man was made capable of performing reasonable service, and therefore received, not only the command of a Creator, but the command of a Prince and Master. Though Adam was a very great man, a very good man, and a very happy man, yet the Lord God commanded him; and the command was no disparagement to his greatness, no reproach to his goodness, nor any diminution at all to his happiness. Let us acknowledge God's right to rule us, and our own obligations to be ruled by him; and never allow any will of our own in contradiction to, or competition with, the holy will of God.

II. The particular act of this authority, in prescribing to him what he should do, and upon what terms he should stand with his Creator. Here is,

1. A confirmation of his present happiness to him, in that grant, Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat. This was not only an allowance of liberty to him, in taking the delicious fruits of paradise, as a recompence for his care and pains in dressing and keeping it (1Co 9:7, 1Co 9:10), but it was, withal, an assurance of life to him, immortal life, upon his obedience. For the tree of life being put in the midst of the garden (Gen 2:9), as the heart and soul of it, doubtless God had an eye to that especially in this grant; and therefore when, upon his revolt, this grant is recalled, no notice is taken of any tree of the garden as prohibited to him, except the tree of life (Gen 3:22), of which it is there said he might have eaten and lived for ever, that is, never died, nor ever lost his happiness. "Continue holy as thou art, in conformity to thy Creator's will, and thou shalt continue happy as thou art in the enjoyment of thy Creator's favour, either in this paradise or in a better."Thus, upon condition of perfect personal and perpetual obedience, Adam was sure of paradise to himself and his heirs for ever.

2. A trial of his obedience, upon pain of the forfeiture of all his happiness: " But of the other tree which stood very near the tree of life (for they are both said to be in the midst of the garden ), and which was called the tree of knowledge, in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die; "as if he had said, "Know, Adam, that thou art now upon thy good behaviour, thou art put into paradise upon trial; be observant, be obedient, and thou art made for ever; otherwise thou wilt be as miserable as now thou art happy."Here,

(1.) Adam is threatened with death in case of disobedience: Dying thou shalt die, denoting a sure and dreadful sentence, as, in the former part of this covenant, eating thou shalt eat, denotes a free and full grant. Observe [1.] Even Adam, in innocency, was awed with a threatening; fear is one of the handles of the soul, by which it is taken hold of and held. If he then needed this hedge, much more do we now. [2.] The penalty threatened is death: Thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt be debarred from the tree of life, and all the good that is signified by it, all the happiness thou hast, either in possession or prospect; and thou shalt become liable to death, and all the miseries that preface it and attend it."[3.] This was threatened as the immediate consequence of sin: In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die, that is, "Thou shalt become mortal and capable of dying; the grant of immortality shall be recalled, and that defence shall depart from thee. Thou shalt become obnoxious to death, like a condemned malefactor that is dead in the law"(only, because Adam was to be the root of mankind, he was reprieved); "nay, the harbingers and forerunners of death shall immediately seize thee, and thy life, thenceforward, shall be a dying life: and this, surely; it is a settled rule, the soul that sinneth, it shall die. "

(2.) Adam is tried with a positive law, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Now it was very proper to make trial of his obedience by such a command as this, [1.] Because the reason of it is fetched purely from the will of the Law-maker. Adam had in his nature an aversion to that which was evil in itself, and therefore he is tried in a thing which was evil only because it was forbidden; and, being in a small thing, it was the more fit to prove his obedience by. [2.] Because the restraint of it is laid upon the desires of the flesh and of the mind, which, in the corrupt nature of man, are the two great fountains of sin. This prohibition checked both his appetite towards sensitive delights and his ambitions of curious knowledge, that his body might be ruled by his soul and his soul by his God.

Thus easy, thus happy, was man in a state of innocency, having all that heart could wish to make him so. How good was God to him! How many favours did he load him with! How easy were the laws he gave him! How kind the covenant he made with him! Yet man, being in honour, understood not his own interest, but soon became as the beasts that perish.

Matthew Henry: Gen 2:18-20

Here we have, I. An instance of the Creator's care of man and his fatherly concern for his comfort, Gen 2:18. Though God had let him know that he was a subject, by giving him a command, (Gen 2:16, Gen 2:17), yet here he lets him know also, for his encouragement in his obedience, that he was a friend, and a favourite, and one whose satisfaction he was tender of. Observe,

1. How God graciously pitied his solitude: It is not good that man, this man, should be alone. Though there was an upper world of angels and a lower world of brutes, and he between them, yet there being none of the same nature and rank of beings with himself, none that he could converse familiarly with, he might be truly said to be alone. Now he that made him knew both him and what was good for him, better than he did himself, and he said, "It is not good that he should continue thus alone."(1.) It is not for his comfort; for man is a sociable creature. It is a pleasure to him to exchange knowledge and affection with those of his own kind, to inform and to be informed, to love and to be beloved. What God here says of the first man Solomon says of all men (Ecc 4:9, etc.), that two are better than one, and woe to him that is alone. If there were but one man in the world, what a melancholy man must he needs be! Perfect solitude would turn a paradise into a desert, and a palace into a dungeon. Those therefore are foolish who are selfish and would be place alone in the earth. (2.) It is not for the increase and continuance of his kind. God could have made a world of men at first, to replenish the earth, as he replenished heaven with a world of angels: but the place would have been too strait for the designed number of men to live together at once; therefore God saw fit to make up that number by a succession of generations, which, as God had formed man, must be from two, and those male and female; one will be ever one.

2. How God graciously resolved to provide society for him. The result of this reasoning concerning him was this kind resolution, I will make a help-meet for him; a help like him (so some read it), one of the same nature and the same rank of beings; a help near him (so others), one to cohabit with him, and to be always at hand; a help before him (so others), one that he should look upon with pleasure and delight. Note hence, (1.) In our best state in this world we have need of one another's help; for we are members one of another, and the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee, 1Co 12:21. We must therefore be glad to receive help from others, and give help to others, as there is occasion. (2.) It is God only who perfectly knows our wants, and is perfectly able to supply them all, Phi 4:19. In him alone our help is, and from him are all our helpers. (3.) A suitable wife is a help-meet, and is from the Lord. The relation is then likely to be comfortable when meetness directs and determines the choice, and mutual helpfulness is the constant care and endeavour, 1Co 7:33, 1Co 7:34. (4.) Family-society, if it is agreeable, is a redress sufficient for the grievance of solitude. He that has a good God, a good heart, and a good wife, to converse with, and yet complains he wants conversation, would not have been easy and content in paradise; for Adam himself had no more: yet, even before Eve was created, we do not find that he complained of being alone, knowing that he was not alone, for the Father was with him. Those that are most satisfied in God and his favour are in the best way, and in the best frame, to receive the good things of this life, and shall be sure of them, as far as Infinite Wisdom sees good.

II. An instance of the creatures' subjection to man, and his dominion over them (Gen 2:19, Gen 2:20): Every beast of the field and every fowl of the air God brought to Adam, either by the ministry of angels, or by a special instinct, directing them to come to man as their master, teaching the ox betimes to know his owner. Thus God gave man livery and seisin of the fair estate he had granted him, and put him in possession of his dominion over the creatures. God brought them to him, that he might name them, and so might give, 1. A proof of his knowledge, as a creature endued with the faculties both of reason and speech, and so taught more than the beasts of the earth and made wiser than the fowls of the heaven, Job 35:11. And, 2. A proof of his power. It is an act of authority to impose names (Dan 1:7), and of subjection to receive them. The inferior creatures did now, as it were, do homage to their prince at his inauguration, and swear fealty and allegiance to him. If Adam had continued faithful to his God, we may suppose the creatures themselves would so well have known and remembered the names Adam now gave them as to have come at his call, at any time, and answered to their names. God gave names to the day and night, to the firmament, to the earth, and to the sea; and he calleth the stars by their names, to show that he is the supreme Lord of these. But he gave Adam leave to name the beasts and fowls, as their subordinate lord; for, having made him in his own image, he thus put some of his honour upon him.

III. An instance of the creatures' insufficiency to be a happiness for man: But (among them all) for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. Some make these to be the words of Adam himself; observing all the creatures come to him by couples to be named, he thus intimates his desire to his Maker: - "Lord, these have all helps meet for them; but what shall I do? Here is never a one for me."It is rather God's judgment upon the review. He brought them all together, to see if there were ever a suitable match for Adam in any of the numerous families of the inferior creatures; but there was none. Observe here, 1. The dignity and excellency of the human nature. On earth there was not its like, nor its peer to be found among all visible creatures; they were all looked over, but it could not be matched among them all. 2. The vanity of this world and the things of it; put them all together, and they will not make a help-meet for man. They will not suit the nature of his soul, nor supply its needs, nor satisfy its just desires, nor run parallel with its never-failing duration. God creates a new thing to be a help-meet for man - not so much the woman as the seed of the woman.

Matthew Henry: Gen 2:21-25

Here we have, I. The making of the woman, to be a help-meet for Adam. This was done upon the sixth day, as was also the placing of Adam in paradise, though it is here mentioned after an account of the seventh day's rest; but what was said in general (Gen 1:27), that God made man male and female, is more distinctly related here. Observe, 1. That Adam was first formed, then Eve (1Ti 2:13), and she was made of the man, and for the man (1Co 11:8, 1Co 11:9), all which are urged there as reasons for the humility, modesty, silence, and submissiveness, of that sex in general, and particularly the subjection and reverence which wives owe to their own husbands. Yet man being made last of the creatures, as the best and most excellent of all, Eve's being made after Adam, and out of him, puts an honour upon that sex, as the glory of the man, 1Co 11:7. If man is the head, she is the crown, a crown to her husband, the crown of the visible creation. The man was dust refined, but the woman was dust double-refined, one remove further from the earth. 2. That Adam slept while his wife was in making, that no room might be left to imagine that he had herein directed the Spirit of the Lord, or been his counsellor, Isa 40:13. He had been made sensible of his want of a meet help; but, God having undertaken to provide him one, he does not afflict himself with any care about it, but lies down and sleeps sweetly, as one that had cast all his care on God, with a cheerful resignation of himself and all his affairs to his Maker's will and wisdom. Jehovah-jireh, let the Lord provide when and whom he pleases. If we graciously rest in God, God will graciously work for us and work all for good. 3. That God caused a sleep to fall on Adam, and made it a deep sleep, that so the opening of his side might be no grievance to him; while he knows no sin, God will take care he shall feel no pain. When God, by his providence, does that to his people which is grievous to flesh and blood, he not only consults their happiness in the issue, but by his grace he can so quiet and compose their spirits as to make them easy under the sharpest operations. 4. That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. Adam lost a rib, and without any diminution to his strength or comeliness (for, doubtless, the flesh was closed without a scar); but in lieu thereof he had a help meet for him, which abundantly made up his loss: what God takes away from his people he will, one way or other, restore with advantage. In this (as in many other things) Adam was a figure of him that was to come; for out of the side of Christ, the second Adam, his spouse the church was formed, when he slept the sleep, the deep sleep, of death upon the cross, in order to which his side was opened, and there came out blood and water, blood to purchase his church and water to purify it to himself. See Eph 5:25, Eph 5:26.

II. The marriage of the woman to Adam. Marriage is honourable, but this surely was the most honourable marriage that ever was, in which God himself had all along an immediate hand. Marriages (they say) are made in heaven: we are sure this was, for the man, the woman, the match, were all God's own work; he, by his power, made them both, and now, by his ordinance, made them one. This was a marriage made in perfect innocency, and so was never any marriage since, 1. God, as her Father, brought the woman to the man, as his second self, and a help-meet for him. When he had made her, he did not leave her to her own disposal; no, she was his child, and she must not marry without his consent. Those are likely to settle to their comfort who by faith and prayer, and a humble dependence upon providence, put themselves under a divine conduct. That wife that is of God's making by special grace, and of God's bringing by special providence, is likely to prove a help-meet for a man. 2. From God, as his Father, Adam received her (Gen 2:23): " This is now bone of my bone. Now I have what I wanted, and which all the creatures could not furnish me with, a help meet for me."God's gifts to us are to be received with a humble thankful acknowledgment of his wisdom in suiting them to us, and his favour in bestowing them on us. Probably it was revealed to Adam in a vision, when he was asleep, that this lovely creature, now presented to him, was a piece of himself, and was to be his companion and the wife of his covenant. Hence some have fetched an argument to prove that glorified saints in the heavenly paradise shall know one another. Further, in token of his acceptance of her, he gave her a name, not peculiar to her, but common to her sex: She shall be called woman, Isha , a she-man, differing from man in sex only, not in nature - made of man, and joined to man.

III. The institution of the ordinance of marriage, and the settling of the law of it, Gen 2:24. The sabbath and marriage were two ordinances instituted in innocency, the former for the preservation of the church, the latter for the preservation of the world of mankind. It appears (by Mat 19:4, Mat 19:5) that it was God himself who said here, "A man must leave all his relations, to cleave to his wife;"but whether he spoke it by Moses, the penman, or by Adam (who spoke, Gen 2:23), is uncertain. It should seem, they are the words of Adam, in God's name, laying down this law to all his posterity. 1. See here how great the virtue of a divine ordinance is; the bonds of it are stronger even than those of nature. To whom can we be more firmly bound than the fathers that begat us and the mothers that bore us? Yet the son must quit them, to be joined to his wife, and the daughter forget them, to cleave to her husband, Psa 45:10, Psa 45:11. 2. See how necessary it is that children should take their parents' consent along with them in their marriage, and how unjust those are to their parents, as well as undutiful, who marry without it; for they rob them of their right to them, and interest in them, and alienate it to another, fraudulently and unnaturally. 3. See what need there is both of prudence and prayer in the choice of this relation, which is so near and so lasting. That had need be well done which is to be done for life. 4. See how firm the bond of marriage is, not to be divided and weakened by having many wives (Mal 2:15) nor to be broken or cut off by divorce, for any cause but fornication, or voluntary desertion. 5. See how dear the affection ought to be between husband and wife, such as there is to our own bodies, Eph 5:28. These two are one flesh; let them then be one soul.

IV. An evidence of the purity and innocency of that state wherein our first parents were created, Gen 2:25. They were both naked. They needed no clothes for defense against cold nor heat, for neither could be injurious to them. They needed none for ornament. Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Nay, they needed none for decency; they were naked, and had no reason to be ashamed. They knew not what shame was, so the Chaldee reads it. Blushing is now the colour of virtue, but it was not then the colour of innocency. Those that had no sin in their conscience might well have no shame in their faces, though they had no clothes to their backs.

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 2:8-9

The abode, which God prepared for the first man, was a "garden in Eden," also called "the garden of Eden"(Gen 2:15; Gen 3:23-24; Joe 2:3), or Eden (Isa 51:3; Eze 28:13; Eze 31:9). Eden ( עדן , i.e., delight) is the proper name of a particular district, the situation of which is described in Gen 2:10.; but it must not be confounded with the Eden of Assyria (2Ki 19:12, etc.) and Coelesyria (Amo 1:5), which is written with double seghol. The garden (lit., a place hedged round) was to the east, i.e., in the eastern portion, and is generally called Paradise from the Septuagint version, in which the word is rendered παράδεισος . This word, according to Spiegel , was derived from the Zendic pairi -daêza , a hedging round, and passed into the Hebrew in the form פּרדּס (Son 4:13; Ecc 2:5; Neh 2:8), a park, probably through the commercial relations which Solomon established with distant countries. In the garden itself God caused all kinds of trees to grow out of the earth; and among them were tow, which were called "the tree of life"and "the tree of knowledge of good and evil,"on account of their peculiar significance in relation to man (see Gen 2:16 and Gen 3:22). הדּעת , an infinitive, as Jer 22:16 shows, has the article here because the phrase ורע טוב דעת is regarded as one word, and in Jeremiah from the nature of the predicate.

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 2:10-14

"And there was a river going out of Eden, to water the garden; and from thence it divided itself, and became four heads;" i.e., the stream took its rise in Eden, flowed through the garden to water it, and on leaving the garden was divided into four heads or beginnings of rivers, that is, into four arms or separate streams. For this meaning of ראשׁים see Eze 16:25; Lam 2:19. Of the four rivers whose names are given to show the geographical situation of paradise, the last two are unquestionably Tigris and Euphrates. Hiddekel occurs in Dan 10:4 as the Hebrew name for Tigris; in the inscriptions of Darius it is called Tigrâ (or the arrow, according to Strabo , Pliny , and Curtius ), from the Zendic tighra, pointed, sharp, from which probably the meaning stormy ( rapidus Tigris , Hor . Carm . 4, 14, 46) was derived. It flows before ( קדמת ), in front of, Assyria, not to the east of Assyria; for the province of Assyria, which must be intended here, was on the eastern side of the Tigris: moreover, neither the meaning, "to the east of,"nor the identity of קדמת and מקדם has been, or can be, established from Gen 4:16; 1Sa 13:5, or Eze 39:11, which are the only other passages in which the word occurs, as Ewald himself acknowledges. P'rath , which was not more minutely described because it was so generally known, is the Euphrates; in old Persian, Ufrâtu , according to Delitzsch , or the good and fertile stream; Ufrâtu , according to Spiegler , or the well-progressing stream. According to the present condition of the soil, the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are not so closely connected that they could be regarded as the commencements of a common stream which has ceased to exist. The main sources of the Tigris, it is true, are only 2000 paces from the Euphrates, but they are to the north of Diarbekr, in a range of mountains which is skirted on three sides by the upper course of the Euphrates, and separates them from this river. We must also look in the same country, the highlands of Armenia, for the other two rivers, if the description of paradise actually rests upon an ancient tradition, and is to be regarded as something more than a mythical invention of the fancy. The name Phishon sounds like the Phasis of the ancients, with which Reland supposed it to be identical; and Chavilah like Cholchis , the well-known gold country of the ancients. But the Φάσις ὁ Κόλχος ( Herod . 4, 37, 45) takes its rise in the Caucasus, and not in Armenia. A more probable conjecture, therefore, points to the Cyrus of the ancients, which rises in Armenia, flows northwards to a point not far from the eastern border of Colchis, and then turns eastward in Iberia, from which it flows in a south-easterly direction to the Caspian Sea. The expression, "which compasseth the whole land of Chavilah," would apply very well to the course of this river from the eastern border of Colchis; for סבב does not necessarily signify to surround, but to pass through with different turns, or to skirt in a semi-circular form, and Chavilah may have been larger than modern Colchis . It is not a valid objection to this explanation, that in every other place Chavilah is a district of Southern Arabia. The identity of this Chavilah with the Chavilah of the Joktanites (Gen 10:29; Gen 25:18; 1Sa 15:7) or of the Cushites (Gen 10:7; 1Ch 1:9) is disproved not only by the article used here, which distinguishes it from the other, but also by the description of it as land where gold, bdolach, and the shohamstone are found; a description neither requisite nor suitable in the case of the Arabian Chavilah, since there productions are not to be met with there. This characteristic evidently shows that the Chavilah mentioned here was entirely distinct from the other, and a land altogether unknown to the Iraelites.

What we are to understand by הבּדלח is uncertain. There is no certain ground for the meaning "pearls,"given in Saad . and the later Rabbins, and adopted by Bochart and others. The rendering βδέλλα or βδέλλιον , bdellium , a vegetable gum, of which Cioscorus says, οἱ δὲ μάδελκον οἱ δὲ βολχὸν καλχὸν , and Pliny , "alii brochon appellant, alii malacham, alii maldacon ," is favoured by the similarity in the name; but, on the other side, there is the fact that Pliny describes this gum as nigrum and hadrobolon , and Dioscorus as ὑποπέλιον (blackish), which does not agree with Num 11:7, where the appearance of the white grains of the manna is compared to that of bdolach . - The stone shoham , according to most of the early versions, is probably the beryl , which is most likely the stone intended by the lxx ( ὁ λίθος ὁ πράσινος , the leek-green stone), as Pliny , when speaking of beryls, describes those as probatissimi , qui viriditatem puri maris imitantur ; but according to others it is the onyx or sardonyx (vid., Ges. s.v.).

(Note: The two productions furnish no proof that the Phishon is to be sought for in India. The assertion that the name bdolach is Indian, is quite unfounded, for it cannot be proved that madâlaka i madâra , Bactriana a in qua Bdellium est nominatissimum , nascitur et in Arabia Indiaque, et Media ac Babylone ; Sordida est et nigra et majori gleba , India eos gignit, raro alibi repertos , in nostro orbe aliquando circa Pontum inveniri putantur .")

The Gihon (from גּוּח to break forth) is the Araxes , which rises in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, flows from west to east, joins the Cyrus, and falls with it into the Caspian Sea. The name corresponds to the Arabic Jaihun , a name given by the Arabians and Persians to several large rivers. The land of Cush cannot, of course, be the later Cush, or Ethiopia, but must be connected with the Asiatic Κοσσαία , which reached to the Caucasus, and to which the Jews (of Shirwan) still give this name. But even though these four streams do not now spring from one source, but on the contrary their sources are separated by mountain ranges, this fact does not prove that the narrative before us is a myth. Along with or since the disappearance of paradise, that part of the earth may have undergone such changes that the precise locality can no longer be determined with certainty.

(Note: That the continents of our globe have undergone great changes since the creation of the human race, is a truth sustained by the facts of natural history and the earliest national traditions, and admitted by the most celebrated naturalists. (See the collection of proofs made by Keerl .) These changes must not be all attributed to the flood; many may have occurred before and many after, like the catastrophe in which the Dead Sea originated, without being recorded in history as this has been. Still less must we interpret Gen 11:1 (compared with Gen 10:25), as Fabri and Keerl have done, as indicating a complete revolution of the globe, or a geogonic process, by which the continents of the old world were divided, and assumed their present physignomy.)

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 2:15-17

After the preparation of the garden in Eden God placed the man there, to dress it and to keep it. ינּיחהוּ not merely expresses removal thither, but the fact that the man was placed there to lead a life of repose, not indeed in inactivity, but in fulfilment of the course assigned him, which was very different from the trouble and restlessness of the weary toil into which he was plunged by sin. In paradise he was to dress ( colere ) the garden; for the earth was meant to be tended and cultivated by man, so that without human culture, plants and even the different varieties of corn degenerate and grow wild. Cultivation therefore preserved ( שׁמר to keep) the divine plantation, not merely from injury on the part of any evil power, either penetrating into, or already existing in the creation, but also from running wild through natural degeneracy. As nature was created for man, it was his vocation not only to ennoble it by his work, to make it subservient to himself, but also to raise it into the sphere of the spirit and further its glorification. This applied not merely to the soil beyond the limits of paradise, but to the garden itself, which, although the most perfect portion of the terrestrial creation, was nevertheless susceptible of development, and which was allotted to man, in order that by his care and culture he might make it into a transparent mirror of the glory of the Creator. - Here too the man was to commence his own spiritual development. To this end God had planted two trees in the midst of the garden of Eden; the one to train his spirit through the exercise of obedience to the word of God, the other to transform his earthly nature into the spiritual essence of eternal life. These trees received their names from their relation to man, that is to say, from the effect which the eating of their fruit was destined to produce upon human life and its development. The fruit of the tree of life conferred the power of eternal, immortal life; and the tree of knowledge was planted, to lead men to the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil was no mere experience of good and ill, but a moral element in that spiritual development, through which the man created in the image of God was to attain to the filling out of that nature, which had already been planned in the likeness of God. For not to know what good and evil are, is a sign of either the immaturity of infancy (Deu 1:39), or the imbecility of age (2Sa 19:35); whereas the power to distinguish good and evil is commended as the gift of a king (1Ki 3:9) and the wisdom of angels (2Sa 14:17), and in the highest sense is ascribed to God Himself (Gen 3:5, Gen 3:22). Why then did God prohibit man from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, with the threat that, as soon as he ate thereof, he would surely die? (The inf. abs. before the finite verb intensifies the latter: vid., Ewald , §312a). Are we to regard the tree as poisonous, and suppose that some fatal property resided in the fruit? A supposition which so completely ignores the ethical nature of sin is neither warranted by the antithesis, nor by what is said in Gen 3:22 of the tree of life, nor by the fact that the eating of the forbidden fruit was actually the cause of death. Even in the case of the tree of life, the power is not to be sought in the physical character of the fruit. No earthly fruit possesses the power to give immortality to the life which it helps to sustain. Life is not rooted in man's corporeal nature; it was in his spiritual nature that it had its origin, and from this it derives its stability and permanence also. It may, indeed, be brought to an end through the destruction of the body; but it cannot be exalted to perpetual duration, i.e., to immortality, through its preservation and sustenance. And this applies quite as much to the original nature of man, as to man after the fall. A body formed from earthly materials could not be essentially immortal: it would of necessity either be turned to earth, and fall into dust again, or be transformed by the spirit into the immortality of the soul. The power which transforms corporeality into immortality is spiritual in its nature, and could only be imparted to the earthly tree or its fruit through the word of God, through a special operation of the Spirit of God, an operation which we can only picture to ourselves as sacramental in its character, rendering earthly elements the receptacles and vehicles of celestial powers. God had given such a sacramental nature and significance to the two trees in the midst of the garden, that their fruit could and would produce supersensual, mental, and spiritual effects upon the nature of the first human pair. The tree of life was to impart the power of transformation into eternal life. The tree of knowledge was to lead man to the knowledge of good and evil; and, according to the divine intention, this was to be attained through his not eating of its fruit. This end was to be accomplished, not only by his discerning in the limit imposed by the prohibition the difference between that which accorded with the will of God and that which opposed it, but also by his coming eventually, through obedience to the prohibition, to recognise the fact that all that is opposed to the will of God is an evil to be avoided, and, through voluntary resistance to such evil, to the full development of the freedom of choice originally imparted to him into the actual freedom of a deliberate and self-conscious choice of good. By obedience to the divine will he would have attained to a godlike knowledge of good and evil, i.e., to one in accordance with his own likeness to God. He would have detected the evil in the approaching tempter; but instead of yielding to it, he would have resisted it, and thus have made good his own property acquired with consciousness and of his own free-will, and in this way by proper self-determination would gradually have advanced to the possession of the truest liberty. But as he failed to keep this divinely appointed way, and ate the forbidden fruit in opposition to the command of God, the power imparted by God to the fruit was manifested in a different way. He learned the difference between good and evil from his own guilty experience, and by receiving the evil into his own soul, fell a victim to the threatened death. Thus through his own fault the tree, which should have helped him to attain true freedom, brought nothing but the sham liberty of sin, and with it death, and that without any demoniacal power of destruction being conjured into the tree itself, or any fatal poison being hidden in its fruit.

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 2:18-22

Creation of the Woman. - As the creation of the man is introduced in Gen 1:26-27, with a divine decree, so here that of the woman is preceded by the divine declaration, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him כּנגדּו עזר , a help of his like : "i.e., a helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he may recognise himself"( Delitzsch ). Of such a help the man stood in need, in order that he might fulfil his calling, not only to perpetuate and multiply his race, but to cultivate and govern the earth. To indicate this, the general word כנגדו עזר is chosen, in which there is an allusion to the relation of the sexes. To call out this want, God brought the larger quadrupeds and birds to the man, " to see what he would call them ( לו lit., each one); and whatsoever the man might call every living being should be its name ."The time when this took place must have been the sixth day, on which, according to Gen 1:27, the man and woman were created: and there is no difficulty in this, since it would not have required much time to bring the animals to Adam to see what he would call them, as the animals of paradise are all we have to think of; and the deep sleep into which God caused the man to fall, till he had formed the woman from his rib, need not have continued long. In Gen 1:27 the creation of the woman is linked with that of the man; but here the order of sequence is given, because the creation of the woman formed a chronological incident in the history of the human race, which commences with the creation of Adam. The circumstance that in Gen 2:19 the formation of the beasts and birds is connected with the creation of Adam by the imperf . c. ו consec ., constitutes to objection to the plan of creation given in Gen 1. The arrangement may be explained on the supposition, that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beasts, went back to their creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historians, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same thought would be simply this: "God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed."

(Note: A striking example of this style of narrative we find in 1Ki 7:13. First of all, the building and completion of the temple are noticed several times in 1 Kings 6, and the last time in connection with the year and month (1Ki 6:9, 1Ki 6:14, 1Ki 6:37-38); after that, the fact is stated, that the royal palace was thirteen years in building; and then the writer proceeds thus: "And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram from Tyre...and he came to king Solomon, and did all his work; and made the two pillars,"etc. Now, if we were to understand the historical preterite with consec ., here, as giving the order of sequence, Solomon would be made to send for the Tyrian artist, thirteen years after the temple was finished, to come and prepare the pillars for the porch, and all the vessels needed for the temple. But the writer merely expresses in Semitic style the simple thought, that "Hiram, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre, made the vessels,"etc. Another instance we find in Jdg 2:6.)

Moreover, the allusion is not to the creation of all the beasts, but simply to that of the beasts living in the field (game and tame cattle), and of the fowls of the air-to beasts, therefore, which had been formed like man from the earth, and thus stood in a closer relation to him than water animals or reptiles. For God brought the animals to Adam, to show him the creatures which were formed to serve him, that He might see what he would call them. Calling or naming presupposes acquaintance. Adam is to become acquainted with the creatures, to learn their relation to him, and by giving them names to prove himself their lord. God does not order him to name them; but by bringing the beasts He gives him an opportunity of developing that intellectual capacity which constitutes his superiority to the animal world. "The man sees the animals, and thinks of what they are and how they look; and these thoughts, in themselves already inward words, take the form involuntarily of audible names, which he utters to the beasts, and by which he places the impersonal creatures in the first spiritual relation to himself, the personal being"( Delitzsch ). Language, as W. v. Humboldt says, is "the organ of the inner being, or rather the inner being itself as it gradually attains to inward knowledge and expression."It is merely thought cast into articulate sounds or words. The thoughts of Adam with regard to the animals, to which he gave expression in the names that he gave them, we are not to regard as the mere results of reflection, or of abstraction from merely outward peculiarities which affected the senses; but as a deep and direct mental insight into the nature of the animals, which penetrated far deeper than such knowledge as is the simple result of reflecting and abstracting thought. The naming of the animals, therefore, led to this result, that there was not found a help meet for man. Before the creation of the woman we must regard the man (Adam) as being "neither male, in the sense of complete sexual distinction, nor androgynous as though both sexes were combined in the one individual created at the first, but as created in anticipation of the future, with a preponderant tendency, a male in simple potentiality, out of which state he passed, the moment the woman stood by his side, when the mere potentia became an actual antithesis"( Ziegler ).

Then God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man (Gen 2:21). תּרדּמּה , a deep sleep, in which all consciousness of the outer world and of one's own existence vanishes. Sleep is an essential element in the nature of man as ordained by God, and is quite as necessary for man as the interchange of day and night for all nature besides. But this deep sleep was different from natural sleep, and God caused it to fall upon the man by day, that He might create the woman out of him. "Everything out of which something new is to spring, sinks first of all into such a sleep"( Ziegler ). צלע means the side, and, as a portion of the human body, the rib. The correctness of this meaning, which is given by all the ancient versions, is evident from the words, " God took one of his צלעות ,"which show that the man had several of them. "And closed up flesh in the place thereof;" i.e., closed the gap which had been made, with flesh which He put in the place of the rib. The woman was created, not of dust of the earth, but from a rib of Adam, because she was formed for an inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage. As the moral idea of the unity of the human race required that man should not be created as a genus or plurality,

(Note: Natural science can only demonstrate the unity of the human race, not the descent of all men from one pair, though many naturalists question and deny even the former, but without any warrant from anthropological facts. For every thorough investigation leads to the conclusion arrived at by the latest inquirer in this department, Th. Waitz , that not only are there no facts in natural history which preclude the unity of the various races of men, and fewer difficulties in the way of this assumption than in that of the opposite theory of specific diversities; but even in mental respects there are no specific differences within the limits of the race. Delitzsch has given an admirable summary of the proofs of unity. "That the races of men,"he says, "are not species of one genus, but varieties of one species, is confirmed by the agreement in the physiological and pathological phenomena in them all, by the similarity in the anatomical structure, in the fundamental powers and traits of the mind, in the limits to the duration of life, in the normal temperature of the body and the average rate of pulsation, in the duration of pregnancy, and in the unrestricted fruitfulness of marriages between the various races.")

so the moral relation of the two persons establishing the unity of the race required that man should be created first, and then the woman from the body of the man. By this the priority and superiority of the man, and the dependence of the woman upon the man, are established as an ordinance of divine creation. This ordinance of God forms the root of that tender love with which the man loves the woman as himself, and by which marriage becomes a type of the fellowship of love and life, which exists between the Lord and His Church (Eph 5:32). If the fact that the woman was formed from a rib, and not from any other part of the man, is significant; all that we can find in this is, that the woman was made to stand as a helpmate by the side of the man, not that there was any allusion to conjugal love as founded in the heart; for the text does not speak of the rib as one which was next the heart. The word בּנה is worthy of note: from the rib of the man God builds the female, through whom the human race is to be built up by the male (Gen 16:2; Gen 30:3).

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 2:23-25

The design of God in the creation of the woman is perceived by Adam, as soon as he awakes, when the woman is brought to him by God. Without a revelation from God, he discovers in the woman "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh." The words, " this is now ( הפּעם lit., this time ) bone of my bones ,"etc., are expressive of joyous astonishment at the suitable helpmate, whose relation to himself he describes in the words, "she shall be called Woman, for she is taken out of man." אשּׁה is well rendered by Luther , " Männin "(a female man), like the old Latin vira from vir . The words which follow, "therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh," are not to be regarded as Adam's, first on account of the על־כּן , which is always used in Genesis, with the exception of Gen 20:6; Gen 42:21, to introduce remarks of the writer, either of an archaeological or of a historical character, and secondly, because, even if Adam on seeing the woman had given prophetic utterance to his perception of the mystery of marriage, he could not with propriety have spoken of father and mother. They are the words of Moses, written to bring out the truth embodied in the fact recorded as a divinely appointed result, to exhibit marriage as the deepest corporeal and spiritual unity of man and woman, and to hold up monogamy before the eyes of the people of Israel as the form of marriage ordained by God. But as the words of Moses, they are the utterance of divine revelation; and Christ could quote them, therefore, as the word of God (Mat 19:5). By the leaving of father and mother, which applies to the woman as well as to the man, the conjugal union is shown to be a spiritual oneness, a vital communion of heart as well as of body, in which it finds its consummation. This union is of a totally different nature from that of parents and children; hence marriage between parents and children is entirely opposed to the ordinance of God. Marriage itself, notwithstanding the fact that it demands the leaving of father and mother, is a holy appointment of God; hence celibacy is not a higher or holier state, and the relation of the sexes for a pure and holy man is a pure and holy relation. This is shown in Gen 2:25 : " They were both naked ערוּמּים , with dagesh in the מ , is an abbreviated form of עירמּים Gen 3:7, from עוּר to strip), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed ."Their bodies were sanctified by the spirit, which animated them. Shame entered first with sin, which destroyed the normal relation of the spirit to the body, exciting tendencies and lusts which warred against the soul, and turning the sacred ordinance of God into sensual impulses and the lust of the flesh.

Constable: Gen 1:1--11:27

I. PRIMEVAL EVENTS 1:1--11:26

Chapters 1-11 provide an introduction to the Book of Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the whole Bible.

"What we find in chaps. 1-11 is the divine initiation of blessing, which is compromised by human sin followed by gracious preservation of the promise: blessing-sin-grace."¹⁵

"His [Moses'] theological perspective can be summarized in two points. First, the author intends to draw a line connecting the God of the Fathers and the God of the Sinai covenant with the God who created the world. Second, the author intends to show that the call of the patriarchs and the Sinai covenant have as their ultimate goal the reestablishment of God's original purpose in Creation."¹⁶

"Evidently an interest in the way in which the world and humankind came into existence and in the history of the earliest times was characteristic of the ancient civilized world. At any rate, various origin stories' or creation myths' about the activities of a variety of creator-gods are still extant in what remains of the literatures of ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia. But the combination of such accounts with narratives about more recent times testifies to an additional motivation. The aim of such works was to give their readers--or to strengthen--a sense of national or ethnic identity, particularly at a time when there was for some reason a degree of uncertainty or hesitation about this. . . .

"The placing of Gen. 1-11 as a prologue to the main body of the work also afforded the opportunity to express certain distinctively Israelite articles of faith which it would have been more difficult to introduce into the later narratives, particularly with regard to the doctrine of God."¹⁷

"Gen 1-11 as we read it is a commentary, often highly critical, on ideas current in the ancient world about the natural and supernatural world. Both individual stories as well as the final completed work seem to be a polemic against many of the commonly received notions about the gods and man. But the clear polemical thrust of Gen 1-11 must not obscure the fact that at certain points biblical and extrabiblical thought are in clear agreement. Indeed Genesis and the ancient Near East probably have more in common with each other than either has with modern secular thought."¹⁸

Constable: Gen 2:4--5:1

B. What became of the creation 2:4-4:26

Moses described what happened to the creation by recording significant events in the garden of Eden, the murder of Abel, and the family of Cain.

"The section begins with a description of the creation of Adam and Eve and traces their sin, God's curse on sin, and the expansion of sin in their descendants. No longer at rest, mankind experienced flight and fear, making his way in the world, surviving, and developing civilization. As if in answer to the blessings of Creation, this passage supplies a threefold cursing (of Satan [3:14], of the ground because of man [3:17], and of Cain [4:11]).

"Yet in this deteriorating life there is a token of grace (4:15) and a ray of hope (man began to call on Yahweh)."¹²⁵

Constable: Gen 2:4--4:1

1. The garden of Eden 2:4-3:24

This story has seven scenes that a change in actors, situations or activities identifies. Moses constructed this section of Genesis in a chiastic (palistrophic, crossing) structure to focus attention on the central scene, the Fall. The preceding scenes lead up to the Fall, and the following scenes describe its consequences.¹²⁶

A Scene 1 (narrative): God is the sole actor, and man is passive (2:4-17).

B Scene 2 (narrative): God is the main actor, man plays a minor role, the woman and animals are passive (2:18-25).

C Scene 3 (dialogue): The snake and the woman converse (3:1-5).

D Scene 4 (narrative): The man and the woman are primary (3:6-8).

C' Scene 5 (dialogue): God converses with the man and the woman (3:9-13).

B' Scene 6 (narrative): God is the main actor, man plays a minor role, the woman and the serpent are passive (3:14-21).

A' Scene 7 (narrative): God is the sole actor, and man is passive (3:22-24).

The story of the garden of Eden begins with a second, more detailed account of the creation of humankind that Moses gave as an introduction to the Fall and its consequences.

"More light is shed on the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 by a consideration of a literary structure that occurs throughout the entire book of Genesis: First, less important things are dealt with rapidly, and then the things more important to the central theme of the Bible are returned to and developed more fully."¹²⁷

Note the following contrasts between the accounts of man's creation.

	1:1-2:3	2:4-25
Name of God	Elohim (Strong One)	Yahweh (Covenant-keeping One)
Purpose	Facts of Creation	God's relationship with human creatures
Emphasis	The world generally	Humankind specifically

Moses identified Yahweh, the God who called Abraham (12:1) and the God who delivered Israel from Egypt (Exod. 3:15), with Elohim, the God who created the cosmos.¹²⁸

Constable: Gen 2:4-17

The creation of man 2:4-17

2:4 Having related the creation of the universe as we know it, God next inspired Moses to explain for his readers what became of it.¹²⁹ Sin entered it and devastated it.

"The destiny of the human creation is to live in God's world, with God's other creatures, on God's terms."¹³⁰

The Hebrew word toledot occurs first in 2:4 where it introduces the next section of the book. This Hebrew word often reads "generations," "histories," "descendants," or, as here (in the NASB and NIV), "account." The word summarizes what follows in the section and introduces what became of something, in this case the universe, or, more often, someone. The person mentioned after toledot is not usually the central figure in the section but the person who originated what follows. The toledot statements contribute the major structural and conceptual framework for the whole Book of Genesis.¹³¹

". . . the material within each tol'dot is a microcosm of the development of the Book of Genesis itself, with the motifs of blessing and cursing playing a dominant role. Within each of the first several tol'dot is a deterioration to cursing until 12:1-12, where the message moves to the promise of blessing. From this point on there is a constant striving for the place of blessing, but still with each successive narrative there is deterioration, for Isaac and Jacob did not measure up to Abraham. Consequently at the end of Genesis the family is not in the land of blessing but in Egypt."¹³²

2:5-6 These verses describe global conditions before man's creation in terms that stress God's gracious preparation of the world for him. They are a flashback to conditions before 1:26. Moses chose terms that contrast with conditions that existed after the Fall.¹³³ "Shrubs" were evidently not edible whereas "plants" were. Thus Moses distinguished two types of land: arable and non-arable.¹³⁴

The absence of "rain" and the presence of the "mist" have led some writers to postulate a "canopy theory."¹³⁵ According to this theory, a canopy of water vapor that watered the earth covered the earth initially. It reduced the destructive rays of the sun so that antediluvian man lived much longer, and it distributed heat more evenly over the surface of this planet. Such a water canopy covers Venus. This canopy supposedly broke up when God sent the Flood (7:11).¹³⁶

2:7 "Formed" (Heb. yasar) means to shape or mold and implies that God did this with tender loving care. It describes the work of an artist.

"Dust" (Heb. haadama) reflects man's lowly origin. Even though he was in God's image, man was a creature like other creatures God had made. This rules out the view that man descended from the gods, which was popular in the ancient Near East and was foundational in Egyptian cosmology.¹³⁷ In Creation God raised man out of the dust to reign.¹³⁸ However in the Fall man returned to the dust by his own work (3:19).¹³⁹

The "breath of life" (Heb. nesama) was God's breath that gave Adam life, spiritual understanding (Job 32:8), and a functioning conscience (Prov. 20:27). Adam's life came from God's breath.¹⁴⁰ His uniqueness consisted in his having been made in God's image. God's breath may be a synonym for His word (cf. Ps. 33:6).¹⁴¹ Man, therefore, is a combination of dust and divinity.

2:8-15 The modern equivalent of the Pishon River is unknown for certain. Commentators have suggested that it was the Indus, the Ganges, a river of Arabia, or a river of Mesopotamia. The land of Havilah seems to have been in southwestern Arabia (cf. 25:18). The Gihon may be the preflood Nile since Cush in the Old Testament usually describes modern Ethiopia (cf. 10:6-8; Num. 12:1; 2 Sam. 18:19-33; 2 Kings 19:9; 2 Chron. 14:9-15; Isa. 37:9; Jer. 13:23; 38-39).¹⁴² The Tigris and Euphrates are now in Babylonia. Eden (meaning delight, pleasure, or perhaps place of abundant waters) therefore appears to have lain in the general area of the Promised Land (vv. 11-14; cf. Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 36:35; Joel 2:3; Zech. 14:8; Rev. 22:1-2). The garden of (sometimes "in") Eden seems to have been in the eastern part of Eden. This rather extensive description sets the stage for Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden in 3:24. It probably also encouraged the Israelites to anticipate the Promised Land.

"It can hardly be a coincidence that these rivers, along with the River of Egypt,' again play a role in marking boundaries of the land promised to Abraham (Ge 15:18)."¹⁴³

The trees in the garden were beautiful and edible, an orchard for man to enjoy (v. 9). The tree of life appears to have been a means whereby God sustained Adam and Eve's lives. Again God's desire to bless man comes through. The knowledge of good and evil (vv. 9, 17) probably refers to man's ability to decide for himself what is best for him and what is not (i.e., wisdom).¹⁴⁴ "Good" and "evil" may be a merism for the things that protect and destroy life.

Similarities between the descriptions of the garden and the tabernacle are also interesting (cf. Exod. 25-27). Both places reflected the glory of God's presence in their beautiful surroundings (cf. Hag. 2:7-8; Rev. 21:18).¹⁴⁵

The Hebrew word translated "put" in verse 15 (wayyannihehu) is not the same one rendered "put" in verse 8 (wayyasem). The latter term is the normal one for putting something somewhere. However the former one connotes rest and safety (cf. 19:16; Deut. 3:20; 12:10; 25:19) as well as dedication in God's presence (cf. Exod. 16:33-34; Lev. 16:23; Num. 17:4; Deut. 26:4, 10). God put man in the garden where he could be safe and rest and where he could have fellowship with God (cf. 3:8). His primary responsibility there was to worship and obey God rather than to cultivate and keep the garden, as many English versions state.¹⁴⁶ Adam served and thereby worshipped God by tending the garden.

2:16-17 God gave Adam great freedom of choice. He only forbade one of all the trees. God's command also implies that He alone knows what is good and not good for man.¹⁴⁷ Adam would die because of disobedience, not because of the fruit of the tree.¹⁴⁸

"On the whole it seems probable that we should understand death' to mean a spiritual state, but a state aptly symbolized by physical death. When man sinned he passed into a new state, one dominated by, and at the same time symbolized by death. It is likely that spiritual death and physical death are not being thought of as separate, so that the one involves the other."¹⁴⁹

Why did Adam and Eve not die immediately? The phrase "in the day" in Hebrew is an idiom meaning "for certain" (cf. Exod. 10:28; 1 Kings 2:37, 42).

"Before Adam and Eve fell into sin, God made a proposition to them that some have regarded as a covenant, as stated in Genesis 1:26-31 and 2:16-17. God gave Adam authority over the creatures of the world, commanded him to be fruitful, and gave him permission to eat from every green plant. The only restriction was that Adam and Eve not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for if they did so they would surely die (2:16-17). Basically, the covenant was conditional, requiring obedience; but it also declared God's purpose to elevate humanity to a place of authority and prominence, ultimately fulfilled by Christ."¹⁵⁰

Constable: Gen 2:18-25

The creation of woman 2:18-25

2:18 Adam's creation was not complete because he lacked a "helper" who corresponded to him. This deficiency led God to pronounce Adam's condition "not good."¹⁵¹ God not only evaluated Adam's condition, He also rectified it.¹⁵²

"In Judaism, from the very moment of origins of the Jewish people, marriage was considered to be the ideal state."¹⁵³

God's provision of a wife for Adam is a concrete example of God's knowing what is good for man.¹⁵⁴ Companionship replaced isolation. For companionship to be satisfying, however, there must be oneness in the marriage (cf. 1:26-27). Self-centered living destroys oneness and companionship.

The term "helper" does not mean a servant. Jesus Christ used the same word (the Greek equivalent) to describe the Holy Spirit who would help believers following the Lord's ascension (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). It means one who supports us in our task of doing the will of God (cf. Deut. 33:7; Ps. 33:20; 115:9-11; 146:5; Hos. 13:9). It is not a demeaning term since Scripture often uses it to describe God Himself (e.g., Ps. 33:20; 70:5; 115:9). "Suitable to him" or "corresponding to him" means that what was true of Adam (cf. v. 7) was also true of Eve. They both had the same nature.

"Since Adam and Eve were a spiritual unity, living in integrity without sin, there was no need for instruction here on headship."¹⁵⁵

2:19-20 The text does not mean that Adam named every individual animal. He apparently gave names to the different kinds God brought before him. This exercise demonstrated Adam's authority over the animals and the dissimilarity between humans and animals. He became aware of his own need for a companion as he named the animals.

"Adam" comes from the Hebrew word for "earth" (adamah). "Adam" means "one that is red" like the earth.¹⁵⁶ Likewise the names of the animals probably expressed the nature of each animal. Names of humans in Old Testament times usually reflected the nature of the persons who bore them. This indicates that Adam must have had great intelligence and wisdom to be able to identify and label the various types of animals according to their natures.

Man is not like the other animals. Adam could find no suitable partner among them. God graciously provided for his need by creating Eve.

2:21-22 More than once when God initiated a new relationship for someone He first put that person to sleep (cf. 15:12; 28:11). He evidently did so to assure the recipient that his own works had no part in his receiving it.¹⁵⁷ It was totally a gift of God's grace.

God took Eve from Adam's side (Heb. sela') to be his companion, not from his head so she would dominate him or from his foot so Adam could tread on her. He fashioned her to be a suitable companion for Adam. Then He presented her to him as a gift.

"That woman was taken from man no more implies the inferiority of woman to man than the taking of man from the ground (adam from adamah) implies the inferiority of man to the ground."¹⁵⁸

". . . the whole account of woman's creation has a poetic flavor: it is certainly mistaken to read it as an account of a clinical operation or as an attempt to explain some feature of man's anatomy . . . Rather, it brilliantly depicts the relation of man and wife. . . . Here the ideal of marriage as it was understood in ancient Israel is being portrayed, a relationship characterized by harmony and intimacy between the partners."¹⁵⁹

2:23 The word "woman" (Heb. ishah) sounds similar to the Hebrew word translated "man" (ish). This similarity reflects the close union between the two.¹⁶⁰

"Gen. 2 is unique among the creation myths of the whole of the Ancient Near East in its appreciation of the meaning of woman, i.e., that human existence is a partnership of man and woman."¹⁶¹

"Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman (cf. 3:20) indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition of the ensuing narrative (3:17)."¹⁶²

When Adam discovered that God had provided him with a partner like himself, not like one of the other animals, he rejoiced greatly. He received his mate as God's good gift to him because he trusted in God's wisdom, goodness, and integrity. Likewise it is essential for every husband and wife to thankfully receive the mate God has given us as His best provision for us. To do so we must know and trust God's goodness. Our mate's differences are good things God brings to us that He will use as tools to shape us into the people He wants us to be. Failure to accept one's mate as a good gift from a loving God leads to many problems in marriage and frustrates God's purpose and plan for marriage. It expresses rejection of God and His provision for one's life. It also demonstrates unbelief, disobedience, and displeasure with God's character. Your mate needs your unconditional acceptance. Adam was now beside himself! (Pardon the pun.)

2:24 This verse clarifies God's purpose in marriage. It involves leaving parents and cleaving to one's spouse.¹⁶³

". . . Israelite marriage was usually patrilocal, that is, the man continued to live in or near his parents' home. It was the wife who left home to join her husband."¹⁶⁴

This probably means both psychological and physical separation and union under normal conditions. A newly married couple is wise to establish relative independence from both sets of parents emotionally, physically, financially, and in other ways. The couple also needs to establish commitment to one another. Cleaving resembles weaving two threads into one new piece of cloth. The word suggests the ideas of passion and permanence. In marriage a man's priorities change. Before they were primarily to his parents, but now they are primarily to his wife. Marriage also involves physical consummation that unites two individuals as "one flesh." "One flesh" is not the same as marriage (1 Cor. 6:16). For there to be a marriage there must also be a commitment to "leave" parents and "cleave" to one's spouse from then on (cf. Matt. 19:5; et al.).

2:25 The naked condition of Adam and Eve does not just describe their unclothed physical appearance. It also refers to the physical and psychological oneness and transparency that existed in their relationship. Physically they were naked; they shared their bodies with each other openly. Psychologically they were not ashamed; they hid nothing from each other. They were at ease with one another without any fear of exploitation for evil. Transparency should increase with trust, commitment, and friendship. It involves communicating what we know, think, feel, and are with the person or persons we choose. We should not be transparent with everyone, however, only with people who commit themselves to us. A transparent person is an open and vulnerable person.

This is a hinge verse. It looks backward into chapter 2 and forward into chapter 3. The similarity of the Hebrew words for naked (arom) and "crafty" (3:1, arum) points to a word play. This word for nakedness means unclothed whereas the one in 3:7 (erom) and elsewhere describes those under God's judgment (cf. Deut. 28:48; Ezek. 16:39; 23:29).¹⁶⁵

Verses 18-25 teach us much about marriage.

1. God instituted it.

2. God intended it to be monogamous (not monotonous). One woman completed Adam (cf. Matt. 19:8).

3. God intended it to be heterosexual.

4. It involves both a physical and a spiritual union (2:24; cf. Matt. 9:4-5).

5. The husband was to be the head of the wife. God created Adam before Eve, and He created Eve for Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 11:8-9; 1 Tim. 2:13).

6. A woman can be a complete person without bearing children. Her basic function in marriage is to complement her husband, not to bear children.

7. Normally, a couple, following the lead of their representatives, Adam and Eve, should "be fruitful and multiply" (1:28). God did not specify how early in the marriage and to what extent. He left this up to the couple. Couples may choose when and how many children they plan to have, though God may sovereignly overrule their plans.

The Family Ministry organization has summarized these purposes as five. Marriage should mirror God's image, multiply a godly heritage, manage God's realm, mutually complete one another, and model Christ's relationship to the church.¹⁶⁶

The Bible writers made use of the creation account in many different ways, and we too can use it in these ways for our own personal profit. These purposes include glorifying the God of creation, stimulating praise and worship, and fortifying faith in God's promises. They also include learning about God's attributes, expressing wonder at man's position in God's universe, dispelling fear, and exalting the Lord Jesus.¹⁶⁷

However a main point of this unit (2:4-25) seems clearly to be that God made human beings male and female with a spiritual capacity and mutually dependent. He did so that they might serve and obey Him and so enjoy His creation. As Adam and Eve, God later placed Israel in a place of blessing. The nation could enjoy His blessing by being obedient and trusting with the assistance He had provided for them in marriage. Even today serving and obeying God is man's greatest privilege, and we find help to do this in the marriage relationship.

"Two primary themes dominate the Creation account [1:1-2:25]: the land and the blessing."¹⁶⁸

The theme of descendants (seed) is also present, though perhaps not as prominent (1:28).

Guzik: Gen 2:1-25

Genesis 2 - Creation Completed; Adam in the Garden of Eden

A. The completion of creation.

1. (1-3) The seventh day of creation.

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

a. And He rested on the sevent day: God did not need rest on the seventh day because He was tired. He rested to show His creating work was done, to give a pattern to man regarding the structure of time (in seven-day weeks), and to give an example of the blessing of rest to man on the seventh day.

i. The seven-day week is permanently ingrained in man. Though some through history tried to change the seven-day week (a ten-day week was attempted during the French Revolution), those attempts have come to nothing. We are on a seven-day cycle because God is on a seven-day cycle.

b. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: God sanctified the seventh day because it was a gift to man for rest and replenishment, and most of all because the Sabbath is a shadow of the rest available through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

i. Colossians 2:16-17 and Galatians 4:9-11 make it clear that Christians are not under obligation to observe the Sabbath today, because Jesus fulfilled the purpose and plan of the Sabbath for us and in us (Hebrews 4:9-11). Yet Christians do not lose the Sabbath; every day is a day of rest in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Every day is specially set apart to God.

ii. Though we are free from the legal obligation of the Sabbath, we dare not ignore the importance of a day of rest. God has built us so we need one. But we are also commanded to work six days. "He who idles his time away in the six days is equally culpable in the sight of God as he who works on the seventh." (Clarke) In our modern world of four or five day workweeks and generous vacation time, surely more "leisure time" can be given to the work of the LORD.

c. In it He rested from all His work: Though God rested on the sevent day of creation, He did not institute the Sabbath or show us His rest for His own sake. God does not take the Sabbath off. Jesus Himself said, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working" (John 5:17). God does not need a day off, but man needs to see the rest of God and know he can enter into it by the finished work of Jesus.

i. The description of each other day of creation ended with the phrase, "so the evening and the morning were the . . . day." However, this seventh day of creation does not have that phrase. This is because God's rest for us isn't confined to one literal day. In Jesus, God has an eternal Sabbath rest for His people (Hebrews 4:9-11).

ii. "God, having completed His work of creation, rests, as if to say, 'This is the destiny of those who are My people; to rest as I rest, to rest in Me.' " (Boice)

2. (4-7) The history of the heavens and the earth.

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up 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 being.

a. This is the history of the heavens and the earth: This probably ends the "genealogy" of the heavens and the earth, a history given directly by God to either Moses or Adam, recording the history of God's seven-day creation. This was something no human was present to witness.

b. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens: This is the first use of LORD (Yahweh) in the Bible. Our English word Lord comes from the Anglo-Saxon word for bread (as does our word loaf), because ancient English men of high stature would keep a continual open house, where all could come and get bread to eat. They gained the honorable title of lords, meaning "dispensers of bread."

c. Before any plant of the field was in the earth: This history begins before there was any vegetation on the earth at all (back to Genesis 1:1), a time when there was only space and a watery globe we know as the earth.

d. The LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth: When God first created vegetation (on the third day of creation, Genesis 1:11-13), man was not yet been created to care for the vegetation of the earth, and there was no rain. The thick blanket of water vapor in the outer atmosphere created on the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6-8) made for no rain cycle (as we know it) but for a rich system of evaporation and condensation, resulting in heavy dew or ground-fog.

e. The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground: When God created man He made him out of the most basic elements, the dust of the ground. There is nothing "spectacular" in what man is made of, only in the way those basic things are organized.

i. When the Bible speaks of dust, it means something of little worth, associated with lowliness and humility (Genesis 18:27; 1 Samuel 2:8; 1 Kings 16:2). In the Bible, dust isn't evil and it isn't nothing; but it is next to nothing.

f. And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being: With this Divine breath man became a living being, like other forms of animal life (the term chay nephesh is used in Genesis 1:21, 1:21, and here). Yet only man is a living being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).

i. The word for breath in Hebrew is ruach - the word imitates the very sound of breath - is the same word for Spirit, as is the case in both ancient Greek (pneuma) and Latin (spiritus). God created man by putting His breath, His Spirit, within him.

ii. "The implication, readily seen by any Hebrew reader, [is] that man was specially created by God's breathing some of His own breath into him." (Boice)

iii. The King James Version reads: man became a living soul. This makes some wonder if man is a soul, or if man has a soul. This passage seems to indicate that man is a soul, while passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 seem to indicate that man has a soul. It seems that the Scripture speaks in both ways, and uses the term in different ways and in different contexts.

B. Adam in the Garden of Eden.

1. (8-9) Two trees in the Garden of Eden.

The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

a. The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden: Eden was a garden specifically planted by God; it was a place God made to be a perfect habitation for Adam (and later, Eve).

b. There he put the man whom He had formed: The details in the creation of Adam and Eve teach us something. After reading Genesis 1, we might assume man and woman were made at the same time, but the text doesn't specifically say so. We assume it. We don't know the details about man's creation until Genesis 2.

c. Out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow: The rest of Genesis chapter 2 does not present a different or contradictory account of creation. Rather, it is probably the history of creation from Adam's perspective. This is Adam's experience of creation, which does not contradict the account of Genesis 1:1-2:7 - it fills it out.

i. In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus refered to events in Genesis 1 and to events in Genesis 2 as one harmonious account.

d. The tree of life . . . the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: These two trees were among all the other trees God created and put in the Garden of Eden.

i. The tree of life was to grant (or to sustain) eternal life (Genesis 3:22). God still has a tree of life available to the His people (Revelation 2:7), which is in heaven (Revelation 22:2).

ii. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the "temptation" tree. Eating the fruit of this tree would give Adam an experiential knowledge of good and evil. Or, it is possible that it is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil not so man would know good and evil, but so God could test good and evil in man.

2. (10-14) Rivers in the Garden.

Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

a. Now a river went out of Eden: The whole feel of this account gives the sense that it was written by an actual eyewitness of the rivers and surroundings. Adam probably wrote this himself.

b. The name of the first is Pishon: These rivers are given specific names which answer to names of rivers known in either their modern or ancient world. However, the names of these rivers can't be used to determine the place of the Garden of Eden because the flood dramatically changed the earth's landscape and "erased" these rivers.

i. We know modern rivers today such as the Tigris or Euphrates because some rivers in the post-flood world were named after familiar pre-flood rivers by Noah and his sons.

3. (15-17) God's command to Adam.

Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

a. Put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it: God put Adam into the most spectacular paradise the world has seen, but God put Adam there to do work (to tend and keep it). Work is something good for man and was part of Adam's perfect existence before the fall.

i. "The ideal state of sinless man is not one of indolence without responsibility. Work and duty belong to the perfect state." (Leupold)

b. Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat: The presence of this tree - the presence of a choice for Adam - was good because for Adam to be a creature of free will, there had to be a choice, some opportunity to rebel against God. If there is never a command or never something forbidden there can then never be choice. God wants our love and obedience to Him to be the love and obedience of choice.

i. Considering all that, look at Adam's advantages. He only had one way he could sin and we have countless ways. There are many trees of temptation in our lives, but Adam had only one.

ii. God made this command originally to Adam, not to Eve; God had not yet brought woman out of man.

c. In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die: God not only made His command clear to Adam, but He also clearly explained the consequences for disobedience.

C. God creates the first woman.

1. (18) God declares He will make a helper comparable to Adam.

And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

a. It is not good that man should be alone: For the first time, God saw something that was not good - the aloneness of man. God never intended for man to be alone, either in the marital or social sense.

i. Marriage, in particular, has a blessed "civilizing" influence on man. The most wild, violent, sociopathic men in history have always been single, never under the plan God gave to influence men for good. This is not good!

b. I will make him a helper comparable to him: God's "blueprint" for creating this companion to Adam was to make a helper comparable to Adam.

i. Different versions of the Bible translate this idea in a variety of ways, but the idea is essentially the same in each of them:

· Helper meet (suitable, adapted, completing) (Amplified)

· A companion . . . a helper suited to his needs (Living)

· A helper such as he needs (Beck)

· A helper correspondent to himself (Septuagint Bible)

· A helper suitable (NIV, NASB)

· A help meet for him (KJV)

c. A helper comparable: In reference to the marriage relationship, God created woman to be a perfectly suitable helper to the man. This means God gave the plan and agenda to Adam, and he and the woman together work to fulfill it.

i. The phrase "in reference to the marriage relationship" is used because God has not ordained women to be helpers to men in authority (instead of being in authority themselves), except in marriage and in the church (1 Timothy 2:12-13).

ii. God gives to man the responsibility (and the accountability) to be the leader in the home and gives to the woman the responsibility and the accountability to help him.

iii. This does not mean there is to be no help from the man to the woman (though in many cases this is sadly true). It means when God looks down from heaven upon the family, He sees a man in leadership, good or bad, faithful or not, to the calling of leadership. A true leader will, of course, help those helping him.

iv. We only see "helping" as a position of inferiority when we think like the world thinks. God considers positions of service as most important in His sight (Matthew 20:25-28).

d. A helper comparable: Not only was the woman to be a helper, but also she was made comparable to the man. She should be considered and honored as such. A woman or wife cannot be regarded as a mere tool or worker, but as an equal partner in God's grace and an equal human being.

2. (19-20) No helper was found comparable for Adam among the animals.

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

a. Brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: If Adam had the capability to intelligently name all the animals, it shows he was a brilliant man. Since at this time Adam's intellect had not yet suffered from the fall, he was probably the most brilliant man who ever lived. Adam was the first and greatest of all biologists and botanists.

b. So Adam gave names: Adam did not name any other animal after himself, calling any other animal "man" or "human." By this, we see he understood that he was essentially different from all the animals. They were not made in the image of God.

i. Mark Twain had a joke where he described Adam coming home to Eve after naming all the animals. Eve looked at an elephant and said, "What did you name that big animal?" Adam replied, "I called it an elephant." Eve asked, "Why did you call it an elephant?" Adam answered, "Because it looked like an elephant!"

c. But for Adam there was not found a helper: It was obvious to Adam that the animals came in pairs and he had no mate. Since God deliberately had Adam name the animals after seeing his need for a partner (Genesis 2:18), God used this to prepare Adam to receive the gift of woman.

3. (21-22) God makes the first woman from Adam's side.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

a. God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam: This is the first "surgery" recorded in history. God even used a proper anesthetic on Adam.

b. The ribe which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman: God used Adam's own body to create Eve to forever remind him of their essential oneness. As Adam came to know Eve he would see many ways that they were different, but he must never forget that they are essentially one and that they are made of the same substance. They are more alike than they are different.

i. What exactly did God take from Adam's side to make Eve? We don't really know, and it doesn't really matter. Modern research into cloning and genetic replication shows every cell in our body contains the body's entire genetic blueprint. God took some of Adam's cells and changed their genetic blueprint in the creation of Eve. Nevertheless, the story that women have one more rib than men because of the way Eve was created is a myth.

ii. We also know the Bride of Christ comes from the wound made in the side of the second Adam, Jesus Christ.

iii. There is a beautiful Jewish tradition saying God made woman, not out of man's foot to be under him, nor out of his head to be over him, but "She was taken from under his arm that he might protect her and from next to his heart that he might love her." (Barnhouse)

c. He made into a woman: It is important to realize that there are not two beginnings to the human race, one in Adam and one in Eve. There was one beginning of the human race in Adam.

d. And He brought her to the man: God brought Eve to Adam and created Eve out of Adam. He was first - the source and the head. She was created to be a helper perfectly suited to him. Thus the subordinate relationship of wives to husbands is found before the curse, not only after it.

4. (23) Adam's brilliant understanding of who Eve is and how she is related to him.

And 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."

a. This is now bone of my bones: Adam recognized that Eve was both like him (bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh) and not like him (woman . . . taken out of man).

b. Flesh of my flesh: Adam understood the essential oneness in his relationship with Eve. This point is so important that it is referred to several times in the New Testament, including the great marriage passage in Ephesians 5:28-29: so husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it (Ephesians 5:28-29).

i. No one walks into a room and seeks the most uncomfortable seat. The natural concern we have for ourselves causes us to take care of ourselves. In a healthy marriage relationship the husband realizes the essential union he has with his wife, that he cannot bless her without blessing himself and he cannot mistreat or neglect her without mistreating or neglecting himself.

c. She was taken out of Man: Adam recognized that though he and Eve were one, she was not the same as him. He understood that two different people were becoming one. 1 Peter 3:7 tells husbands to recognize that they are one with someone different, someone whom they must understand: Likewise you husbands, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel.

i. If men and women are different, are they equal? Elisabeth Elliot, quoted in Boice: "In what sense is red equal to blue? They are equal only in the sense that both are colors in the spectrum. Apart from that they are different. In what sense is hot equal to cold? They are both temperatures, but beyond this it is almost meaningless to talk about equality."

d. She shall be called woman: "Woman has been defined by many as compounded for wo and man, as if called man's wo because she tempted him to eat the forbidden fruit; but this is no meaning of the original word, nor could it be intended, as the transgression was not then committed." (Clarke)

5. (24-25) The marriage of Adam and Eve.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

a. They shall become one flesh: The marriage principle stated here is based upon the dynamic of oneness yet distinction. A man and wife can truly come together in a one-flesh relationship, yet they must be joined. It is a spiritual fact, but the benefits of that oneness are not appropriated by accident or by chance.

b. They shall become one flesh: This passage forms the foundation for the Bible's understanding of marriage and family. Both Jesus (Matthew 19: 5) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) quoted it in reference to marriage.

i. "The institution of monogamous marriage, home, and family as the basic medium for the propagation of the race and the training of the young is so common to human history that people seldom pause to reflect on how or why such a custom came into being." (Morris)

ii. Many want to believe that the monogamous, two-parent family was invented in the 1950's by American television icons Ozzie and Harriet, but Adam and Eve are the original family. This is God's ideal family. This isn't polygamy. This isn't concubinage. This isn't the keeping of mistresses. This isn't adultery. This isn't homosexual co-habitation. This isn't promiscuity. This isn't living together outside the marriage bond. This isn't serial marriage. This is God's ideal for the family, and even when we don't live up to it, it is still important to set it forth as God's ideal.

c. One flesh: The idea of one flesh is taken by many to be mainly a way of expressing sexual union. While sexual union is certainly related to the idea of one flesh, it is only one part of what it means to be one flesh. There are also important spiritual dimensions to one flesh.

i. Paul makes it clear the sexual union has one flesh implications even when we don't intend so, as when a man has sex with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6:16). Husband and wife become "one flesh" under God's blessing. In extramarital sex, the partners become "one flesh" under God's curse.

ii. In this sense, there is no such thing as "casual sex." Every sexual relationship at least begins a one-flesh bond. The bond will either be something beautiful (like the beautiful dancing of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers) or it will be something grotesque (like Siamese twins).

iii. It depends on whether the bonding takes place in a relationship with the right conditions: committed love, demonstrated by the marriage commitment, and a pursuit of true intimacy. Just because sex is taking place in marriage doesn't mean it is truly fulfilling God's purpose of bonding together a one-flesh relationship.

d. They shall become one flesh: Though an initial bond in a one flesh relationship can be formed at the first sexual relationship a couple has, the fullness of what God wants to do in the one flesh relationship takes time. It has to become.

e. They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed: Before the fall, Adam and Eve were both naked . . . and not ashamed. The idea of "nakedness" is far more than mere nudity. It has the sense of being totally open and exposed as a person before God and man. To be naked . . . and not ashamed means you have no sin, nothing to be rightly ashamed of, nothing to hide.

i. Adam and Eve knew they were physically naked - nude - before the fall. What they did not know was a sinful, fallen condition, because they were not in that condition before their rebellion.

ii. We often feel uncomfortable when someone stares at us. This is because we associate staring with prying, and we don't want people to pry into our lives. We want to remain hidden and only reveal to other people what we want to reveal.

iii. When we want to be most attractive to someone else, we do the most to change our normal appearance. We have the thought, "If I really want to impress this person, I have to fix myself up." None of this feeling was present with Adam and Eve when they were naked . . . and not ashamed.

© 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Commentary -- Other

Contradiction: Gen 2:17

77. Did Adam die the same day (Genesis 2:17) or did he continue to live to the age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The Scriptures describe death in three ways; 1) Physical death which ends our life on earth, 2) spiritual death which is separation from God, and 3) eternal death in hell. The death spoken of in Genesis 2:17 is the second death mentioned in our list, that of complete separation from God, while the death mentioned in Genesis 5:5 is the first death, a physical death which ends our present life.

For obvious reasons Shabbir will see this as a contradiction because he does not understand the significance of spiritual death which is a complete separation from God, since he will not admit that Adam had any relationship with God to begin with in the garden of Eden. The spiritual separation (and thus spiritual death) is shown visibly in Genesis chapter 3 where Adam was thrown out of the Garden of Eden and away from God's presence.

Ironically Adam being thrown out of the garden of Eden is also mentioned in the Qur'an (Sura 2:36), though there is no reason for this to happen, if (as Muslims believe) Adam had been forgiven for his sin. Here is an example of the Qur'an borrowing a story from the earlier scriptures without understanding its meaning or significance, and therein lies the assumption behind the supposed contradiction.

(for a clearer understanding of the significance of spiritual death and how that impinges on nearly every area of disagreement Christians have with Islam, read the paper entitled "The Hermeneutical Key" by Jay Smith.)

Bible Query: Gen 2:10-14

Q: In Gen 2:10-14, where are the rivers that flowed out of the Garden of Eden?

A: First of all, the Garden of Eden does not exist on earth today. We do not know where the Pishon River was, and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. The Gihon is usually thought to be the Nile River, which flowed from the region of Cush, south of Egypt. However, it could have been a smaller river originating in "Cush" (Kashshu) in west Elam, which is very close to the Tigris and Euphrates. The Kassites (Greek: Kossaeans) were from there. See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.69-70, When Critics Ask p.34, and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.22 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 2:15

Q: In Gen 2:15, why did God say you (singular) may eat from any fruit of the garden, except that you (plural) must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

A: Either one of them could choose any particular tree; they did not have to eat the same food. However, neither was allowed to eat from the one tree. The plural form adds emphasis; this command was not just to Adam, but to everyone.   Philo the Jew (15/20 B.C. to 50 A.D.) first answered this question in Questions and Answers on Genesis, I p.794.

Bible Query: Gen 2:16

Q: In Gen 2:16, why did God create Adam, knowing that he would fall?

A: God can do anything, but a logical impossibility is not a thing. God cannot create a being who chooses to loving obedience to God, if that being is not able to choose to obey God. Being able to choose to obey God means being able to choose to disobey God. See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.22 and the discussion on Genesis 3 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 2:17

Q: Since Gen 2:17 says "the day you eat of it you shall surely die", how did Adam and Eve die "that day"?

A: Spiritually and judicially. Three points to consider in the answer.   Spiritual death occurred that day.   Judicially, that day sentences of both eternal and physical death were pronounced against them. In Hard Sayings of the Bible p.91-92, Walter Kaiser, Jr. shows the Hebrew idiom means the certainty of their death, not the immediacy of the death.   For another example of the use of this idiom of speech, see 1 Kings 2:37, where Solomon gave a similar warning to Shimei on the day he leaves Jerusalem.   The first person we know who gave an answer to this question was Philo the Jew (15/20 B.C. to 50 A.D.) in Questions and Answers on Genesis, 1 p.794, and Allegorical Interpretation, I 33 (105) p.46-37, where he mentions the death of the soul.   A second ancient writer, who gave a different answer is Irenaeus in Against Heresies Book 5 ch.23 (182-188 A.D.) p.551-552. Since Irenaeus notes that a day with the Lord is 1,000 years, he interprets this as one of God’s days, and he sees it significant that Genesis 5:6 says that Adam died when he was 930 years old, which is less than 1,000 years.   See When Critics Ask p.34, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.72-74, Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.134-135, The Complete Book of Bible Answers p.45, Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.190-191, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered 23-24, and Hard Sayings of the Bible p.91-92 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 2:18-22

Q: Does Gen 2:18-22 show that women were created as an afterthought, as Born Again Skeptic’s p.164 claims?

A: No, it shows just the opposite. God took a great deal of time, with Adam having to name the animals and all, to demonstrate to Adam his need for a mate. Most of the things in Genesis 1 and 2 were simply created with little explanation. However, God first "set the stage" and explained her purpose as Adam’s co-laborer before creating Eve.  

Bible Query: Gen 2:18

Q: In Gen 2:18, why does it say man was alone, since man was with both God and the animals?

A: Adam did have rule over the animals, and Adam did worship God, but Adam had no one else like Him. He was alone in not having anyone to relate to in a horizontal way as an equal.  

Bible Query: Gen 2:18

Q: Does Gen 2:18 show that women are inferior to men, since Eve was made differently from Adam?

A: No it does not. Six points to consider in the answer.   1. Different does not prove unequal. Different people speak different languages, but that does not mean every language is either inferior or superior to another. As one Christian said, Eve was not made from Adam’s foot to be under him, nor from his head to be above him, but from his side to be with him.   2. Helper does not mean inferior. Some might think that Eve was less than Adam because she was a "helper" in Genesis 2:18. However, God is our helper (same Hebrew word) in Psalm 70:5 and this does not mean God is inferior to us! Thus translating the Hebrew as "helpmate" is rather imprecise. A better translation is ‘I will make a power [or strength] corresponding to man.’ according to Walter Kaiser’s detailed study of the Hebrew in Hard Sayings of the Bible p.92-94. So the woman is to be a "full partner" and not just an assistant.   3. Genesis 1:27 shows both are in the image of God. It was not just Adam that is in the image of God, but both male and female are in the image of God. By the way, being in the "image of God" in no way means God is limited to having two feet, two hands, a stomach etc. Rather, as a two-dimensional image is an imperfect outline of a real, three-dimensional object, the character of the infinite God and our finite being have some similarities.   4. Equal in nature, value, importance, etc. In the Bible, Galatians 3:28 says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV)   5. Yet different in role: Ephesians 5:22-24 shows that wives are to submit to their husbands, for husbands are the head of the wife. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church in Ephesians 5:25-26. Paul said that women were not to teach men or have authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:12.   6. How does this work out in practice?   6.1 Deborah was a godly judge of Israel in Judges 4-5. Based on this, I would have no difficulty voting for a woman for president.   6.2 They could inherit things, including land in Numbers 36:8.   6.3 For a more thorough description of how a wife is to be a full partner with her husband, read Proverbs 31:10-31. Among other things it says:   She works with her hands (Proverbs 31:13,22) and profits from this in Proverbs 31:24,31.   She shops for food (Prov 31:14) and cooks. Prov 31:15   She manages others. Prov 31:15   She herself decides to buy real-estate in Prov 31:16.   She plants a vineyard. Prov 31:16 (Note that a family does not own an entire vineyard just for their personal consumption; it was a source of profit.)   She is physically strong. Prov 31:17   She also trades, not just for necessity but for profit. Prov 31:18   She herself gives to the poor. (She had to have control over money to do so.) Prov 31:20   She manages the household. Prov31:21   She is wise, and teaches wisdom. Prov 31:26   In summary: Women are not inferior to men in nature, value or importance. They do have a different role than men, as any expectant mother can tell you.   See also Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.191-193 for more on how woman was made "as like" man, and equal with him.

Bible Query: Gen 2:19

Q: In Gen 2:19 why did Adam need to see all the animals here?

A: God gave Adam dominion over all the animals in Genesis 1:26, and God wanted to see what Adam would name the animals in Genesis 19.   In addition to this, there might have been a more subtle reason. Prior to making Eve, God recognized the importance of filling what was lacking in Adam, but Adam did not. Thus Adam could learn three things about the animals relevant to his current situation.   Family:   a) Showing Adam that all the higher animals had male and female showed how God made them complete and able to propagate their species.   b) Adam could look at all the creatures, and see that there was none like him.   c) Adam could see that he needed another to make him complete, too.   Incidentally, teaching children how plants reproduce, and how animals reproduce, is a good approach to teaching kids how God ordained the way children are made.   Community:   a) Even dogs and deer have communities in which they live.   b) Adam could see that He did not have anyone like him in a community to share his life with, and people need other people to be around.   Leadership:   Since God gave Adam dominion over the earth, Adam would need to know the animals that were on the earth.   Since Adam had dominion, God honored Adam by having him name the animals. (Philo the Jew mentioned this in Works of Philo p.882.)  

Bible Query: Gen 2:19

Q: In Gen 2:7,19 did God create man before the animals, or after the animals as Gen 1:24,27 says? (An atheist (Capella) asked this).

A: Three points to consider in the answer.   On the earth, God created man after the animals, as Genesis 1:24,27 says.   In the Garden of Eden, God had to have created man before showing man the animals.   Even in the Garden, the animals might have been there before man. Genesis 2:19 refers to the animals that had been created by that time. It does not mean there animals were not created until that time.  

Bible Query: Gen 2:19--3:19

Q: In Gen 2:19-3:19, what evidence is there from early Mormon writings that Mormons believed the crazy doctrine that Adam was God?

A: Here are the quotes from the Mormon Journal of Discourses, followed by twelve other writings as evidence.   a. Journal of Discourses vol. 1 p.50. (Sermon by Brigham Young) "Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken - He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing must hear it, and will know it sooner or later." (italics and small caps are in the original)   b. Journal of Discourses vol. 1 p.51. (Same Sermon) "Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."   Note that Mormons often respond that this is a printing error. It is interesting to note that the volumes of the great Christian preacher Charles H. Spurgeon were published about the same time, and there were no printer’s errors saying some created being was God in his works. Following is corroborating evidence that the Mormon prophet really said this.   1. Wilford Woodruff’s Journal under 2/19/1854. (Look in the BYU Library)   2. Deseret Evening News 6/14/1873   3. Deseret Evening News 6/18/1873   4. Diary of Hosea Stout: On the Frontier vol. 2 p.438.   5. The Millennial Star vol. 16 p.543.   6. The Millennial Star vol. 15 p.769-770. one and a half years after this.   7. Journal of John Nuttall vol. 1 pp.18-21.   8. Diary Journal of Abraham H. Cannon vol. 11 p.39 (taught for 50 years)   9. Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 1856 p.375   10. Women of Mormondom p.179   11. Journal of Discourses vol. 4 p.1 (President Heber C. Kimball is speaking on 6/29/1856)   "...and I also know that if we are not one with brother Brigham, our leader, we are not one with Christ. Yes, I know this, and my feelings are and have been with brother Brigham all the time. I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He Is the God that pertains to this earth - the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren."   12. Finally, a much later book:   The Position of Adam in L.D.S. Scripture and Theology: "The identification of Adam with God the Father by President Brigham Young is an irrefutable fact." p.58

Bible Query: Gen 2:20

Q: In Gen 2:20, how could Adam name all the animals, unless the forbidden fruit was an Apple Macintosh computer?

A: Someone once quipped that if Adam had to name all the species of animals (including 1.5 million bugs and insects) within 24 hours on the sixth day, no wonder we mistake the forbidden fruit for an Apple, disk drives and all!   On the other hand, Paul S. Taylor has correctly noted that the phrase "gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts" in Genesis 2:20 does not necessarily mean naming every species on earth. It simply could be naming the genera and families of animals in Adam’s immediate vicinity.   For those who like trivia, there are about 26,000 living species of vertebrate land animals and birds and 9,500 known fossil species on the earth. (Of the fossil species, almost half were reptiles, and 1,000 were birds).   There are roughly 5,600 living genera land animals, including 1,900 genera of birds. There are about 6,500 genera of known fossil land animals, including almost 1,000 genera of birds and 1,500 general of reptiles.

Bible Query: Gen 2:21-23

Q: In Gen 2:21-23, was Adam both male and female prior to the creation of Eve?

A: Nothing in Scripture suggests this. Genesis 3:16 says that the husband will be the head of the wife. Since this was after the fall, how "male" Adam was prior to Eve does not have any bearing on anything. However, in regard to church authority in general, Paul sees it as significant that Adam was formed prior to Eve in 1 Timothy 2:13. Paul’s point would be totally misleading if Adam was both male and female.  

Bible Query: Gen 2:21-23

Q: In Gen 2:21-23, was the account of Eve being formed from a rib taken from the Sumerian Dilmun poem?

A: First some background information, then the answer, and finally two lessons we can learn from the answer about how God inspired the Bible.   B1. Samuel Noah Kramer, in The Sumerians (University of Chicago 1963), mentions that the Sumerian word for rib, ti, also means "to make live", and in the Dilmun poem, Nin-ti was the "lady of the rib" as well as the "lady who makes live" who healed the god Enki’s sick rib.   B2. This is a pun in Sumerian, but not in Hebrew, which makes this similarity rather striking.   B3. Except for "lady who healed the rib" vs. "Eve who was from Adam’s rib" in Genesis, there are not any other similarities between the two stories. See The Sumerians p.148-149 or Hard Sayings of the Bible p.94-95 for the Sumerian narrative.   B4. Tablets from the Dilmun poem are from 2400 B.C. or later. Regardless, they still predate Abraham, who left Ur before 2050 B.C.   B5. This story might have been well-known in ancient times.   The Answer: Four points to consider in the answer.   A1. This is just one of a number of examples of similar recountings of events mentioned in Genesis. Another example is the more than 200 world-wide flood stories of various peoples around the world.   A2. The play on words about the rib may show that other early cultures had a preservation of at least incomplete knowledge of the creation of mankind.   A3. Even more than that, other parts of Genesis 1 seem almost to be written in a deliberate manner to contrast with Sumerian, Akkadian and other accounts. The other accounts present gods quarreling, in Genesis the One God calmly creates. Other accounts present the hero fighting against chaos. Genesis presents God moving over the "abyss/waters", and commanding and ordering.   A4. While some similarities of details between Genesis versus the Dilmun poem and other ancient works could point to common knowledge of some events. However, it is untenable to say that one was copied from the other, not just because the common details are few, but because there are almost no similarities in meaning behind the details.   Lessons to Learn from the Answer:   L1. Genesis was not written in a vacuum. God does not just reveal truth to us, He reveals timeless truth, yet in a practical way, relevant to the time and culture. One reason (but not the main reason) Genesis might have been given by God was to correct the wrong views of man’s origin that people had, while acknowledging some of the correct things that had survived.   L2. God uses culture. God uses even people’s evil actions for His glory (Genesis 50:20). How can we even attempt to forbid God to use culture too, as He wishes. Moses was a learned man, and perhaps He might have read this story, and God used Moses’ reading to show Him what was true and what was not true.   L3. Most importantly, do not take the phrase "scripture is inerrant" to mean the Bible had to be mechanically dictated. 1 Peter 1:21 says that prophecy was men speaking as moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus, when different parts of the Bible obviously reflect different human styles of writing, that does not preclude divine authorship. It merely demonstrates that God used various people’s writing styles as He saw fit.   See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.94-95 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 2:22

Q: In Gen 2:22, who is Lilith during this time?

A: The name Lilith is never once mentioned in the Bible. There was a fable in the Middle Ages about a woman named Lilith who was Adam’s first wife. She refused to submit to Adam, and God then created Eve. Lilith was turned into a demon that kills newborn babies.   Lilith also was a vampire in Sumerian mythology, according to The Sumerians p.198, 258. Civilizations of the Ancient and Near East p.1890 mention that the unmarried who died became a special class of demons called lilu (male) and Lilitu (female). They would ask the living to marry them, promising them wealth, but if the living person consented, they died early.   All Bible manuscripts, Jewish or Christian, do not have any more hint of Lilith than they do of Donald Duck.  

Bible Query: Gen 2:22

Q: In Gen 2:22, how could God make Eve from a rib?

A: -Any way God Almighty wanted. If God had to use a rib, and if you think God had to take away the entire rib, then I suppose you might conclude that Eve would be counting all of Adam’s ribs every morning!   Seriously, God might not have utilized all the rib; one cell could have been enough.   735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.23 adds that if God had made her from clay, one could argue that women are intrinsically different (and perhaps inferior to men). However, since Eve was made from a rib, she had the same equal identity with man.   

Bible Query: Gen 2:22-23

Q: In Gen 2:22-23, should men have one less rib than women?   A: No. If a man has his arm cut off, his subsequent children and grandchildren are not all born missing one arm. Likewise, if you take a few cells from a person’s rib, both the parents and their children will still have the same number of ribs.   Tertullian writing 200-240 A.D. interprets this as God "borrowing a rib in Tertullian On Exhortation to Chastity ch.5 p.53. He also adds that God could have borrowed more ribs fore more wives but chose not to, as an example that monogamy was the norm and not polygamy.

Critics Ask: Gen 2:17

GENESIS 2:17 —Why didn’t Adam die the day he ate the forbidden fruit, as God said he would?

PROBLEM: God said to Adam, “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” ( Gen. 2:17 ). But Adam lived to be 930 years old after he sinned ( Gen. 5:5 ).

SOLUTION: The word “day” ( yom ) does not always mean a 24-hour day. For “one day (yom) is as a thousand years” ( Ps. 90:4 ; cf. 2 Peter 3:8 ). Adam did die within a “day” in this sense. Further, Adam began to die physically the very moment he sinned ( Rom. 5:12 ), and he also died spiritually the exact instant he sinned ( Eph. 2:1 ). So Adam died in several ways, any one of which would fulfill the pronouncement of God (in Gen. 2:17 ).   

Critics Ask: Gen 2:19

GENESIS 2:19 —How can we explain the difference in the order of creation events between Genesis 1 and 2 ?

PROBLEM: Genesis 1 declares that animals were created before humans, but Genesis 2:19 seems to reverse this, saying, “the Lord God formed every beast of the field … and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them,” implying Adam was created before they were.

SOLUTION: Genesis 1 gives the order of events; Genesis 2 provides more content about them. Genesis 2 does not contradict chapter 1 , since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the animals (which He had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them. The focus in chapter 2 is on the naming of the animals, not on creating them. Genesis 1 provides the outline of events, and chapter 2 gives details. Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more complete picture of the creation events. The differences, then, can be summarized as follows:

GENESIS 1 GENESIS 2   

Chronological order Topical order   

Outline Details   

Creating animals Naming animals

Evidence: Gen 2:17

"When Adam sinned, God's warning that he would die began to come true. In Hebrew, the expression 'you shall die' means 'dying you shall die' - in other words, a process of dying was to begin. Science has found that death is a process that begins at conception. Within every cell, at the end of the DNA, are small pieces called telemeres. At each division of the cell a telemere is lost. Eventually all the telemeres are gone, and the cell dies. 'Dying you shall die' is literally fulfilled." Richard Gunther

Skeptics maintain that Adam didn't die that day. He certainly did. Death entered him: "As by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin..." Also, it must be remembered that the scrip­tures inform us that a day to the Lord is a thousand years to us (see 2 Peter 3:8). Adam died at the age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5).

Evidence: Gen 2:25

"Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life im­possible...The necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and de-Sign." John Wheeler, Princeton University professor of physics (Reader's Digest, Sept. 1986)

Even evolutionist Stephen Hawking acknowledges "the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on,.." .(Austin American-Statesman, October 19,1997)

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Genesis (Book Introduction)

GENESIS, the book of the origin or production of all things, consists of two parts: the first, comprehended in the first through eleventh chapters, gives a general history; the second, contained in the subsequent chapters, gives a special history. The two parts are essentially connected; the one, which sets out with an account of the descent of the human race from a single pair, the introduction of sin into the world, and the announcement of the scheme of divine mercy for repairing the ruins of the fall, was necessary to pave the way for relating the other, namely, the call of Abraham, and the selection of his posterity for carrying out the gracious purpose of God. An evident unity of method, therefore, pervades this book, and the information contained in it was of the greatest importance to the Hebrew people, as without it they could not have understood the frequent references made in their law to the purposes and promises of God regarding themselves. The arguments that have been already adduced as establishing the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch prove of course that Moses was the author of Genesis. The few passages on which the rationalists grounded their assertions that it was the composition of a later age have been successfully shown to warrant no such conclusion; the use of Egyptian words and the minute acquaintance with Egyptian life and manners, displayed in the history of Joseph, harmonize with the education of Moses, and whether he received his information by immediate revelation, from tradition, or from written documents, it comes to us as the authentic work of an author who wrote as he was inspired by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21).

JFB: Genesis (Outline)

• THE CREATION OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. (Gen 1:1-2)
• THE FIRST DAY. (Gen 1:3-5)
• SECOND DAY. (Gen 1:6-8)
• THIRD DAY. (Gen 1:9-13)
• FOURTH DAY. (Gen 1:14-19)
• FIFTH DAY. The signs of animal life appeared in the waters and in the air. (Gen 1:20-23)
• SIXTH DAY. A farther advance was made by the creation of terrestrial animals, all the various species of which are included in three classes: (1) cattle, the herbivorous kind capable of labor or domestication. (Gen 1:24-31)
• THE NARRATIVE OF THE SIX DAYS' CREATION CONTINUED. The course of the narrative is improperly broken by the division of the chapter. (Gen 2:1)
• THE FIRST SABBATH. (Gen 2:2-7)
• THE GARDEN OF EDEN. ( Gen 8-17)
• THE MAKING OF WOMAN, AND INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. (Gen 2:18-25)
• THE TEMPTATION. (Gen 3:1-5)
• THE FALL. (Gen 3:6-9)
• THE EXAMINATION. (Gen 3:10-13)
• THE SENTENCE. (Gen 3:14-24)
• BIRTH OF CAIN AND ABEL. (Gen. 4:1-26)
• GENEALOGY OF THE PATRIARCHS. (Gen. 5:1-32)
• WICKEDNESS OF THE WORLD. (Gen. 6:1-22)
• ENTRANCE INTO THE ARK. (Gen. 7:1-24)
• ASSUAGING OF THE WATERS. (Gen 8:1-14)
• DEPARTURE FROM THE ARK. (Gen 8:15-22)
• COVENANT. (Gen 9:1-7)
• RAINBOW. (Gen. 9:8-29)
• GENEALOGIES. (Gen. 10:1-32)
• CONFUSION OF TONGUES. (Gen. 11:1-32) the whole earth was of one language. The descendants of Noah, united by the strong bond of a common language, had not separated, and notwithstanding the divine command to replenish the earth, were unwilling to separate. The more pious and well-disposed would of course obey the divine will; but a numerous body, seemingly the aggressive horde mentioned (Gen 10:10), determined to please themselves by occupying the fairest region they came to.
• CALL TO ABRAM. (Gen. 12:1-20)
• RETURN FROM EGYPT. (Gen. 13:1-18)
• WAR. (Gen. 14:1-24)
• DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENT. (Gen. 15:1-21)
• BESTOWMENT OF HAGAR. (Gen. 16:1-16)
• RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT. (Gen. 17:1-27)
• ENTERTAINMENT OF ANGELS. (Gen 18:1-8)
• REPROOF OF SARAH. An inquiry about his wife, so surprising in strangers, the subject of conversation, and the fulfilment of the fondly cherished promise within a specified time, showed Abraham that he had been entertaining more than ordinary travellers (Heb 13:2). (Gen 18:9-15)
• DISCLOSURE OF SODOM'S DOOM. (Gen 18:16-22)
• ABRAHAM'S INTERCESSION. (Gen 18:23-33)
• LOT'S ENTERTAINMENT. (Gen. 19:1-38)
• ABRAHAM'S DENIAL OF HIS WIFE. (Gen. 20:1-18)
• BIRTH OF ISAAC. (Gen 21:1-13)
• EXPULSION OF ISHMAEL. (Gen 21:14-21)
• COVENANT. (Gen 21:22-34)
• OFFERING ISAAC. (Gen. 22:1-19)
• AGE AND DEATH OF SARAH. (Gen 23:1-2)
• PURCHASE OF A BURYING-PLACE. (Gen. 23:3-20)
• A MARRIAGE COMMISSION. (Gen 24:1-9)
• THE JOURNEY. (Gen. 24:10-67)
• SONS OF ABRAHAM. (Gen 25:1-6)
• DEATH OF ABRAHAM. (Gen 25:7-11)
• DESCENDANTS OF ISHMAEL. Before passing to the line of the promised seed, the historian gives a brief notice of Ishmael, to show that the promises respecting that son of Abraham were fulfilled--first, in the greatness of his posterity (compare Gen 17:20); and, secondly, in their independence. (Gen 25:12-18)
• HISTORY OF ISAAC. (Gen 25:19-34)
• SOJOURN IN GERAR. (Gen. 26:1-35)
• INFIRMITY OF ISAAC. (Gen. 27:1-27)
• THE BLESSING. (Gen. 27:28-46)
• JACOB'S DEPARTURE. (Gen. 28:1-19)
• JACOB'S VOW. (Gen 28:20-22)
• THE WELL OF HARAN. (Gen. 29:1-35)
• DOMESTIC JEALOUSIES. (Gen. 30:1-24)
• JACOB'S COVENANT WITH LABAN. (Gen. 30:25-43)
• ENVY OF LABAN AND SONS. (Gen. 31:1-21)
• LABAN PURSUES JACOB--THEIR COVENANT AT GILEAD. (Gen. 31:22-55)
• VISION OF ANGELS. (Gen 32:1-2)
• MISSION TO ESAU. (Gen 32:3-32)
• KINDNESS OF JACOB AND ESAU. (Gen 33:1-11)
• THE PARTING. (Gen 33:12-20)
• THE DISHONOR OF DINAH. (Gen. 34:1-31) Though freed from foreign troubles, Jacob met with a great domestic calamity in the fall of his only daughter. According to JOSEPHUS, she had been attending a festival; but it is highly probable that she had been often and freely mixing in the society of the place and that she, being a simple, inexperienced, and vain young woman, had been flattered by the attentions of the ruler's son. There must have been time and opportunities of acquaintance to produce the strong attachment that Shechem had for her.
• REMOVAL TO BETHEL. (Gen 35:1-15)
• BIRTH OF BENJAMIN--DEATH OF RACHEL, &c. (Gen 35:16-27)
• DEATH OF ISAAC. (Gen 35:28-29)
• POSTERITY OF ESAU. (Gen. 36:1-43)
• PARENTAL PARTIALITY. (Gen 37:1-4)
• THE DREAMS OF JOSEPH. (Gen. 37:5-36)
• JUDAH AND FAMILY. (Gen. 38:1-30)
• JOSEPH IN POTIPHAR'S HOUSE. (Gen. 39:1-23)
• TWO STATE PRISONERS. (Gen 40:1-8)
• THE BUTLER'S DREAM. (Gen 40:9-15)
• THE BAKER'S DREAM. (Gen 40:16-23)
• PHARAOH'S DREAM. (Gen. 41:1-24)
• JOSEPH INTERPRETS PHARAOH'S DREAMS. (Gen 41:25-36)
• JOSEPH MADE RULER OF EGYPT. (Gen. 41:37-57)
• JOURNEY INTO EGYPT. (Gen. 42:1-38)
• PREPARATIONS FOR A SECOND JOURNEY TO EGYPT. (Gen 43:1-14)
• ARRIVAL IN EGYPT. (Gen. 43:15-30)
• THE DINNER. (Gen 43:31-34)
• POLICY TO STAY HIS BRETHREN. (Gen. 44:1-34)
• JOSEPH MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN. (Gen. 45:1-28)
• SACRIFICE AT BEER-SHEBA. (Gen 46:1-4)
• IMMIGRATION TO EGYPT. (Gen. 46:5-27)
• ARRIVAL IN EGYPT. (Gen 46:28-34)
• JOSEPH'S PRESENTATION AT COURT. (Gen. 47:1-31)
• JOSEPH'S VISIT TO HIS SICK FATHER. (Gen. 48:1-22)
• PATRIARCHAL BLESSING. (Gen. 49:1-33)
• MOURNING FOR JACOB. (Gen. 50:1-26)

TSK: Genesis (Book Introduction)

The Book of Genesis is the most ancient record in the world; including the History of two grand and stupendous subjects, Creation and Providence; of each of which it presents a summary, but astonishingly minute and detailed accounts. From this Book, almost all the ancient philosophers, astronomers, chronologists, and historians have taken their respective data; and all the modern improvements and accurate discoveries in different arts and sciences, have only served to confirm the facts detailed by Moses, and to shew, that all the ancient writers on these subjects have approached, or receded from, truth and the phenomena of Nature, in exactly the same proportion as they have followed or receded from, the Mosaic history. The great fact of the deluge is fully confirmed by the fossilised remains in every quarter of the globe. Add to this, that general traditions of the deluge have been traced among the Egyptians, Chinese, Japanese, Hindoos, Burmans, ancient Goths and Druids, Mexicans, Peruvians, Brazilians, North American Indians, Greenlanders, Otaheiteans, Sandwich Islanders, and almost every nation under heaven; while the allegorical turgidity of these distorted traditions sufficiently distinguishes them from the unadorned simplicity of the Mosaic narrative. In fine, without this history the world would be in comparative darkness, not knowing whence it came, nor whither it goeth. In the first page, a child may learn more in an hour, than all the philosophers in the world learned without it in a thousand years. (The original publisher remembers these words addressed to him and other boys in the year 1780, by his excellent tutor, the later Rev. John Ryland, of Northampton.)

TSK: Genesis 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Gen 2:1, The first Sabbath; Gen 2:4, Further particulars concerning the manner of creation; Gen 2:8, The planting of the garden of Eden, and its situation; Gen 2:15, man is placed in it; and the tree of knowledge only forbidden; Gen 2:18, The animals are named by Adam; Gen 2:21, The making of woman, and the institution of marriage.

Poole: Genesis 2 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 2

The sabbath insituted and blessed, Gen 2:2,3 . A rehearsal of the creation; and,

(1.) Of vegetables, Gen 2:4,5 . The earth watered, Gen 2:6 .

(2.) Of man, Gen 2:7 . His habitation, Gen 2:8,9 . Trees for his delight and food; as also the tree of life and knowledge, Gen 2:9 . Its pleasant situation and riches, Gen 2:10-14 . Man’ s employment, Gen 2:15 . Every tree given him but that of knowledge, Gen 2:16 . This denied on pain of death, Gen 2:17 . A purpose to create the woman, and the reason thereof, Gen 2:18 . Beasts and fowls named by Adam, Gen 2:19,20 . The woman made of Adam’ s rib, presented to him, Gen 2:21,22 , and owned by him, Gen 2:23 . Marriage ordained, Gen 2:24 . Their state whilst innocent, Gen 2:25 .

All the creatures in heaven and earth are called their

MHCC: Genesis (Book Introduction)

Genesis is a name taken from the Greek, and signifies " the book of generation or production;" it is properly so called, as containing an account of the origin of all things. There is no other history so old. There is nothing in the most ancient book which exists that contradicts it; while many things recorded by the oldest heathen writers, or to be traced in the customs of different nations, confirm what is related in the book of Genesis.

MHCC: Genesis 2 (Chapter Introduction)

(Gen 2:1-3) The first sabbath.

(Gen 2:4-7) Particulars about the creation.

(Gen 2:8-14) The planting of the garden of Eden.

(Gen 2:15) Man is placed in it.

(Gen 2:16, Gen 2:17) God's command.

(Gen 2:18-25) The animals named, The making of woman, The Divine institution of marriage.

Matthew Henry: Genesis (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis

We have now before us the holy Bible, or book, for so bible signifies. We call it the book, by way of eminency; for it is incomparably the best book that ever was written, the book of books, shining like the sun in the firmament of learning, other valuable and useful books, like the moon and stars, borrowing their light from it. We call it the holy book, because it was written by holy men, and indited by the Holy Ghost; it is perfectly pure from all falsehood and corrupt intention; and the manifest tendency of it is to promote holiness among men. The great things of God's law and gospel are here written to us, that they might be reduced to a greater certainty, might spread further, remain longer, and be transmitted to distant places and ages more pure and entire than possibly they could be by report and tradition: and we shall have a great deal to answer for if these things which belong to our peace, being thus committed to us in black and white, be neglected by us as a strange and foreign thing, Hos 8:12. The scriptures, or writings of the several inspired penmen, from Moses down to St. John, in which divine light, like that of the morning, shone gradually (the sacred canon being now completed), are all put together in this blessed Bible, which, thanks be to God, we have in our hands, and they make as perfect a day as we are to expect on this side of heaven. Every part was good, but all together very good. This is the light that shines in a dark place (2Pe 1:19), and a dark place indeed the world would be without the Bible.

We have before us that part of the Bible which we call the Old Testament, containing the acts and monuments of the church from the creation almost to the coming of Christ in the flesh, which was about four thousand years - the truths then revealed, the laws then enacted, the devotions then paid, the prophecies then given, and the events which concerned that distinguished body, so far as God saw fit to preserve to us the knowledge of them. This is called a testament, or covenant ( diatheke ), because it was a settled declaration of the will of God concerning man in a federal way, and had its force from the designed death of the great testator, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev 8:8. It is called the Old Testament, with relation to the New, which does not cancel and supersede it, but crown and perfect it, by the bringing in of that better hope which was typified and foretold in it; the Old Testament still remains glorious, though the New far exceeds in glory, 2Co 3:9.

We have before us that part of the Old Testament which we call the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, that servant of the Lord who excelled all the other prophets, and typified the great prophet. In our Saviour's distribution of the books of the Old Testament into the law, the prophets, and the psalms, or Hagiographa , these are the law; for they contain not only the laws given to Israel, in the last four, but the laws given to Adam, to Noah, and to Abraham, in the first. These five books were, for aught we know, the first that ever were written; for we have not the least mention of any writing in all the book of Genesis, nor till God bade Moses write (Exo 17:14); and some think Moses himself never learned to write till God set him his copy in the writing of the ten Commandments upon the tables of stone. However, we are sure these books are the most ancient writings now extant, and therefore best able to give us a satisfactory account of the most ancient things.

We have before us the first and longest of those five books, which we call Genesis, written, some think, when Moses was in Midian, for the instruction and comfort of his suffering brethren in Egypt: I rather think he wrote it in the wilderness, after he had been in the mount with God, where, probably, he received full and particular instructions for the writing of it. And, as he framed the tabernacle, so he did the more excellent and durable fabric of this book, exactly according to the pattern shown him in the mount, into which it is better to resolve the certainty of the things herein contained than into any tradition which possibly might be handed down from Adam to Methuselah, from him to Shem, from him to Abraham, and so to the family of Jacob. Genesis is a name borrowed from the Greek. It signifies the original, or generation: fitly is this book so called, for it is a history of originals - the creation of the world, the entrance of sin and death into it, the invention of arts, the rise of nations, and especially the planting of the church, and the state of it in its early days. It is also a history of generations - the generations of Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc., not endless, but useful genealogies. The beginning of the New Testament is called Genesis too (Mat 1:1), Biblos geneseos the book of the genesis, or generation, of Jesus Christ. Blessed be God for that Book which shows us our remedy, as this opens our wound. Lord, open our eyes, that we may see the wondrous things both of thy law and gospel!

Matthew Henry: Genesis 2 (Chapter Introduction)

This chapter is an appendix to the history of the creation, more particularly explaining and enlarging upon that part of the history which relates immediately to man, the favourite of this lower world. We have in it, I. The institution and sanctification of the sabbath, which was made for man, to further his holiness and comfort (Gen 2:1-3). II. A more particular account of man's creation, as the centre and summary of the whole work (Gen 2:1-7). III. A description of the garden of Eden, and the placing of man in it under the obligations of a law and covenant (Gen 2:8-17). IV. The creation of the woman, her marriage to the man, and the institution of the ordinance of marriage (Gen 2:18, etc.).

Constable: Genesis (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

Each book of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, called the Torah [instruction] by the Jews) originally received its title in the Hebrew Bible from the first word or words in the book.¹ The Hebrew word translated "in the beginning" is beresit. The English title "Genesis," however, has come to us from the Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome (Liber Genesis). The Latin title came from the Septuagint translation (the Greek translation of the Old Testament made about 300 years before Christ). "Genesis" is a transliteration of the Greek word geneseos, the Greek word that translates the Hebrew toledot. This Hebrew word is the key word in identifying the structure of Genesis, and the translators have usually rendered it "account" or "generations" (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2).

Date

The events recorded date back to the creation of the world.

Many Christians believe the earth is millions of years old. They base this belief on the statements of scientists and understand Scripture in the light of these statements. Likewise, many Christians believe that the human race began hundreds of thousands of years ago for the same reason.

Most evangelicals who take the Scriptures seriously believe that the earth is not much older than 10, 000 years. They base this on the genealogies in Scripture (Gen. 5; 10; 11; et al.), which they understand to be "open" (i.e., not complete). Evangelicals usually hold to a more recent date for man's creation, also for the same reason.

A smaller group of evangelicals believes that the genealogies are either "closed" (i.e., complete) or very close to complete. This leads us to date the creation of the world and man about 6, 000 years ago.²

Liberal interpreters have placed the date of composition of Genesis much later than Moses' lifetime.

If one accepts Mosaic authorship, as most conservative evangelicals do, the date of composition of Genesis must be within Moses' lifetime (ca. 1525-1405 B.C.). This book was perhaps originally intended to encourage the Israelites to trust in their faithful, omnipotent God as they anticipated entrance into the Promised Land from Kadesh Barnea or from the Plains of Moab.³ Moses may have written it earlier to prepare them for the Exodus,⁴ but this seems less likely.

Writer

The authorship of the Pentateuch has been the subject of great controversy among professing Christians since Spinoza introduced "higher criticism" of the Bible in the seventeenth century. The "documentary hypothesis," which developed from his work, is that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, as most scholars in Judaism and the church until that day believed. Instead, it was the product of several writers who lived much later than Moses. A redactor (editor) or redactors combined these several documents into the form we have now. These documents (J, E, D, P, and others) represent a Yahwistic tradition, an Elohistic tradition, a Deuteronomic tradition, a Priestly tradition, etc.⁵

The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is conclusive if one believes that Jesus Christ spoke the truth when He attributed authorship to Moses (Matt. 19:8; Mark 7:10; Luke 18:29-31; 20:37; 24:27; John 7:19). Jesus Christ did not specifically say that Moses wrote Genesis, but in our Lord's day the Jews regarded the Pentateuch (Torah) as a whole unit. They recognized Moses as the author of all five books. Consequently they would have understood what Jesus said about any of the five books of Moses as an endorsement of the Mosaic authorship of them all.⁶

Scope

The events recorded in Genesis stretch historically from Creation to Joseph's death, a period of at least 2500 years. The first part of the book (ch. 1-11) is not as easy to date precisely as the second part (ch. 12-50). The history of the patriarchs recorded in this second main division of the text covers a period of about 300 years.

The scope of the book progressively and consistently narrows. The selection of content included in Genesis points to the purpose of the divine author: to reveal the history of and basic principles involved in God's relationship with people.⁷

Purpose

Genesis provides the historical basis for the rest of the Bible and the Pentateuch, particularly the Abrahamic Covenant. Chapters 1-11 give historical background essential to understanding that covenant, and chapters 12-50 record the covenant and its initial outworking. The Abrahamic Covenant continues to be the basic arrangement by which God operates in dealing with humanity throughout the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible.

"The real theme of the Pentateuch is the selection of Israel from the nations and its consecration to the service of God and His Laws in a divinely appointed land. The central event in the development of this theme is the divine covenant with Abraham and its . . . promise to make his offspring into the people of God and to give them the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance."⁸

Genesis provides an indispensable prologue to the drama that unfolds in Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch. The first 11 chapters constitute a prologue to the prologue.

"Two opposite progressions appear in this prologue [chs. 1-11]: (a) God's orderly Creation with its climax in His blessing of man, and (b) the totally disintegrating work of sin with its two greatest curses being the Flood and the dispersion at Babel.⁹ The first progression demonstrates God's plan to bring about perfect order from the beginning in spite of what the reader may know of man's experience. The second progression demonstrates the great need of God's intervention to provide the solution for the corrupt human race."¹⁰

Theology

"The subject matter of the theology in Genesis is certainly God's work in establishing Israel as the means of blessing the families of the earth. This book forms the introduction to the Pentateuch's main theme of the founding of the theocracy, that is, the rule of God over all Creation. It presents the origins behind the founding of the theocracy: the promised blessing that Abraham's descendants would be in the land.

"Exodus presents the redemption of the seed out of bondage and the granting of a covenant to them. Leviticus is the manual of ordinances enabling the holy God to dwell among His people by making them holy. Numbers records the military arrangement and census of the tribes in the wilderness, and shows how God preserves His promised blessings from internal and external threats. Deuteronomy presents the renewal of the covenant.

"In the unfolding of this grand program of God, Genesis introduces the reader to the nature of God as the sovereign Lord over the universe who will move heaven and earth to establish His will. He seeks to bless mankind, but does not tolerate disobedience and unbelief. Throughout this revelation the reader learns that without faith it is impossible to please God' (Heb. 11:6)."¹¹

Message¹²

The message of the Bible might be the best place to begin our study of the Old Testament. What is the Bible all about? We could state it as follows: God desires to glorify Himself by blessing humankind.

The message of the Pentateuch (Torah) is that people can experience God's blessing by trusting Him (believing His word) and by obeying Him (following His initiative).

Genesis is in the Bible primarily to teach us this lesson. People can enjoy a personal relationship with God and thereby realize their own fulfillment as human beings only through trust in God and obedience to God. This is the message statement. Genesis reveals that God is faithful to His promises and powerful enough to bring them to fulfillment.

Genesis reveals that God originally intended people to have an immediate relationship with their Creator. Evidences for this are as follows.

1. God made man as a special creation (2:7).

2. He made man with special care (2:7).

3. He made man in His own image (1:26-27).

4. He regarded man as His son (1:28-30).

5. He consistently demonstrated concern for man's welfare (3:9).

God's immediate relationship with Adam was broken by the Fall (ch. 3). In the Fall man did two things.

1. He failed to trust God's goodness with his mind.

2. He rebelled against God's government with his will (3:6).

God then took the initiative to re-establish the relationship with man that He had created man to enjoy. He provided a covering for man's sin until He would finally remove it. This temporary covering came through the sacrificial system.

Throughout Genesis we see that people in general consistently failed to trust and obey God (e.g., in Noah's day, at Babel, in the patriarchal period).

Genesis also records what God has done to encourage people to trust and obey Him. It is only by living by these two principles that people can enjoy a relationship with God and realize all that God created them to experience.

On the one hand, Genesis reveals much about the person and work of God. This revelation helps us trust and obey Him. It is through His personal revelations to the main characters in Genesis that God revealed Himself initially (e.g., Adam and Eve, Noah, the patriarchs).

On the other hand, Genesis reveals much about the nature of man. Not only did God reveal the perversity of man, but He also identified positive examples of faith and obedience in the lives of the godly.

In Genesis we learn that faith in God is absolutely essential if we are to have fellowship with Him and realize our potential as human beings.

Faith is the law of life. If one lives by faith he flourishes, but if he does not, he fails. The four patriarchs are primarily examples of what faith is and how it manifests itself. In each of their lives we learn something new about faith.

Abraham's faith demonstrates unquestioning obedience. When God told him to do something, he did it. This is the most basic characteristic of faith. That is one reason why Abraham is "the father of the faithful." God revealed Himself nine times to Abraham and each time Abraham's response was unquestioning obedience.

Isaac's faith helps us see the quality of passive acceptance that characterizes true faith in God. This was his response to God's two revelations to him.

Jacob's story is one of conflict with God until he came to realize his own limitations. Then he trusted God. We can see his faith in his acknowledged dependence on God. God's seven revelations to him eventually led him to this position.

Joseph's life teaches us what God can do with a person who trusts Him consistently in the face of adversity. The outstanding characteristic of Joseph's life was his faithful loyalty to God. He believed God's two revelations to him in dreams even though God's will did not seem to be working out as he thought it would. Patient faith and its reward shine through the story of Joseph.

Faith, the key concept in Genesis, means trusting that what God has prescribed is indeed best for me and waiting for God to provide what He has promised. A person of faith is one who commits to acting on this basis even though he or she may not see how it is best.

The Pentateuch is all about God, man, and our relationship. In our study of it, we will be building a model to show how each new book builds on what has preceded. The key concept in Genesis is faith.

Constable: Genesis (Outline)

Outline

The structure of Genesis is very clear. The phrase "the generations of" (toledot in Hebrew, from yalad meaning "to bear, to generate") occurs ten times (really eleven times since 36:9 repeats 36:1), and in each case it introduces a new section of the book.¹³ The first part of Genesis is introductory and sets the scene for what follows. An outline of Genesis based on this structure is as follows.

1. Introduction 1:1-2:3

2. The generations of heaven and earth 2:4-4:26

3. The generations of Adam 5:1-6:8

4. The generations of Noah 6:9-9:29

5. The generations of the sons of Noah 10:1-11:9

6. The generations of Shem 11:10-26

7. The generations of Terah 11:27-25:11

8. The generations of Ishmael 25:12-18

9. The generations of Isaac 25:19-35:29

10. The generations of Esau 36:1-43

11. The generations of Jacob 37:1-50:26

A full expository outline designed to highlight the relative emphases of the book follows. We shall follow this outline in these notes as we seek to unpack the message of the book.

I. Primeval events 1:1-11:26

A. The story of creation 1:1-2:3

1. An initial statement of creation 1:1

2. Conditions at the time of creation 1:2

3. The six days of creation 1:3-31

4. The seventh day 2:1-3

B. What became of the creation 2:4-4:26

1. The garden of Eden 2:4-3:24

2. The murder of Abel 4:1-16

3. The spread of civilization and sin 4:17-26

C. What became of Adam 5:1-6:8

1. The effects of the curse on humanity ch. 5

2. God's sorrow over man's wickedness 6:1-8

D. What became of Noah 6:9-9:29

1. The Flood 6:9-8:22

2. The Noahic Covenant 9:1-17

3. The curse on Canaan 9:18-29

E. What became of Noah's sons 10:1-11:9

1. The table of nations ch. 10

2. The dispersion at Babel 11:1-9

F. What became of Shem 11:10-26

II. Patriarchal narratives 11:27-50:26

A. What became of Terah 11:27-25:11

1. Terah and Abraham's obedience 11:27-12:9

2. Abram in Egypt 12:10-20

3. Abram's separation from Lot ch. 13

4. Abram's military victory ch. 14

5. The Abrahamic covenant ch. 15

6. The birth of Ishmael ch. 16

7. The sign of circumcision ch. 17

8. Yahweh's visit to Abraham 18:1-15

9. Abraham's intercession for Lot 18:16-33

10. The destruction of Sodom ch. 19

11. Abraham's sojourn at Gerar ch. 20

12. The birth of Isaac 21:1-21

13. Abimelech's treaty with Abraham 21:22-34

14. The sacrifice of Isaac 22:1-19

15. The descendants of Nahor 22:20-24

16. The purchase of Sarah's tomb ch. 23

17. The choice of a bride for Isaac ch. 24

18. Abraham's death 25:1-11

B. What became of Ishmael 25:12-18

C. What became of Isaac 25:19-35:29

1. Isaac's twin sons 25:19-26

2. The sale of the birthright 25:27-34

3. Isaac and Abimelech 26:1-11

4. Isaac's wells 26:12-33

5. Jacob's deception for Isaac's blessing 26:34-28:9

6. Jacob's vision at Bethel 28:10-22

7. Jacob's marriages and Laban's deception 29:1-30

8. Jacob's mishandling of God's blessings 29:31-30:24

9. Jacob's new contract with Laban 30:25-43

10. Jacob's flight from Haran ch. 31

11. Jacob's attempt to appease Esau 32:1-21

12. Jacob at the Jabbok 32:22-32

13. Jacob's meeting with Esau and his return to Canaan ch. 33

14. The rape of Dinah and the revenge of Simeon and Levi ch. 34

15. Jacob's return to Bethel ch. 35

D. What became of Esau 36:1-37:1

E. What became of Jacob 37:2-50:26

1. God's choice of Joseph 37:2-11

2. The sale of Joseph into Egypt 37:12-36

3. Judah and Tamar ch. 38

4. Joseph in Potiphar's house ch. 39

5. The prisoners' dreams and Joseph's interpretations ch. 40

6. Pharaoh's dreams and Joseph's interpretation ch. 41

7. Joseph's brothers' first journey into Egypt ch. 42

8. Joseph's brothers' second journey into Egypt ch. 43

9. Joseph's last test and its results ch. 44

10. Joseph's reconciliation with his brothers 45:1-15

11. Israel's move to Egypt 45:16-46:30

12. Joseph's wise leadership 46:31-47:27

13. Jacob's worship in Egypt 47:28-48:22

14. Jacob's blessing of his sons 49:1-28

15. Deaths and a promise yet to be fulfilled 49:29-50:26¹⁴

Constable: Genesis

Bibliography

Aalders, Gerhard Charles. Genesis. The Bible Student's Commentary series. 2 vols. Translated by William Heynen. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William Foxwell. "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (October 1961):36-54.

_____. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963.

Alexander, John F. "Sabbath Rest." The Other Side 146 (November 1983):8-9.

Alexander, T. Desmond. "Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983):17-22.

_____. "Lot's Hospitality: A Clue to His Righteousness." Journal of Biblical Literature 104:2 (June 1985):289-91.

Allis, Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1949.

_____. God Spake by Moses. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1951.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic, 1981.

Ancil, Ralph E. "Is Creation More than a Model of Origins?" Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 5:2 (Winter 1982):3-13.

Anderson, Bernhard W. "Creation and Ecology." American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 4:1 (January 1983):14-30.

Anderson, Don. Abraham: Delay Is Not Denial. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, Kingfisher Books, 1987.

Anderson, Gary. "The Interpretation of Genesis l:1 in the Targums." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):21-29.

Anderson, J. Kerby and Harold G Coffin. Fossils in Focus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Andrews, Gini. Your Half of the Apple. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Aufenson-Vance, Deborah. "Lot's Wife Remembers." Adventist Review 163:8 (February 20, 1986):5.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):3-25.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption." Journal for the Study of Judaism. 17:2 (December 1986):153-76.

Baldwin, Joyce G. The Message of Genesis 12-50. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Ballard, Bruce W. "The Death Penalty: God's Timeless Standard for the Nations?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):471-87.

Bar-Deroma, H. "The River of Egypt (Nahal Mizraim)." Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 92 (1960):37-56.

Barker, Kenneth L. "The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 131-39. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Barr, James. "Why the World Was Created in 4004 B.C.: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology." Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):575-608.

Barre, Lloyd M. "The Riddle of the Flood Chronology." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41 (June 1988):3-20.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1951.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Author of Hebrews' use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989.

Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. "New Evidence on the Relations between Canaan and Egypt during the Proto-Dynastic Period." Israel Exploration Journal 34:1 (1984):20-23.

_____. "New Light on the Edomites." Biblical Archaeological Review. 14:2 (March-April 1988):28-41.

Ben-Tor, Amnon. "The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29:1 (February 1986):1-27.

Berg, S. B. The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structure. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation series, 44. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. "Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom." Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):119-32.

Blosser, Oliver R. "Was Nimrod-Sargon of Agade, the First King of Babylon?" It's About Time, June 1987, pp. 10-13.

Bock, Darrell L. "Interpreting the Bible--How Texts Speak to Us." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 76-105. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Boice, James M. Genesis. 2 vols. Ministry Resources Library series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982, 1985.

Briggs, Peter. "Testing the Factuality of the Conquest of Ai Narrative in the Book of Joshua." A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 15, 2001.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Broshi, Magen. "The Credibility of Josephus." Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):379-84.

Brotzman, Ellis R. "Man and the Meaning of Nephesh." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):400-9.

Brueggemann, W. "From Dust to Kingship." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (1972):1-18.

_____. Genesis. Interpretation series. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge: University Press, 1928.

Busenitz, Irvin A. "Woman's Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered." Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):203-12.

Bush, George. Notes on Genesis. New York: Ivison, Phinney & Co., 1860; reprint ed., 2 vols., Minneapolis: James and Klock Publishing Co., 1976.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis. Translated by John King. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948.

_____. Genesis. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Campbell, Donald K. "Passing the Test." Kindred Spirit 9:2 (Summer 1985):9-10.

Cardona, Dwardu. "Jupiter--God of Abraham (Part III)." Kronos 8:1 (Fall 1982):63-77.

Carmichael, Calum M. "Forbidden Mixtures." Vetus Testamentum 32:4 (1982):394-415.

Carnell, Edward John. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part II. From Noah to Abraham, Genesis VI:9--XI:32. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964.

Caylor, Duane K. "Capital Punishment, a different Christian perspective." Reformed Journal 36:7 (July 1986):10-12.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947.

Chalmers, Thomas. Posthumous Works of the Rev. Thomas Chalmers. Vol. 1: Daily Scripture Readings. Edinburgh: Sutherland and Knox, 1851.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Evidence from Genesis." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 35-54. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

"Cities of the Dead Sea Plain." Buried History. 18:3 (September 1982):35-48.

Clifford, Richard J. "Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible." Orientalia 53:2 (1984):183-201.

Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament supplement series, no. 10. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1978.

Coats, George W. Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Forms of Old Testament Literature series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Cole, Timothy J. "Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:591 (July-September 1991):288-97.

Cooper, Robert M. "Capital Punishment: Helplessness and Power." Encounter 46:2 (Spring 1985):163-75.

Cottrell, Jack. "The Doctrine of Creation from Nothing." Seminary Review 29:4 (December 1983):157-74.

Cox, Raymond L. "What Made Abraham Laugh?" Eternity, November 1975, pp. 19-20.

Cryer, Frederick H. "The Interrelationships of Gen. 5, 32; 11, 10-11 and the Chronology of the Flood." Biblica 66:2 (1985):241-61.

Cummings, Violet M. Has Anybody Really Seen Noah's Ark? San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982.

Curtis, Edward M. "Structure, Style and Context as a Key to Interpreting Jacob's Encounter at Peniel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:2 (June 1987):129-37.

Custance, Arthur C. Without Form and Void. Brockville, Ont.: By the author, or Doorway Papers, 1970.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, D. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947.

Davis, John J. "The Camel in Biblical Narratives." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 141-52. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

_____. Paradise to Prison. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975.

Davis, M. Stephen. "Polygamy in the Ancient World." Biblical Illustrator 14:1 (Fall 1987):34-36.

_____. "Stories of the Fall in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):37-40.

de Chardin, Pierre Teilhard. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper and Row, 1959.

DeHaan, Martin Ralph. 508 Answers to Bible Questions. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1952.

Delitzsch, Franz. A New Commentary on Genesis. 6th ed. 2 vols. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888-89.

_____. A System of Biblical Psychology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2 vols. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Dever, William G. "Beersheba." Biblical Illustrator, Spring 1983, pp. 56-62.

Diakonoff, I. M. "Women in Old Babylonia Not Under Patriarchal Authority." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29:3 (October 1984):225-38.

Diamond, J. A. "The Deception of Jacob: A New Perspective on an Ancient Solution to the Problem." Vetus Testamentum 34:2 (1984):211-13.

Dickason, C. Fred. Angels, Elect and Evil. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Waters Above: Earth's Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Dods, Marcus. The Book of Genesis. The Expositor's Bible series. New York: George H. Coran Co., n.d.

Dresner, Samuel. "Rachel and Leah: Sibling Tragedy or the Triumph of Piety and Compassion?" Bible Review 6:2 (April 1990):22-27, 40-42.

Driver, G. R. and John C. Miles, eds. and trans. The Babylonian Laws. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952-55.

Driver, S. R. Book of Genesis. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen, 1904.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Ellis, Peter F. The Yahwist: the Bible's First Theologian. London: G. Chapman, 1969.

Ellul, J. The Meaning of the City. Translated by D. Pardee. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970.

England, Donald. A Christian View of Origins. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Erdman, Charles R. The Book of Genesis. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1950.

Erlandsson, Seth. "Faith in the Old and New Testaments: Harmony or Disagreement?" Concordia Theological Quarterly 47:1 (January-March 1983):1-14.

Eslinger, L. "A Contextual Identification of the bene ha'elohim and benoth ha'adam in Genesis 6:1-4." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13 (1979):65-73.

Evans, Carl D. "The Patriarch Jacob--An Innocent Man.'" Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1985):32-37.

Exum, J. Cheryl. "The Mothers of Israel: The Patriarchal Narratives from a Feminist Perspective." Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):60-67.

Exum, J. Cheryl and J. William Whedbee. "Isaac, Samson, and Saul: Reflections on the Comic and Tragic Visions." Semeia 32 (1884):5-40.

Family Life Conference. Little Rock, Ark.: Family Ministry, 1990.

Fawver, Jay D. and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):270-85.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. "The Image of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):235-46.

Figart, Thomas O. A Biblical Perspective on the Race Problem. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Filby, Frederick A. Creation Revealed. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963.

Finley, Thomas J. "Dimensions of the Hebrew Word for Create' (bara)." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 (October-December 1991):409-23.

Fishbane, Michael. "Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen. 25:19-35:22)." Journal of Jewish Studies 26:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1975):15-38.

_____. Text and Texture. New York: Schocken, 1979.

Fisher, Loren R. "Abraham and His Priest-King." Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):264-70.

_____. "An Amarna Age Prodigal." Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):113-22.

Foh, Susan T. "What Is the Woman's Desire?" Westminster Theological Journal 37:3 (Spring 1975):376-83.

_____. Women and the Word of God. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.

Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis. Assen, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1975.

Foster, Harry. "Jacob. Walking with a Limp." Toward the Mark, September-October 1982, pp. 97-100.

Fouts, David M. "Peleg in Gen 10:25." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:1 (March 1998):17-21.

Frame, Randy. "The Strange Case of Steven Linscott." Christianity Today, February 4, 1983, pp. 42-45, 47.

Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948; reprint ed. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Harper Torchbooks, 1961.

Freedman, R. David. "A New Approach to the Nuzi Sistership Contract." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 2:2 (Summer 1970):77-85.

_____. "Put Your Hand Under My Thigh'--The Patriarchal Oath." Biblical Archaeology Review 2:2 (June 1976):3-4, 42.

_____. "Woman, A Power Equal to Man." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:1 (January-February 1983):56-58.

Friedman, Richard Elliott. "Deception for Deception." Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):22-31, 68.

Gage, Warren. "The Eschatological Structure of Genesis." Paper written in Tubingen, W. Germany, November 18, 1979.

Gardener, R. F. R. Abortion: The Personal Dilemma. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.

Gardner, Joseph L., ed. Reader's Digest Atlas of the Bible. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader's Digest Association, 1985.

Geisler, Normal L. "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):3-19.

Geller, Stephen A. "The Struggle at the Jabbok: the Uses of Enigma in a Biblical Narrative." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 14 (1982):37-60.

Gish, Duane T. "Evolution--A Philosophy, Not a Science." Good News Broadcaster, March 1984, pp. 34-37.

Golka, Friedemann. "The Aetiologies in the Old Testament." Vetus Testamentum 26:4 (October 1976):410-28; and 27:1 (January 1977):36-47.

Gordon, Cyrus H. "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets." Biblical Archaeologist 3:1 (February 1940):1-12.

Grassi, Joseph A. "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):449-58.

Gray, Elmer L. "Capital Punishment in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):65-67.

Grayson, A. K., and J. Van Seters. "The Childless Wife in Assyria and the Stories of Genesis." Orientalia 44:4 (1975):485-86.

Green, William Henry. "Primeval Chronology." In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 13-28. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Greenberg, Blu. "Marriage in the Jewish Tradition." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22:1 (Winter 1985):3-20.

Greenberg, M. "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim." Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):239-48.

Greengus, Samuel. "Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and the Wife- Sister' in Genesis." Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975):5-31.

Gronbock, Jakob H. "Baal's Battle with Yam--A Canaanite Creation Fight." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (October 1985):27-44.

Guinness, Oz. The Dust of Death. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

Ham, Kenneth A. The Lie: Evolution. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1987.

_____. Genesis and the Decay of the Nations. Florence, Ky.: Answers in Genesis, 1991.

Ham, Ken; Andrew Snelling; and Carl Wieland. The Answers Book. Revised ed. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1990.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.

_____. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Harbach, Robert C. Studies in the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Grandville Protestant Reformed Church, 1986.

Harrison, R. K. "From Adam to Noah: A Reconsideration of the Antediluvian Patriarchs' Ages." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):161-68.

Harrison, William K. "The Origin of Sin." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:517 (January-March 1973):58-61.

Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (1981):61-78.

_____. "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch." In The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 21-43. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982.

Hawkins, Kerry L. "The Theology of the Flood." Seminary Review 34:2 (December 1988):69-88.

Hays, J. Daniel. "The Cushites: A Black Nation in Ancient History." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):270-80.

_____. "The Cushites: A Black Nation in the Bible." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):396-409.

Hayward, James L. and Donald E Casebolt. "The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11: A Statistical Study." Origins 9:2 (1982):75-81.

Heck, Joel D. "A History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):16-31.

_____. "Issachar: Slave or Freeman? (Gen. 49:14-15)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (December 1986):385-96.

Heidel, Alexander. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946.

Helyer, Larry R. "The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 (June 1983):77-88.

Hendel, Ronald S. "When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men." Bible Review 3:2 (Summer 1987):8-13, 37.

Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm. Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch. 2 vols. Translated by J. E. Ryland. Edinburgh: John B. Lowe and T. & T. Clark, 1847.

_____. Egypt and the Books of Moses. Translated by R. D. C. Robbins. Andover, Mass.: Allen, Morrill and Wardwell, 1843.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. 6 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1935.

Hens-Piazza, Gina. "A Theology of Ecology: God's Image and the Natural World." Biblical Theology Bulletin 13:4 (October 1983):107-10.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: By the Author, Redencion Viva, P.O. Box 141167, 1981.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. "The Linguistic Origins of Teraphim." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):230-38.

Holt, L., Jr. and R McIntosh. Holt Pediatrics. 12th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.

Horbury, W. "Extirpation and excommunication." Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985):13-38.

Horn, Siegfried H. Biblical Archaeology: A Generation of Discovery. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1985.

Houtman, C. "What Did Jacob See In His Dream At Bethel?" Vetus Testamentum 27:3 (July 1977):337-51.

Howard, David M., Jr. "Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:4 (December 1984):385-400.

Howe, Frederic R. "The Age of the Earth: An Appraisal of Some Current Evangelical Positions." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):23-37; 566 (April-June 1985):114-29.

Howe, George. "Carbon-14 and Other Radioactive Dating Methods." Caldwell, Idaho: Bible-Science Association, 1970.

Humphreys, D. Russell. Starlight and Time. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1994.

Humphreys, W. L. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina, 1988.

Hunter, Alastair G. "Father Abraham: A Structural and Theological Study of the Yahwist's Presentation of the Abraham Material." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):3-27.

Hutchison, John C. "Darwin's Evolutionary Theory and 19th-Century Natural Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):334-54.

Hyman, Ronald T. "Questions in the Joseph Story: The Effects and Their Implications for Teaching." Religious Education 79:3 (Summer 1984):437-55.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1939 ed. S.v. "Antedeluvian Patriarchs," by John D. Davis.

_____. S.v. "Raamses," by C. R. Conder.

Jackson, Thomas A. "Creation Stories of the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):20-25.

Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1978.

_____. Until the Sun Dies. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977.

Jay, Nancy. "Sacrifice, Descent and the Patriarchs." Vetus Testamentum 38:1 (1988):52-70.

Jeske, John C. "The Gospel Adam and Eve Heard: Genesis 3:15." Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 81:3 (Summer 1984):182-84.

Johns, Warren H. "Strategies for Origins." Ministry, May 1981, pp. 26-28.

Johnson, Elliott E. "Premillennialism Introduced: Hermeneutics." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 15-34. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Jones, Peter. "Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):443-69.

Jordan, James B. "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis." Christianity and Civilization 3 (Summer 1983):38-80.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11." In New Perspectives on the Old Testament, pp. 48-65. Waco: Word Books, 1970.

_____. "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.

_____. "The Promised Land: A Biblical-Historical View." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October-December 1981):302-12.

_____. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Karageorghis, Vassos. "Exploring Philistine Origins on the Island of Cyprus." Biblical Archaeology Review 10:2 (March-April 1984):16-28.

Kardimon, Samson. "Adoption As a Remedy For Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs." Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):123-26.

Keil, C. F. and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Key, Thomas. "Does the Canopy Theory Hold Water?" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37:4 (December 1985):223-25.

Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1967.

Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____. The Bible In Its World. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Event of the Exodus." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59 (1971):2-10.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context 6." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 64 (1972):2-10.

Klotz, John W. "A Creationist Environmental Ethic." Creation Research Society Quarterly 21:1 (June 1984):6-8.

_____. Genes, Genesis, and Evolution. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970.

_____. Modern Science in the Christian Life. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961.

Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L Segraves. The Creation Explanation. Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975.

Labuschagne, Casper J. "The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch." Vetus Testamentum 32:3 (1982):268-96.

LaHaye, Tim F. and John D Morris. The Ark on Ararat. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1976.

Lane, David H. "Special Creation or Evolution: No Middle Ground." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):11-31.

_____. "Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April-June 1994):155-74.

Lang, Bernhard. "Afterlife: Ancient Israel's Changing Vision of the World Beyond." Bible Review 4:1 (February 1988):12-23.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus, by John Peter Lange and Frederic Gardiner. Translated by Tayler Lewis, A. Gosman, and Charles M. Mead.

Larkin, Clarence. The Spirit World. Philadelphia: By the Author, 1921.

Larsson, Gerhard. "The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX." Journal of Biblical Literature 102:3 (September 1983):401-9.

LaSor, William Sanford. "Biblical Creationism." Asbury Theological Journal 42:2 (1987):7-20.

Lawlor, John I. "The Test of Abraham: Genesis 22:1-19." Grace Theological Journal 1:1 (Spring 1980):19-35.

Lazenby, Henry F. "The Image of God: Masculine, Feminine, or Neuter?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):63-70.

Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942.

Lewis, Clive Staples. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Lewis, Jack P. "Noah and the Flood in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Tradition." Biblical Archaeologist 47:4 (December 1984):224-39.

_____. "The Offering of Abel (Gen 4:4): A History of Interpretation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):481-96.

L'Heureux, Conrad. "The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim." Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974):265-74.

Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Loewen, Jacob A. "The Names of God in the Old Testament." The Bible Translator 35:2 (April 1984):201-7.

Longacre, R. E. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989.

Love, Vicky. Childless Is Not Less. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984.

Lowenthal, E. I. The Joseph Narrative in Genesis. New York: Ktav, 1973.

Lucas, Ernest. "Miracles and natural laws." Christian ARENA 38:3 (September 1985):7-10.

Luke, K. "Esau's Marriage." Indian Theological Studies 25:2 (June 1988):171-90.

_____. "Two Birth Narratives in Genesis." Indian Theological Studies 17:2 (June 1980):154-80.

Luther, Martin. Luther's Commentary on Genesis. 2 vols. Translated by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958.

_____. Luther's Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. Vol. 7: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 38-44. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965.

MacKenzie, Roderick A. F. "The Divine Soliloquies in Genesis." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955):277-86.

Mafico, T. J. "The Crucial Question Concerning the Justice of God." Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 42 (March 1983):11-16.

Malcolm, David. "The Seven-Day Cycle." Creation Ex Nihilo 9:2 (March 1987):32-35.

Mann, Thomas. "Jacob Takes a Bride." Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):52-59.

_____. Joseph and His Brothers. New York: Knopf, 1948.

March, Frank Lewis. Studies in Creationism. Washington: Review and Herald, 1950.

Martin, Jobe. The Evolution of a Creationist. Revised ed. Rockwall, Tex.: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 1996.

Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Mathewson, Steven D. "Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming Old Testament Narratives." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):410-35.

Mattingly, Gerald L. "The Early Bronze Age Sites of Central and Southern Moab." Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin 23 (Spring 1984):69-98.

Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James. Revised 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan and Co., 1913; reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1977.

McGee, J. Vernon. Ruth: The Romance of Redemption. 1943. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1981.

McIlwain, William J., Jr. "My Ways Are Not Your Ways." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):92-100.

McKenzie, Brian Alexander. "Jacob's Blessing of Pharaoh: An Interpretation of Gen 46:31-47:26." Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983):386-99.

Mehlman, Bernard. "Genesis 31:19-39: An Interpretation." Journal of Reform Judaism 29:3 (Summer 1982):33-36.

Mendelsohn, I. "On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 156 (December 1959):38-40.

Mennen, Doug. "How the Wise Man Overcomes Temptation." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):83-91.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:550 (October-December 1983):302-21.

_____. "Fixed Dates in Patriarchal Chronology." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):241-51.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Peoples of the Old Testament according to Genesis 10." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (January-March 1997):3-22.

_____. "Rashi, Nicholas de Lyra, and Christian Exegesis." Westminster Theological Journal 38:1 (Fall 1975):66-79.

_____. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary series. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990.

_____. "Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982):169-76.

Millikin, Jimmy A. "The Origin of Death." Mid-America Theological Journal 7:2 (Winter 1983):17-22.

Mills, M. S. "A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978.

Mills, Watson E. "Sons of God: The Roman View." Biblical Illustrator, Fall 1983, pp. 37-39.

Miscall, Peter D. "The Jacob and Joseph Stories as Analogies." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (February 1978):28-40.

_____. The Workings of Old Testament Narrative. Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Chico, Ca: Scholars Press, 1983.

Mixter, Russell Lowell, ed. Evolution and Christian Thought Today. 1st ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

_____. "A Letter to President Edman, March 26, 1962." Bulletin of Wheaton College, May 1962, pp. 4-5.

Monson, James M. The Land Between. Jerusalem: By the Author: P.O. Box 1276, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morganstern, J. "The Book of the Covenant, Part III--The Huqqim." Hebrew Union College Annual 8-9 (1931-32):1-150.

Morris, Henry M. "Biblical Catastrophism and Modern Science." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):107-15.

_____. "Biblical Creationism and Modern Science." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):20-28.

_____. "The Gap Theory." Creation Ex Nihilo. 10:1 (December 1987-February 1988):35-37.

_____. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.

_____. "Looking At the Original Kinds." Creation Ex Nihilo 10:4 (November 1988):15-16.

_____. Science, Scripture and the Young Earth. El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for Creation Research, 1983.

Morris, John D. The Young Earth. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1994.

Morris, Leon. The Wages of Sin. London: Tyndale Press, 1954.

Morrison, Martha A. "The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Near Eastern Sources." Biblical Archaeologist 46:3 (Summer 1983):155-62.

Morrow, Lance. "In the Beginning: God and Science." Time 113 (Feb. 5, 1979), 149-50.

Morton, Glenn R. "The Carbon Problem." Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:4 (March 1984):212-19.

Muffs, Yochanan. "Abraham the Noble Warrior: Patriarchal Politics and Laws of War in Ancient Israel." Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):81-107.

Muilenburg, James. "The Birth of Benjamin." Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956):194-201.

Mulzac, Kenneth. "Genesis 9:1-7: Its Theological Connections with the Creation Motif." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):65-77.

Myers, Ellen. "God's Sabbath Rest--Man's Created Destiny." Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 7:3 (Spring 1985):11-14.

New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed. S.v. "Amorites," by A. R. Millard.

_____. S.v. "Mining and Metals," by A. Stuart.

_____. S.v. "Rephaim," by T. C. Mitchell.

New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, 1970 ed. S.v. "Chronology."

Newman, Robert C. and Herman J Eckelmann. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Nichol, Francis David, ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. 7 vols. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1953-57.

Nicol, George G. "Genesis XXIX. 32 and XXXV. 22a: Reuben's Reversal." Journal of Theological Studies 31:2 (October 1980):536-39.

Noble, C. S. and J. J Naughton. "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating." Science 162 (Oct. 11, 1968):265-67.

O'Brien, J. Randall. "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):60-65.

Olson, Everett C. "The Role of Paleontology in the Formulation of Evolutionary Thought." Bioscience 16:1 (January 1966):37-40.

Pappas, Harry S. "Deception as Patriarchal Self-Defense in a Foreign Land: A Form Critical Study of the Wife-Sister Stories in Genesis." Greek Orthodox Theological Review 29:1 (Spring 1984):35-50.

Parker, Gary. Creation Facts of Life. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1994.

Parker, Joseph. The People's Bible. Vol. 1: The Book of Genesis. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1890.

"The Patriarchs' Wives as Sisters--Is the Anchor Bible Wrong?" Biblical Archaeology Review 1:3 (September 1975):22-26.

Patten, Donald W. "The Biblical Flood: A Geographical Perspective." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:509 (January-March 1971):36-49.

Patterson, Richard D. "The Old Testament Use of an Archetype: The Trickster." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:3 (September 1999):385-94

Pember, George Hawkins. Earth's Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Prophecy for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Peterson, Everett H. "Prehistory and the Tower of Babel." Creation Research Society Quarterly 19:2 (September 1982):87-90.

Pettinato, Giovanni. "The Royal Archives of Tell Mardekh-Ebla." Biblical Archaeologist 39 (May 1976):44-52.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. Ras Shamra and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., and Howard F Vos. The Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1967.

Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel's Criminal Law. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970.

_____. "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel." Vetus Testamentum 23:3 (July 1973):349-61.

Pieters, Albertus. Old Testament History. Vol. 1: Notes on Genesis. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.

Pink, Arthur W. Gleanings in Genesis. 1922; reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1950.

Polzin, Robert. "The Ancestress of Israel in Danger' in Danger." Semeia 3 (1975):81-98.

Poverello, Robert M. "The Angels at Sodom and Genesis Rabbah: A Study in Midrash." Exegesis and Exposition. 3:1 (Fall 1988):61-62.

Pritchard, James B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969.

"The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law." Buried History 5:4 (December 1969):106-14.

Pun, Pattle P. T. "A Theology of Progressive Creationism." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 39:1 (March 1987):9-19.

Rabinowitz, Isaac. "Sarah's Wish (Gen. XXI 6-7)." Vetus Testamentum 29 (July 1979):362-63.

Ramm, Bernard. The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.

Ramsey, George W. "Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 50:1 (January 1988):24-35.

Ray, J. D. "Two Etymologies: Ziklag and Phicol." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):355-61.

Rendall, Ted S. "Using the Creation Account for Maximum Spiritual Profit." Prairie Overcomer 60:8 (September 1987):3-5, 22.

Rendsburg, Gary A. "Notes on Genesis XXXV." Vetus Testamentum 34:3 (July 1984):361-65.

Rice, Stanley. "Botanical and Ecological Objections to a Preflood Water Canopy." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37:4 (December 1985):225-29.

Rimmer, Harry. Modern Science and the Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941.

Robertson, O. Palmer. "Current Critical Questions Concerning the Curse of Ham' (Gen 9:20-27)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):177-88.

Robinson, Haddon. Leadership 3:1 (Winter 1982), p. 104.

Robinson, Robert B. "Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (October 1986):595-608.

Roehrs, Walter R. "Divine Covenants: Their Structure and Function." Concordia Journal 14:1 (January 1988):7-27.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:507 (July-September 1970):241-56.

Rooker, Mark F. "Genesis 1:1-3: Creation or Re-Creation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):316-23; and 596 (October-December 1992):411-27.

Ross, Allan P. Creation and Blessing. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

_____. "The Curse of Canaan." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):223-40.

_____. "The Daughters of Lot and the Daughter-in-Law of Judah: Hubris or Faith in the Struggle for Women's Rights." Exegesis and Exposition. 2:1 (Summer 1987):71-82.

_____. "The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:550 (April-June 1981):119-38.

_____. "Genesis." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 15-101. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

_____. "Jacob at the Jabbok, Israel at Peniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):338-54.

_____. "Jacob's Vision: The Founding of Bethel." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):224-37.

_____. "Noah--'This One Shall Comfort Us.'" Exegesis and Exposition. 3:1 (Fall 1988):71-82.

_____. "The Table of Nations in Genesis 10--Its Content." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:549 (January-March 1981):22-34.

_____. "The Table of Nations in Genesis 10--Its Structure." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):340-53.

Ross, Hugh N. Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994.

Roth, Ariel A. "Evidences for a Worldwide Flood." Ministry, May 1984, pp. 12-13.

Roth, Wolfgang M. W. "The Wooing of Rebekah: A Tradition-Critical Study of Genesis 24." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972):177-87.

Rowley, Harold H. "Recent Discovery and the Patriarchal Age." In The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Revised. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Ruble, Richard L. "The Doctrine of Dreams." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):360-64.

Ryrie, Charles C. "The Bible and Evolution." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:493 (January-March 1967):66-78.

_____. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

_____. "The Doctrine of Capital Punishment." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):211-17.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . . Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Sailhamer, John H. "Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a." Trinity Journal 5 NS:1 (Spring 1984):73-82.

_____. "Genesis." In Genesis-Numbers. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.

_____. "The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):5-23.

_____. "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch." Westminster Theological Journal 53 (Fall 1991):241-61.

_____. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Salkin, Jeffrey K. "Dinah, The Torah's Forgotten Woman," Judaism 35:3 (Summer 1986):284-89.

Samuel, Maurice. Certain People of the Book. New York: Knopf, 1955.

_____. "Joseph--The Brilliant Failure." Bible Review 2:1 (Summer 1986):38-51, 68.

Sarna, Nahum M. "Abraham in History." Biblical Archaeology Review 3 (December 1977):5-9.

_____. Understanding Genesis. 1st ed. Heritage of Biblical Israel series, no. 1. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966.

Sasson, J. "The Tower of Babel' As a Clue to the Redactional Structuring of the Primeval History [Gen 1-11:9]." In The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, pp. 211-19. Edited by Gary Rendsburg, et al. New York: Ktav, 1980.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Sauer, Erich E. The King of the Earth. Translated by Michael Bolister. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Scalise, Pamela J. "The Significance of Curses and Blessings." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):57-59.

Schaeffer, Edith. "What Is My Mess of Pottage?" Christianity Today 19:12 (March 14, 1975):50-51.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Time and Space. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1972.

Schaub, R. Thomas and Walter E Rast. "Preliminary Report of the 1981 Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 254 (Spring 1984):35-60.

Schneider, Hermann. "Did the Universe Start Out Structured?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 21:3 (December 1984):119-23.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Seaver, William L. "A Statistical Analysis of the Genesis Life- Spans." Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:2 (September 1983):80-87.

Seebass, Horst. "The Joseph Story, Genesis 48 and the Canonical Process." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):29-43.

Segal, Moses Hirsch. The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.

Selman, M. J. "The Social Environment of the Patriarchs." Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976):114-36.

Shapiro, Marc. "The Silence of Joseph." Journal of Reform Judaism 36:1 (Winter 1989):13-17.

Sharp, Donald B. "In Defense of Rebecca." Biblical Theology Bulletin 10:4 (October 1980):164-68.

Shea, William H. "Literary Structural Parallels between Genesis 1 and 2." Origins 16:2(1989):49-68.

Shehadeh, Imad N. "Contrasts between Eastern and Western Culture." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):3-12.

Shelley, Marshall. "The Death Penalty: Two Sides of a Growing Issue." Christianity Today, March 2, 1984, pp. 14-17.

Shepperson, Vance L. "Jacob's Journey: From Narcissism toward Wholeness." Journal of Psychology and Theology 12:3 (1984):178-87.

Sherlock, Charles. "Creationism, Creation and Scripture." Interchange 35 (1984):17-32.

Simons, J. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1959.

Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930.

Slusher, Harold S. Critique of Radiometric Dating. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1973.

Smith, Gary V. "The Concept of God/the Gods as King in the Ancient Near East and the Bible." Trinity Journal 3:NS (1982):18-38.

Smith, William Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. 3rd ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1969.

Speiser, Ephraim A., ed. Genesis. 1st ed. Translated by E. A. Speiser. Anchor Bible series, no. 1. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964.

_____. "I Know Not the Day of My Death.'" Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955):252-65.

Sprinkle, Joe M. "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):529-50.

Stahr, James A. "The Death Penalty." Interest, March 1984, pp. 2-3.

Sterchi, David A. "Does Genesis 1 Provide a Chronological Sequence?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):529-36.

Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985.

Stevens, R. Paul. "Family Feud." His 42:3 (December 1981):18-20.

Stigers, Harold G. A Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Strickling, James E. "The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues." Kronos 8:1 (Fall 1982):53-62.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Sutherland, Dixon. "The Organization of the Abraham Promise Narratives." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95:3 (1983):337-43.

Tabick, Jacqueline. "The Snake in the Grass: The Problems of Interpreting a Symbol in the Hebrew Bible and Rabbinic Writings." Religion 16 (April 1986):155-67.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. 1980. S.v. "dor," by Robert D. Culver, 1:186-87.

Thiselton, A. C. "The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings." Journal of Theological Studies NS25:2 (October 1972):283-99.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Thompson, Henry. O. "The Biblical Ammonites." Bible and Spade 11:1 (Winter 1982):1-14.

Throntveit, Mark. "Are the Events in the Genesis Account Set Forth in Chronological Order? No." In The Genesis Debate, pp. 36-55. Edited by Ronald F. Youngblood. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.

Thurman, L. Duane. How to Think About Evolution & Other Bible-Science Controversies. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Townsend, Jeffrey L. "Fulfillment of the Land Promise in the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):320-37.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. "Studies in the Book of Samuel" Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):191-216.

_____. "Two Old Testament Stories (Gen. 32:23-32 and Judg. 10:1-5; 12:7-15) and their Hittite Analogies." Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:1 (January-March 1983):321-26.

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality and the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:559 (July-September 1983):259-66.

Van Bebber, Mark; and Paul S Taylor. Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross. Second ed. Mesa, Ariz.: Eden Communications, 1995.

Van Seters, John. "Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near East Customs: A Reexamination." Harvard Theological Review 62:4 (October 1969):377-95.

_____. "The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968):401-408.

Vawter, Bruce. On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.

von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis. Translated by John H. Marks. Revised ed. The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.

Vos, Gerhardus. Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.

Vos, Howard F. Genesis. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Walsh, J. T. "Genesis 2:4b-3:24: A Synchronic Approach." Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977):161-77.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

_____. "The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):25-36; 526 (April-June 1975):136-144; 527 (July-September 1975):216-228; 528 (October-December 1975):327-342; 133:529 (January-March 1976):28-41.

_____. Creation and Chaos. Portland, Oreg.: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974.

_____. "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):3-13.

Walvoord, John F. "The New Covenant." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 186-200. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Warfield, B. B. "On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race." Princeton Theological Review 9:1 (January 1911):1-25.

Wcela, Emil A. "The Abraham Stories, History and Faith." Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (October 1970):176-81.

Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Weir, C. J. Mullo, "The Alleged Hurrian Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis." Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 2:22 (1967-68):14-25.

Weisman, Z. "National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (February 1985):55-73.

Wenham, Gordon J. "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative." Vetus Testamentum 28:3 (1978):336-48.

_____. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

_____. Genesis 15-50. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1994.

_____. "The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G. F. Hasel, JSOT 19 (1981):61-78." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (1982):134-37.

Wenham, John W. "Christ's View of Scripture." In Inerrancy, pp. 3-36. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.

West, Stuart A. "The Nuzi Tablets." Bible and Spade 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981):65-73.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.

_____. Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985.

_____. Genesis 37-50: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

_____. "Promises to the Patriarchs." In The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Supplement Volume, pp. 690-93. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon, 1962.

Whitcomb, John C., Jr. The Early Earth. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

_____. Esther: The Triumph of God's Sovereignty. Everyman's Bible Commentary series; Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

Whitcomb, John C., and Donald B DeYoung. Review of The Waters Above: Earth's Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy, by Joseph C. Dillow. Grace Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982):123-32.

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M Morris. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968.

White, Hugh C. "The Divine Oath in Genesis." Journal of Biblical Literature 92:2 (June 1973):165-79.

_____. "The Joseph Story: A Narrative that Consumes' Its Content." Semeia 31 (1985):49-69.

Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Williams, John. "Joseph's Wardrobe." Harvester 64:7 (July 1985):19, 21.

Willis, David L. "Creation and/or Evolution." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 29:2 (June 1977):68-72.

Wilson, R. R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977.

Wiseman, Donald J. "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part I: Abraham the Hebrew." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:534 (April-June 1977):123-30.

_____. "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part II: Abraham the Prince." Bibliotheca Sacra 134-535 (July-September 1977):228-37.

Witmer, John A. "The Doctrine of Miracles." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):126-34.

Wonderly, Daniel E. God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments. Flint, Mich.: Crystal Press, 1977.

Wood, Bryant G. "Journey Down the Jabbok." Bible and Spade, Spring 1978, pp. 57-64.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Woodmorappe, John. "A Diluviological Treatise on the Stratigraphic Separation of Fossils." Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:3 (December 1983):133-85.

Woudstra, Martin H. "The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance." Calvin Theological Journal 5:2 (1970):184-89.

Wright, Chris. "Corruption and Dishonesty: An Old Testament Perspective." TRACI Journal 29 (April-September 1985):4-20.

_____. "Intercession or Irritation?" Third Way, February 1983, pp. 18-19.

Wright, David F. "Woman Before and After the Fall: a comparison of Luther's and Calvin's interpretation of Genesis 1-3." Churchman 98:2 (1984):126-35.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religion." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):29-44.

_____. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):24-152.

Young, Davis A. Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. Creation and the Flood. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

Young, Edward J. Genesis 3. London: Banner of Truth, 1966.

_____. In the Beginning. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.

_____. Studies in Genesis One. International Library of Philosophy and Theology series in Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973.

Youngblood, Clark. "Wells." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):41-49.

Zimmerli, Walther. "Abraham." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 6 (1978):49-60.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1975 ed. S.v. "River of Egypt," by Bruce K. Waltke.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Genesis (Book Introduction)

THE BOOK OF GENESIS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Hebrews now entitle all the Five Books of Moses, from the initial words, which originally were written like one continued word or verse; but the Septuagint have preferred to give the titles the most memorable occurrences of each work. On this occasion, the Creation of all things out of nothing, strikes us with peculiar force. We find a refutation of all the heathenish mythology, and of the world's eternity, which Aristotle endeavoured to establish. We behold the short reign of innocence, and the origin of sin and misery, the dispersion of nations, and the providence of God watching over his chosen people, till the death of Joseph, about the year of the world 2369 (Usher) 2399 (Salien and Tirinus), the year before Christ 1631. We shall witness the same care in the other Books of Scripture, and adore his wisdom and goodness in preserving to himself faithful witnesses, and a true Holy Catholic Church, in all ages, even when the greatest corruption seemed to overspread the land. (Haydock)

----------------------------------------

This Book is so called from its treating of the Generation, that is, of the Creation and the beginning of the world. The Hebrews call it Bereshith, from the word with which it begins. It contains not only the History of the Creation of the World, but also an account of its progress during the space of 2369 years, that is, until the death of Joseph.

Gill: Genesis (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS

This book, in the Hebrew copies of the Bible, and by the Jewish writers, is generally called Bereshith, which signifies "in the beginning", being the first word of it; as the other four books of Moses are also called from their initial words. In the Syriac and Arabic versions, the title of this book is "The Book of the Creation", because it begins with an account of the creation of all things; and is such an account, and so good an one, as is not to be met with anywhere else: the Greek version calls it Genesis, and so we and other versions from thence; and that because it treats of the generation of all things, of the heavens, and the earth, and all that are in them, and of the genealogy of men: it treats of the first men, of the patriarchs before the flood, and after it to the times of Joseph. It is called the "first" book of Moses, because there are four more that follow; the name the Jewish Rabbins give to the whole is חמשה חומשי תורה, "the five fifths of the law", to which the Greek word "pentateuch" answers; by which we commonly call these books, they being but one volume, consisting of five parts, of which this is the first. And that they were all written by Moses is generally believed by Jews and Christians. Some atheistical persons have suggested the contrary; our countryman Hobbes ^a would have it, that these books are called his, not from his being the author of them, but from his being the subject of them; not because they were written by him, but because they treat of him: but certain it is that Moses both wrote them, and was read, as he was in the Jewish synagogues, every sabbath day, which can relate to no other writings but these, Joh 1:45. And Spinosa, catching at some doubts raised by Aben Ezra on Deu 1:1 concerning some passages which seemed to him to have been added by another hand, forms objections against Moses being the author of the book of Genesis; which are sufficiently answered by Carpzovius ^b. Nor can Ezra be the author of the Pentateuch, as Spinosa suspects; since it is plain these writings were in being before his time, in the times of Josiah, Amaziah, yea, of David, and also of Joshua, 2Ch 34:14 nay, they are even referred to in the book of Ezra as the writings of Moses, Ezr 3:2 to which may be added, in proof of the same, Deu 31:9. Nor are there any other writings of his authentic; what are ascribed to him, as the Analepsis of Moses, his Apocalypse, and his Last Will and Testament, are apocryphal. That this book of Genesis particularly was written by him, is evident from the testimony of Philip, and even of our Lord Jesus Christ, who both testify that he wrote concerning the Messiah, Joh 1:45 as he did in this book, where he speaks of him as the seed of the woman that should break the serpent's head; as the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and as the Shiloh, to whom the gathering of the people should be, Gen 3:15. Nor is there any reason to believe that he wrote this book from the annals of the patriarchs, since it does not appear, nor is it very probable, that they had any; nor from traditions delivered down from one to another, from father to son, which is more probable, considering the length of the lives of the patriarchs: but yet such a variety of particulars respecting times, places, persons, their genealogies and circumstances, so nicely and exactly given, can scarcely be thought to be the fruit of memory; and much less is it to be imagined that he was assisted in it by Gabriel, when he lived in solitude in Midian: but it is best of all to ascribe it to divine inspiration, as all Scripture is by the apostle, 2Ti 3:16 for who else but God could have informed him of the creation, and the manner and order in which every creature was brought into being, with a multitude of things recorded in this book? the design of which is to lead men into the knowledge and worship of the one true God, the Creator of all things, and of the origin of mankind, the fall of our first parents, and their posterity in them; and to point at the means and method of the recovery of man by the Messiah, the promised seed; and to give an account of the state and case of the church of God, in the times of the patriarchs, both before and after the flood, from Adam, in the line of Seth, to Noah; and from Noah to the times of Joseph, in whose death it ends: and, according to Usher ^c, it contains an history of two thousand, three hundred, and sixty nine years.

Gill: Genesis 2 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS 2

In this chapter are contained a summary of the works of creation on the six days, and God's resting from his works on the seventh day, and the sanctification of that, Gen 2:1 and an account of various things relating to several parts of the creation enlarged on and explained, and of various circumstances omitted in the preceding chapter, which could not so well be taken notice of there; as of a mist arising out of the earth, which watered the herbs and plants before there was any rain to fall upon them, or a man to cultivate them, Gen 2:5 and of the matter and manner of man's formation, Gen 2:7 and of the planting of the garden of Eden, and the trees that were in it, and the rivers that watered it, and sprung from it, and the course they steered, the countries they washed, and what those countries abounded with, Gen 2:8 of man's being put into it to dress it, and keep it, and of the grant he had to eat of the fruit of any of the trees in it, excepting one, which was forbidden under a penalty of death, Gen 2:15 and of all the creatures, beasts and fowls, being brought to him, to give them names, Gen 2:18 and of God's providing an help meet for him, and forming Eve out of one of his ribs, and of their marriage together, and the institution of marriage, Gen 2:21 and the chapter is concluded with observing the present state and circumstances of our first parents before they fell, Gen 2:25.